This piece covers the county district attorney races: why most of them are uncontested, the three that are not (Carson City, Lyon County, and Pershing County), and what to ask of anyone who wants the job. It is long. So is the list of things nobody has been asking.
Nevada voters will argue about the President, abortion, voting rights, and data centers until the cows come home. Ask those same voters who their district attorney is, however, and suddenly everyone has somewhere else to be. Here at Picon Press, we have a theory: people pay little attention to prosecutorial elections because they do not understand what these offices actually do. And, to be fair, the candidates are not always making it particularly easy to find out.
District attorneys decide which cases to prosecute, which charges to pursue, which plea agreements to offer, and what sentences the government will seek. They influence criminal justice policy, public safety, and the use of taxpayer resources. They also advise county government and defend counties in litigation.
These are not ceremonial positions. They are among the most consequential elected offices in Nevada, and some of their most important decisions happen without a camera, a press release, or anyone outside the courtroom knowing what happened.
That would be concerning enough on its own. In Nevada, many of these races are not even competitive.
Call it the political equivalent of an unopposed HOA election.
Nevada has 16 counties and one independent city, Carson City, each with an elected prosecutor. According to The Nevada Independent’s reporting on uncontested district attorney races, 10 of the 17 prosecutor races in 2026 have only one candidate.
Ten.
That means most Nevada voters will not get a contested general election for their county’s chief prosecutor this November.
The Nevada Independent spoke with experts who identified several reasons for the pattern, including a limited pool of qualified candidates, the difficulty of recruiting attorneys to rural areas, and the uncomfortable reality that challenging your boss is not exactly a career development strategy. It is difficult enough to recruit lawyers to rural counties. Add long commutes, limited resources, and the prospect of running against the incumbent who controls the office where you work, and the candidate pool gets smaller still.
The June primary also demonstrated that incumbency is not invincibility. Sparks City Attorney Wes Duncan defeated longtime Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks in the Republican primary, and Tim Sutton defeated incumbent Robert Glennen in Esmeralda County. Nye County District Attorney Brian Kunzi survived his primary challenge from Michelle Nelson.
So, while most races are uncontested, the few competitive ones can matter enormously.
An uncontested race does not automatically mean the incumbent is doing a bad job. Sometimes voters are satisfied. Sometimes no qualified challenger steps forward. Sometimes there are legitimate practical barriers to running.
But an election without a choice is still an election without a choice. When the office has the power to influence whether someone is charged with a crime, how a case is resolved, or what punishment the government seeks, public attention is not optional window dressing.
It is part of accountability.
The June primary narrowed the field, leaving three contested general election races for district attorney in the candidate information verified for this article. Carson City, Lyon County, and Pershing County offer voters direct choices between candidates.
Here are the contested races worth examining.
1. Carson City District Attorney: David Bailey vs. Kelly Brandon
Where to look: electdavidbailey.com, electkellybrandon.com, Brandon’s candidate profile at 2News, Carson Now’s January coverage of her announcement, and KUNR’s 2026 candidate forum.
Carson City’s district attorney race features two candidates with experience inside the justice system, but they have taken different professional paths.
Bailey has practiced law since 2011 and currently serves as Chief Deputy Public Defender in Carson City. He was a founding member of the Carson City Public Defender’s Office and supervises approximately half of its staff. His work includes evaluating criminal cases, advising clients about their rights and legal options, and appearing in court regularly.
Before joining the public defender’s office, Bailey served as a Deputy Attorney General representing the Nevada Department of Corrections, corrections officers, prison medical providers, and other employees in federal litigation brought by inmates. He also practiced privately, handling civil and criminal matters in state and federal courts across multiple jurisdictions. His experience includes contract disputes, business matters, land use, and other civil litigation.
Bailey also highlights his experience with specialty courts, including drug and mental health courts, which use treatment, structured supervision, and other interventions to address factors contributing to criminal behavior. His campaign identifies reducing recidivism, resolving cases in a timely manner, protecting constitutional rights, managing taxpayer resources, and recruiting and retaining qualified personnel as priorities.
Brandon has worked in the Carson City District Attorney’s Office since 2018, advancing from Deputy District Attorney to Senior Deputy District Attorney, Supervising Deputy District Attorney, and now Chief Deputy District Attorney.
Her prosecutorial experience includes cases ranging from traffic offenses to armed robbery and child sexual assault, many of them in a juvenile context. In her current role, she has administrative responsibilities in addition to a prosecutorial caseload. Her campaign says she supervises attorneys, legal assistants, and victim services personnel, helps manage the office’s case management system, and has worked on policy and workflow improvements.
Brandon also oversees the office’s victim services unit and juvenile division. That work includes juvenile delinquency cases and the office’s role in child welfare proceedings. She has described stepping in to perform victim and witness coordination duties during staffing shortages while continuing her prosecution work. She also takes on-call law enforcement inquiries and provides legal guidance outside ordinary business hours. Her campaign emphasizes public safety, accountability, integrity, protecting victims, and ensuring that cases receive meaningful attention rather than being processed as a numbers game.
The candidates’ backgrounds reveal an important distinction. Bailey has experience on the defense side of the criminal justice system, representing individuals accused of crimes, as well as representing government entities, handling civil and criminal litigation, and managing a public defense team. That experience gives him a perspective prosecutors do not always have: an understanding of how charging decisions, plea offers, access to treatment, and the practical realities of the justice system affect outcomes long after a case is closed. Having worked with people accused of crimes, Bailey has firsthand insight into which approaches can support rehabilitation and reduce recidivism, and which may do little beyond cycling people back through the system. That perspective could inform a prosecution strategy focused not only on accountability but also on lasting public safety.
Brandon brings more than seven years of experience within the Carson City District Attorney’s Office, with an emphasis on victim services, juvenile matters, and office administration. Her experience provides familiarity with the existing operation of the office. The question for voters is what she would change, what she would preserve, and how she would measure whether the office is producing better outcomes.
Bailey’s experience outside the prosecutor’s office offers a different vantage point. He has seen the criminal justice system from the other side of the courtroom and can bring that understanding to decisions about prosecution, rehabilitation, and public safety. The question is whether Carson City wants a district attorney who knows the existing system from within, or one who can draw on experience across both sides of it to examine what works, what does not, and where meaningful reform is possible.
2. Lyon County District Attorney: Mario Walther vs. Mark Krueger
Where to look: waltherforda.com, markforda.com, The Fernley Reporter’s candidate forum coverage, and the Secretary of State’s 2026 election information page.
Lyon County voters have a choice between two attorneys with very different professional lives these days. One has spent his career practicing law in Lyon County, building a family and a practice in the community he wants to serve as prosecutor. The other has spent years in public service, including a stint as Lyon County’s Chief Deputy District Attorney, and now works on statewide consumer protection cases for the Nevada Attorney General’s Office. Both have experience. But experience doing what, where, and how recently are the questions worth asking.
Walther is a fourth-generation Nevadan who says he has spent his entire legal career practicing in Lyon County. He lives there with his wife and children, raises his family on a ranch, and participates in the community through youth sports, county fairs, junior rodeos, and other local activities. In other words, Lyon County is not just the place listed on his office letterhead. It is home.
That matters in a county where the needs of ranching communities, growing towns, and rural residents are not always the same. Walther’s practice includes criminal and civil litigation, agricultural law, and water law. Those areas give him experience with both the courtroom and the practical issues that shape life in Lyon County.
Walther says more than a decade of courtroom work has taught him how cases are built, where they fall apart, and what needs to happen before a matter ever reaches trial. That is relevant experience for a district attorney, whose job is not simply to file charges and hope for the best. It is to evaluate evidence, make sound charging decisions, work with law enforcement, prepare cases that can withstand scrutiny, and ensure victims are treated with dignity.
He also serves on the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, where he has worked with ranchers, farmers, government officials, conservation groups, and other stakeholders. His campaign has received endorsements from the Lyon County Sheriff’s Employee Association, the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, and the Public Safety Alliance of Nevada.
Walther’s pitch is straightforward: he knows the county because he lives there, works there, and has spent his career in its legal system. For a job requiring daily judgment calls about local cases and local people, that is more than a nice campaign biography. It is directly relevant experience.
Krueger is no stranger to prosecution. He has practiced law in Northern Nevada for more than 25 years and previously served six years as Chief Deputy District Attorney in Lyon County. His campaign says he prosecuted homicide, serious drug offenses, and crimes involving children and vulnerable adults, and tried more than 40 criminal jury trials. He also points to a case resulting in a sentence of 375 years to life and a murder conviction under Nevada law concerning the supply of drugs that cause a fatal overdose.
That is substantial criminal trial experience, and it deserves to be acknowledged.
But Krueger’s current job is different. He serves as Chief Deputy Attorney General in the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, Bureau of Consumer Protection, where his work focuses on statewide civil enforcement. His campaign credits him with helping secure more than $1.2 billion through Nevada’s opioid litigation and helping obtain a settlement with Roblox involving online child safety and funding for youth programs, education, and law enforcement. Those are meaningful public service accomplishments.
The distinction is not that Krueger lacks experience. It is that his most recent work is in a different lane. Leading civil consumer protection litigation for the State is not the same as managing a local prosecutor’s office, where the daily docket involves criminal charging decisions, preliminary hearings, jury trials, victims, witnesses, and constant coordination with local law enforcement.
And there is a practical question attached to Krueger’s proposed agenda. He says he would establish a dedicated Victim Witness Advocate position and expand public education on fraud, scams targeting seniors, and online safety. Those are worthwhile goals. But with what money? Would he seek additional county funding, redirect existing resources, pursue grants, or expect the office to do more with what it already has? Campaign promises are easy to print. Budget lines are where they meet reality.
There is another difference voters may want to consider: Walther lives in Lyon County, while Krueger does not, according to the candidate information available for this race.
A district attorney does not need to live in a county to understand its law or prosecute its cases. But there is something to be said for having the person responsible for prosecutorial decisions living in the community those decisions affect. Walther’s local ties are not limited to campaign season. His family, practice, and daily life are rooted in Lyon County.
For a county spread across rural communities with different needs, that familiarity can matter. It means knowing the area beyond a map, understanding the practical challenges residents face, and maintaining relationships with the people and institutions that make the justice system work.
Here is the irony: Krueger’s current work is important to all Nevadans. His consumer protection efforts involve statewide issues, and the results his campaign describes reach far beyond Lyon County. If he leaves the Attorney General’s Office, the State will lose an experienced attorney doing consequential work on behalf of Nevada consumers.
That is not an argument against his candidacy. It is a fair question about where his experience may be most valuable. Given his statewide consumer protection work, one could reasonably imagine Krueger pursuing the Attorney General’s office itself. If he wants to lead a statewide legal operation, he already has a résumé that speaks to that ambition. Perhaps he should have considered running for Attorney General.
Instead, he is running to lead a county prosecutor’s office. Lyon County voters are entitled to ask how his current civil enforcement work would translate into the daily demands of criminal prosecution, and what would happen to the statewide work he would leave behind.
This race is not a contest between an experienced attorney and an inexperienced one. It is a question of which experience best fits the job.
Walther offers a long-standing local practice, current courtroom work, and a life rooted in Lyon County. Krueger offers extensive prior criminal trial experience, six years in Lyon County’s prosecutor’s office, and a more recent record of statewide civil enforcement.
Both records deserve scrutiny. But voters should not treat a long résumé as a substitute for asking what a candidate does now, where that work takes place, and how it prepares the candidate for the office being sought.
The district attorney’s job is intensely local. It requires knowing how to evaluate evidence, make charging decisions, prepare cases, work with law enforcement, support victims, and manage an office serving communities throughout the county.
Walther has built his legal career in Lyon County and continues to practice there. For voters who value a prosecutor whose professional life and personal roots are firmly planted in the community, that is a central part of his case.
Krueger has made significant contributions in statewide consumer protection, and Nevada would feel his departure from that work. But Lyon County is not hiring a statewide consumer protection chief. It is electing a district attorney.
And that, as they say in court, is the question before the jury.
3. Pershing County District Attorney: Derrick Penney vs. Steve E. Evenson
Where to look: the Lovelock Review-Miner’s coverage of Penney’s appointment and its interview with Evenson, the State Bar of Nevada’s April 2022 disciplinary order for Penney, and the Bar Counsel Report in the February 2023 Nevada Lawyer for Evenson’s public reprimand.
Pershing County has struggled to keep its district attorney’s office staffed, which is how Derrick Penney ended up in the job before voters had their say. Former District Attorney Bryce Shields left after being appointed to the judiciary, and county commissioners had to find someone willing to take on the office’s criminal prosecutions, civil legal work, and the assorted emergencies that come with being the county’s lawyer. They appointed Penney after interviewing candidates about their experience and willingness to relocate. Now voters get to decide whether he should keep the job or hand it over to Steve E. Evenson.
It is a consequential choice. The district attorney is not just the person who stands up in court and says, “the State is ready.” The job requires evaluating evidence, deciding which charges are justified, working with law enforcement, supporting victims, and advising county officials on everything from contracts to land use. In a small county, the job description is less a neat list of responsibilities and more a legal Swiss Army knife.
Before taking the Pershing County position, Penney served as a chief deputy with the Nevada State Public Defender’s Office. He previously worked as an alternate public defender in Humboldt County and as a tribal prosecutor in Arizona. During his interview with county commissioners, he reported handling approximately 10 felony jury trials involving offenses including sexual assault, prison battery, and drug crimes. He also discussed experience supervising staff, managing budgets, and working with victim advocate programs. The Lovelock Review-Miner covered his appointment and background.
That range of experience is relevant. A public defender sees how criminal cases look from the other side of the courtroom: where evidence is weak, where procedure matters, how charging decisions affect defendants, and what can happen when a case is not prepared properly. A prosecutor needs to understand those same pressure points, because filing a charge is easy compared with proving it.
Penney’s background does not automatically guarantee good decisions, of course. No résumé does. But his experience in criminal practice, including jury trials and public defense, gives voters concrete questions to ask about how he would evaluate cases, work with law enforcement, and exercise prosecutorial discretion.
There is also an issue that cannot responsibly be left out: Penney’s disciplinary history.
In 2022, the Nevada Supreme Court imposed suspensions in two disciplinary matters. One involved neglect of a probate matter, failures to communicate, delayed distribution of proceeds from a home sale, and misappropriation of approximately $150,000 in client funds for personal use. The court noted that the client ultimately received the full amount from the sale and imposed conditions that included practice monitoring and additional trust account education. A separate matter involved failures to diligently handle post-conviction proceedings, failures to communicate, improper handling of an attorney fee deposit, and failure to provide requested information during the State Bar investigation. Penney admitted the violations in the second matter. He was reinstated to practice in October 2023. Both the April 2022 and October 2022 orders are public records.
Those are serious findings, particularly the misuse of client funds. Reinstatement does not erase them, and voters are entitled to ask what safeguards Penney would put in place to ensure deadlines, communications, and public resources are handled properly. The relevant question is not whether a candidate has a résumé worth reading. It is whether he can demonstrate that he has addressed the conduct reflected in his record and can reliably manage the responsibilities of public office.
Evenson has practiced law in Nevada for decades and has emphasized the district attorney’s role as legal adviser to county government. That work can include zoning, planning, human resources, utilities, water, and other local government matters. His campaign interview also discusses development and Pershing County’s future, with an emphasis on growth that supports housing, manufacturing, ranching, and farming while preserving the county’s rural character. He has expressed skepticism about data centers and salmon farms as suitable uses for the area. He laid all of this out in an interview with the Lovelock Review-Miner.
Those priorities matter in a county where development decisions can shape the community for decades. A district attorney must be able to give county officials sound legal advice without confusing personal preferences with the law.
Evenson also has a public disciplinary record. In 2022, he received a public reprimand for courtroom conduct that included calling opposing parties derogatory names and accusing opposing counsel of coaching a witness without sufficient supporting information. The disciplinary report also documented more than ten instances between 2018 and 2021 in which he failed to submit proposed orders on time despite repeated court directions. In some cases, opposing counsel was asked to prepare the orders instead. The panel found the delays harmed clients and burdened the courts. Evenson was ordered to pay $1,500 in disciplinary costs, plus the hard costs of the proceeding. The panel considered his lengthy career without prior discipline and his acceptance of responsibility as mitigating factors. The State Bar’s Bar Counsel Report details the reprimand.
A public reprimand is not a suspension, and Evenson remained eligible to practice. Still, professional courtroom conduct and meeting court deadlines are not decorative extras for a district attorney. They are part of the job. Voters may reasonably ask what procedures he would implement to ensure that cases move on time and the office maintains professional standards.
Then there is the policy question: what would each actually do?
Evenson has spoken about county development and the district attorney’s civil advisory role. Penney emphasized criminal law, management, budgeting, and victim advocacy during his appointment interview. We have not found comprehensive public campaign platforms from either candidate laying out measurable goals for prosecution, staffing, and case management. That leaves voters with some fair questions.
How would each decide whether the evidence supports a charge? How would they work with law enforcement without simply rubber-stamping an investigation? How would they prioritize serious cases, support victims and witnesses, and prevent matters from languishing? How would they balance criminal prosecution with the civil work required by county government?
And, given the office’s staffing challenges, what is the plan for keeping qualified attorneys in Pershing County? A small prosecutor’s office cannot operate on good intentions and an overworked legal assistant alone.
So here is the Picon verdict: read the records, then ask the questions.
Both candidates have professional disciplinary histories. Penney’s suspensions involved diligence, communication, and client funds, including misappropriation. Evenson’s public reprimand involved courtroom conduct and repeated failures to submit proposed orders on time. The findings and sanctions are different, and neither should be blurred into a vague claim that both have “issues.” The details matter.
Penney brings recent criminal law experience, public defense work, jury trial experience, and experience stepping into the district attorney’s office when the county needed someone to take responsibility. Evenson brings decades in practice and a stated interest in the county’s civil legal work and development priorities. Voters should weigh those qualifications alongside the disciplinary records, not instead of them.
Pershing County needs a district attorney who can make sound charging decisions, prepare cases that stand up in court, advise county officials, and manage an office that has struggled to stay staffed. The campaign should explain how each candidate intends to meet those demands, what safeguards would prevent past professional failures from recurring, and how the public can measure whether the office is doing its job.
A campaign biography can make anyone sound ready for the job. The court record is where the fine print lives. And in a race this consequential, the fine print deserves to be read.
So what should Nevada voters actually look for?
Here at Picon Press, we are not particularly interested in telling voters which candidate to support. We are interested in making sure they know what they are voting for.
For district attorney races, that means asking:
What is the candidate’s prosecutorial philosophy? How do they approach charging decisions, plea agreements, sentencing recommendations, diversion programs, and public safety?
What does the candidate’s record show? Examine professional discipline, litigation history where relevant, management experience, and documented concerns about conduct in office. Distinguish allegations from findings, and consider the full context of any disciplinary action.
What trial experience does the candidate have? Campaign biographies often list job titles, years of service, and impressive-sounding responsibilities. Voters should also ask what the candidate has actually handled: jury trials, bench trials, preliminary hearings, complex prosecutions, and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
How will the office be managed? Rural prosecutor offices face recruitment challenges, limited resources, and heavy caseloads. Candidates should explain how they intend to recruit and retain qualified attorneys, manage cases, and serve the public.
What does accountability look like? Prosecutors have substantial discretion. Voters should understand how candidates intend to use that discretion, how they will communicate with the public, and how they will respond when mistakes happen.
Who is actually paying attention? A candidate who faces no opposition should not automatically be treated as a problem. But an uncontested race should be an invitation for the public to pay closer attention, not a reason to stop asking questions.
The Nevada Independent’s reporting makes clear that the lack of competition is not unique to one county or one political party. It is a statewide pattern shaped by the limited pool of qualified candidates and the challenges of running for prosecutor, particularly in rural Nevada.
That is a structural problem, not simply a campaign season curiosity.
Nevada voters have a habit of treating local prosecutorial races as background noise until a criminal case becomes a headline, a controversial plea deal becomes a public controversy, or a government institution fails someone who needed protection.
By then, the person making those decisions may already have another four years in office.
District attorneys are not just names on a ballot. They are public officials with the authority to make consequential decisions about criminal prosecution, public protection, and the use of government power.
Some of these races are competitive. Many are not. Some candidates have extensive experience. Others have histories that deserve a closer look. None should be exempt from public scrutiny simply because voters have become accustomed to seeing the same names on the ballot.
So before November 3, read the candidates’ records. Review the official results. Ask what they intend to do with the authority they are seeking. And do not confuse a familiar name with an automatic endorsement.
Because if the people responsible for enforcing the law are elected with little public attention, we should not be surprised when the public has little idea how those decisions are made.
Picon has no shortage of opinions. But we would much rather see Nevada voters bring their own questions, do their own homework, and demand answers from the people who want to prosecute on their behalf.
Stay tuned. We have a feeling there is considerably more unfinished business in Nevada’s prosecutor races than the campaign signs would suggest.