[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6321240,"mediaKeyId","2351288-8d6af6d877f572e005aefb293c72cd32","parentId",2351288,"title","Committee hears bill to update candidate filing dates, expand provisional ballots and protect election workers","audioSeconds",1464,"startMs",62750,"endMs",1527000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2351288-8d6af6d877f572e005aefb293c72cd32&start=62&end=1527","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2351288-8d6af6d877f572e005aefb293c72cd32/thumbnail_62750.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6321240/Missouri/Committee-hears-bill-to-update-candidate-filing-dates-expand-provisional-ballots-and-protect-election-workers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321240-d1587a0b3f0e22eddb83cf70e7b934d9/orig.mp4?Expires=1776187749&Signature=JvxWGcjIujzz-MXucyjK3OdhRxgRoKzx7rdn~B27qY2NXJVK7FiUkpQXnP-b-YsgsTQCa~rB-1m9QaDSZpYCqPNqVJ-ZxVP2HJCpvbuVKG6-MY~E0ekNhvFGHBmLJWX9iy-tZsrCKk9jZr~iD3U~V9U4B0P9kdbPbRs4xLYWhgwAg1m0p3ZQjOrkqq2G9D2F1fVma2D0-9Op~iAUq9~tPPIldMDLWZ4NXlcjPuPxJ5msHvprExnIYbY0fkm1YMAgic2pBQ8CoUJPu1aRP-EP6EOB4~9DGEPWTYr2SZVuPOr1FkNE15hfUl0ZQ39qPhGcwtjftW1pjN5eFbcqKNd1Ag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Missouri State Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Peggy Magah presented House Bill 507 to the House Elections Committee, saying the bill updates administrative notice methods, adjusts candidate‑filing deadlines and expands provisional‑ballot use for more elections. “We just wanna get into this century,” Representative Peggy Magah said, describing a provision that would allow election authorities to accept official email as a method of receiving filing notices.

The bill would move the candidate filing deadline from the 17th Tuesday prior to the election to the 16th Tuesday to prevent deadlines from falling on state and federal holidays; allow military and interstate voters to use election‑authority offices rather than polling places for same‑day registration and absentee issuance in certain circumstances; and expand the statutory use of provisional ballots so they are available in all public elections rather than only in federal, statewide and certain statewide issue contests. “A provisional ballot shall not be eligible to be counted until the election authority has determined” the ballot’s validity, Magah said while walking committee members through draft language.

Committee members asked multiple technical questions about write‑in counting, the scope of the “permanently disabled” absentee list, and penalties proposed for tampering with or intimidating election workers. Representative Woods asked what happens “in the case of an office where no one files and no one files for a write‑in,” and Magah deferred to election officials present. Kurt Barr, director of elections for St. Charles County, testified in support and explained local practice: if no valid write‑in candidate files, jurisdictions may need to appoint to fill the office as they would for a vacancy. Barr said municipalities sometimes routinely elect by write‑in and that the bill clarifies which write‑in votes are counted.

On the confidentiality provision, Barr described the “permanently disabled” list as a set of voters who generally are homebound and receive a mailed absentee‑ballot application before each election. He told the committee the proposed change would keep the list itself confidential while not preventing campaigns from receiving the names of voters who have requested a mailed ballot in a given election. “Once they have asked for an absentee ballot, just like anybody else who may be gone from the polls on election day … that list becomes public,” Barr said, adding that the bill would remove the reason for the request from the public record.

Multiple members raised concerns about criminal penalties in the draft language. Representative Waller asked whether the bill’s new “class 1 election offense” was a misdemeanor or felony; Magah and committee members discussed that the most serious conduct — violence or death resulting from tampering — would be punished more severely. Representatives and witnesses also discussed the difficulty of defining terms such as “harass” or “alarm” in a statute and said they were willing to refine language to avoid suppressing legitimate poll watcher activity.

Public testimony included election‑authority representatives, civic groups and party and voter‑protection organizations. Witnesses who spoke in favor described the bill as a practical clean‑up measure and said the confidentiality and worker‑protection provisions respond to real security concerns election offices face today. The Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, Secure Elections Project and others filed written testimony in support.

The committee closed the hearing after public testimony; no final committee action on HB 507 was recorded during this session.

Looking ahead, sponsors and clerks told the committee they were open to technical edits before committee substitution or a vote, particularly on the worker‑protection language and any penalty adjustments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Elections (HR5) February 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Peggy Magah presented House Bill 507 to the House Elections Committee, saying the bill updates administrative notice methods, adjusts candidate‑filing deadlines and expands provisional‑ballot use for more elections.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MO, Missouri","taxId",77693,"location","Missouri","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6321230,"Committee adopts substitute and votes to pass House Committee substitute for HB 384 and HB 414",198,6218350,6417000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2351288-8d6af6d877f572e005aefb293c72cd32&start=6218&end=6417","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2351288-8d6af6d877f572e005aefb293c72cd32/thumbnail_6218350.jpg","/articles/6321230/Missouri/Committee-adopts-substitute-and-votes-to-pass-House-Committee-substitute-for-HB-384-and-HB-414","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321230-5d0d013fe7b90f7f54d80013fb502b51/orig.mp4?Expires=1776187749&Signature=kkcOpLViEECI5vfWpo7cT~GCFwd3zLy4t8M29egHWQX7L7eOpCcelvjH960L9-hj5UNJgjKQLDpkubf4rzI1mqg-YwDFnlwZ3wF3VV2cG1y68uUVpTR9LJXHjR9SYquV9Ecv9tf2zz11~0Gmp~2ftAj2HwgQ2~W8RMtsnfbbiSyZPR9u8wWUu1jjTtOtNs~EOShAi9hjbdqODNpE4LMaFNsCPlEdk57-gPTOiKdLg5mOzMOdlznGC5V0LorTPxKy3cN7fitxcWPPcBp0mfOV66mnpNjwNIGoKAh-81FzGLXlEYz9DrxwEcMjI6gQQWbLzW-iiiLqBNwR8213aNy74g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During executive session the committee adopted an amendment to a house committee substitute (amendment ending in .01H) to align ballot‑summary language and then adopted the amended house committee substitute (committee substitute ending in O3C). Chairman Reedy moved to pass the house committee substitute for House Bills 384 and 414.

The clerk called the roll during final passage. The transcript records several named votes during the roll call: Chairman Reedy (aye), Vice Chairman Waller (aye), Representative Woods (no), Representative Barnes (no), Representative Christensen (present), Representative Maga (aye), Representative Simmons (yes), Representative Voss (aye) and Representative Wright (aye). The committee reported the final tally as “7 ayes, 2 nos, and 1 present,” and the motion carried. Committee leadership announced there was no further business and adjourned.

The committee’s action was procedural: adoption of a committee substitute and an amendment followed by a do‑pass recommendation. The substitute text and the adopted amendment were distributed to committee members during the executive session; the amendment adjusted ballot‑summary word‑count language to align petition and joint‑resolution summaries.","In executive session the House Elections Committee adopted an amendment and a house committee substitute for bills numbered HB 384 and HB 414 and voted to pass the substitute. The roll call produced a result of 7 ayes, 2 nos and 1 present.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6321235,"Lawmakers debate restoring presidential primary and expanding in‑person early voting to six weeks",2799,2951540,5751450,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2351288-8d6af6d877f572e005aefb293c72cd32&start=2951&end=5751","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2351288-8d6af6d877f572e005aefb293c72cd32/thumbnail_2951540.jpg","/articles/6321235/Missouri/Lawmakers-debate-restoring-presidential-primary-and-expanding-inperson-early-voting-to-six-weeks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321235-257da825b6a79940d7750be2e9f4614e/orig.mp4?Expires=1776187749&Signature=ZLI4~k1u3qxlus9D16IVdQIFhNuxd2FWRruzJmApWW-4KdjsDo09eoGPgIXJ6LY8-1GqO2kYW5gopVU~kXViHwcors4tfUvHivX1IoZczEhlAn7ML-TxTfS8PE9d-SAsxM2M3Kds1M76YzLHQo5uLyex5K0sxpeqlq8WsCpDciN3CvIRMQuFQKM6jN5fbXrf6Rl6UgfDttCcVqhZ~NhVhKcCoUkDy8Ia2C44K5JjpdXGvVBy3DzNNmohyydMS0dm6LTRCajHyyq3w6lVfT1F7cakB8K7dgaoD-9DPDa~PABBXMVw29h9TxZ0XuNO6I6WJPv3pF~4KVNAuP0fuUqqTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representatives Rudy Veith and Brad Bannerman presented a combined proposal to restore a presidential preference primary and expand no‑excuse in‑person early voting to a six‑week window. Veith said restoring the primary would “get people involved” and noted the change is aimed at voters who cannot or do not attend caucuses. “We want people to feel involved,” he told the committee.

Bannerman described the bills’ two central changes: moving the presidential primary date earlier in March (the sponsors said as early as legally permissible without violating party rules) and extending in‑person, no‑excuse absentee voting from two weeks to six weeks. Bannerman said the earlier March date reduces overlap with April municipal elections and argued wider early voting improves access for military personnel, first responders and people with scheduling conflicts.

County clerks and the Missouri Association of County Clerks and Election Officials provided informational testimony. Kurt Barr, director of elections for St. Charles County, told the committee the association was split on reinstating a presidential preference primary but supported the operational changes that would move the date earlier and preserve a six‑week in‑person voting window. Barr said the change to six weeks would reduce the concentrated surge of early voters that produced long lines in 2024 because the same number of voters would be spread across more days. “By allowing people to come into in‑person absentee vote without an excuse for all 6 weeks … we have to staff for 6 weeks of absentee voting,” he said, adding that staffing and facility arrangements vary by county.

Speakers representing parties, voter‑protection groups and foundations testified in favor. A Democratic party witness testified the party organized its own statewide primary in lieu of a caucus and estimated that effort cost roughly $150,000; Jamie Murphy, speaking for the Missouri Republican Party leadership, said the party’s caucus alternative drew about 25,000 participants and that restoration would improve turnout. Witnesses also raised fiscal and logistical concerns: Arne C. ACDNOF (state public advocate in testimony) estimated additional administrative costs in larger jurisdictions and recommended a shorter early‑voting window (he suggested four weeks) to limit expense.

Committee members probed several details including the date selection (the sponsors said March is the earliest permissible date without violating party rules), whether municipalities could place local items on the presidential‑primary ballot and potential confusion from changing the customary “first Tuesday after the first Monday” schedule. Sponsors said they had consulted party officials and county clerks and proposed edits to reduce overlap with municipal elections.

No committee vote was taken on restoring the presidential primary or the timing amendments during the hearing. Sponsors said they would file a committee substitute combining the bills and were open to further edits on cost‑sharing and operational mechanics.

Votes at a glance: none for these bills in this session; committee closed the public hearing after testimony.","Representatives Rudy Veith and Brad Bannerman jointly presented bills to reinstate a presidential primary and to extend in‑person no‑excuse early voting from two to six weeks. Sponsors and witnesses argued reinstatement would increase participation and accessibility; clerks warned about overlapping municipal elections and staffing demands.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bill to update candidate filing dates, expand provisional ballots and protect election workers

Committee adopts substitute and votes to pass House Committee substitute for HB 384 and HB 414

Lawmakers debate restoring presidential primary and expanding in‑person early voting to six weeks