Nevada politics has a sharp edge right now, and the fight over public safety is at the center of it. Attorney General Aaron Ford, now running for governor, is under fire for backing clemency in a string of brutal murder cases, including some that involved teenagers, execution-style killings and what prosecutors called cold-blooded thrill killings. The issue has turned into a loud test of judgment, especially with Gov. Joe Lombardo making the case that violent criminals should not get a second chance too easily.
Ford’s votes on the state pardon board are drawing the most heat because they went far beyond the usual gray-area cases. In one instance, he supported parole eligibility for a man who kidnapped a 16-year-old, drove him into the desert and killed him over car rims. In another, he backed relief for a man tied to the killing of a Pizza Hut worker, a case prosecutors described as a “thrill killing” for the simple pleasure of it.
The Nevada system matters here, because the governor alone cannot hand out pardons or cut sentences. Instead, those calls go through the state’s Board of Pardons Commissioners, where the governor, attorney general and state Supreme Court justices all have a seat at the table. That setup means Ford was not operating in a vacuum, but it also means his votes are on the record and fair game in a high-stakes campaign.
Ford has become the face of Nevada’s law-enforcement machinery during his time as attorney general, and his campaign leans hard on that resume. His team points to work on violent crime, fentanyl trafficking, child predators, rape kit backlogs and human trafficking, all of which are standard campaign-strength talking points for a top prosecutor. But those arguments land differently when they sit next to a long list of clemency votes that involve some of the state’s worst offenders.
One of the most explosive examples came when Ford supported making Shaquille Hazelwood eligible for parole after a killing tied to an armed robbery committed when Hazelwood was 15. Ford reportedly told him, “I gleefully vote yes for this motion,” a line that is now likely to echo through the rest of the race. Another case involved Bobby Thomas, where Ford called parole eligibility a “no-brainer” even after Thomas had stabbed a 17-year-old to death.
That language is powerful because it cuts through the usual legal fog. Voters tend to remember simple phrases, and “no-brainer” is the kind of quote that sticks when the underlying crime is this ugly. In a campaign where both sides are trying to define public safety, Ford has handed opponents a clean opening.
Anthony Amati’s case may be the hardest one to explain away. Prosecutors and police described him as a “thrill killer,” and Ford supported a commutation that made him immediately eligible for parole. Testimony from the victim’s co-worker painted a nasty picture of people laughing and acting as if the murder was entertainment, which is exactly the kind of detail that turns a policy debate into a gut-level political problem.
There are more names on the list, too. Ford also backed clemency for Arlander Givens, who beat his victim to death with a cinder block, though that request was denied. Other cases involved a carjacking murder, a killing over a basketball game and a setup in which the victim was lured in with the promise of a drug deal before being shot dead.
Republicans in Nevada do not need much help turning that record into a campaign theme. Lombardo has already framed himself as the steadier hand on crime and punishment, and this clash gives him a sharp contrast to run on. When the public hears about a politician voting to ease penalties for people who have already shown a taste for violence, the reaction is usually fast and unforgiving.
Still, the debate is not only about punishment. It also touches the broader question of whether a prosecutor-turned-candidate can sell himself as both tough and compassionate without getting trapped by the worst examples on his record. That tension is now sitting right in the middle of one of Nevada’s most watched races, and every pardon vote is suddenly doing double duty as campaign ammo.
Ford has not offered much public explanation for most of these decisions, which only adds fuel to the fight. Silence can work when the issue is abstract, but it gets risky when the cases are this brutal and the victims’ families are still carrying the weight. In Nevada, that kind of political weather tends to hang around for a while.
