[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",6626002,"mediaKeyId","2754986-3f6f5ec50fd6974e64440df3c4b62848","parentId",2754986,"title","Omnibus election bill (House Bill 16‑79) draws mixed response on school closures, redistricting and recount costs","audioSeconds",5660,"startMs",5668000,"endMs",7699,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2754986-3f6f5ec50fd6974e64440df3c4b62848&start=5668&end=7","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2754986-3f6f5ec50fd6974e64440df3c4b62848/thumbnail_5668000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6626002/Indiana/Omnibus-election-bill-House-Bill-1679-draws-mixed-response-on-school-closures-redistricting-and-recount-costs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6626002-084bb036becb6432282ec56c4eaa9329/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185678&Signature=PgD5JyGRA0v0nPIQeChp7aK~9waeEpmyK~RKU1U1Mi-pxsW9EquaepFZ~ioNiG2ljyEBnCOhZqEO8DGAgjOYBh2RWjirWaioWskW45LvFgAT6CjRXXbAGDJ5y1Et-xxhVNFl1Xdjtigy46y1EkSn9XFOd1j8Wlgz~AFB-lbWfEkXJh0Y0-D-dx6bGIhOVpyB2FX~WCzCaaPB~z6ZyyeSz66zPAFcSz5pRRKili5VWDUv1B5PBB-l60vrB8X0KLB1tfTcxwKb3Y~GGvRobCfhF10sA4hFauvpYQS5iIzTTftlKUL1H1pzkwCWBeSbsdW0GKSUmqN-KDEuuXejoCaEng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Indiana General Assembly","date","2025-03-24T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Elections Committee heard testimony on House Bill 16‑79, a comprehensive elections omnibus that contains dozens of provisions affecting poll operations, voter maintenance, local redistricting, recount procedures and other election administration details.

The bill's sponsors said it addresses recurring operational questions raised by counties and election officials and implements several technical and policy changes. Key provisions discussed at the hearing include:

- Closure rules: Elementary schools used as polling places would be closed on Election Day (middle and high schools could stay open when facilities are segregated from voting operations). Circuit court clerks' offices would be closed for non‑election business on Election Day to focus on election duties.

- Paid leave: The bill would authorize paid leave for local government employees who work polls, intended to help counties recruit poll workers.

- Redistricting and deadlines: It would continue a practice that requires local governments to address redistricting after decennial census releases; an amendment in the House set a June 29, 2031 deadline for local redistricting steps, language that witnesses said may need refinement given timing of census releases and municipal election cycles.

- Voter‑list maintenance cadence: The bill directs regular voter‑list maintenance outside the freeze period and would require counties to provide updates; witnesses urged clarity on acceptable data sources and warned against micromanaging counties with excessive reporting frequency.

- Recounts: The bill would require a petitioner to pay recount costs when a requested recount shows the original winner prevailed by more than 10 percent of the votes cast; proponents said this discourages meritless recounts that impose state costs.

County clerks and associations largely supported many operational clarifications but asked for technical fixes. Nicole Brown, Monroe County Clerk and chair of the clerks' legislative committee, praised a change to the presidential certification date that would give clerks more time to send overseas and military ballots.

Election advocates and the Democratic co‑director of the Election Division raised other concerns. Angie Nussmeier flagged a provision on county election board chairs that an attorney advised could be read to mean a party holds the chair permanently after a date in the bill; she urged clearer drafting. She also expressed concerns about voter‑list maintenance language that would permit action based on hearsay and the workload and legal traps of forcing 30‑day reporting cycles.

The Association of Indiana Counties and county clerks supported many provisions but asked for clarification and caution in deadlines tied to census data. League of Women Voters and other witnesses supported some sections (school closures, clerk office closures) and opposed or sought changes to other sections (voter address rules, list‑maintenance frequency).

Chair comments: the committee held the bill for amendment and vote next week. Sponsors and stakeholders have one week to reconcile technical language and address concerns about redistricting timing, voter‑list maintenance sources, and the proposed recount cost threshold.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Elections Meetings -, Mar. 24 - 9:30am","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 16‑79 collects dozens of election‑administration changes, including school closure rules for polling places, clerk office election‑day priorities, paid leave for poll workers, local redistricting deadlines and a requirement that petitioners pay recount costs when the margin exceeds 10 percent.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature IN, Indiana","taxId",77679,"location","Indiana","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},6626008,"Indiana bill would align caucus eligibility rules and add removal process for county commissioners",2210,438000,2648000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2754986-3f6f5ec50fd6974e64440df3c4b62848&start=438&end=2648","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2754986-3f6f5ec50fd6974e64440df3c4b62848/thumbnail_438000.jpg","/articles/6626008/Indiana/Indiana-bill-would-align-caucus-eligibility-rules-and-add-removal-process-for-county-commissioners","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6626008-3c3c0435d57d73d429b591dc6c96c204/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185678&Signature=mSJOglZmkg9D8fHjf3aXRF3wbv17tdp4ZQVU54RqIRIYFgo5YF4ee8yqh4gR~B9aje9lzWeZ92wHUDvk3OljqALy04zizKVjxDQUE9Pz-859u7OlkdqlAEQ5oL9AkZIqlyCwhJ54MsMMPTVoCgCWWVDGnFZxf82yu8mS17jM7xwcdNUYjDdWd9bDiRhgWVqJI1ikQhJKNr5giwdn1otQLvtjIE5Kf-e0-2s0wP3MZdS01nNcXSiJG4Bv~gRk2zVAaP3W3m4-ffo9zXZ7vPZLtwSzsKe30zwgLLGpFQpE43xSF33vi3lWaTpdMfjRe7d-5JKCdU9KWC2SF5l7BlTRog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 11‑97 would standardize candidate eligibility across appointment pathways and add a statutory process to remove county commissioners in extreme cases, Representative Lawson told the Senate Elections Committee during a testimony‑only hearing.

\"The goal of the bill is to add consistency to state law,\" Lawson said, describing two parts of the bill: (1) requiring caucus candidates for county, city, town and township offices to meet the same eligibility and party‑affiliation criteria as candidates who reach the ballot, and (2) creating a removal process for county commissioners similar to a 1980 statute that governs county council removals.

The bill would allow the caucus or appointing authority to remove a candidate from consideration if the candidate does not meet legal requirements to hold the office or to affiliate with the party conducting the caucus. On removal of commissioners, the bill mirrors the county council statute by permitting removal for \"a violation of an official duty\" or \"failure or inability to perform the duties\" of office. Because a county commission is a three‑member body, HB 11‑97 would require a two‑thirds vote of county commissioners and a two‑thirds vote of the county council to remove a commissioner.

Supporters including citizens who described local disruptions said the measure would address rare but consequential cases of elected officials who are absent for prolonged periods. Marcus Dennis, a Hancock County resident, said a lengthy absence in his county left officials and services strained: \"In 2024, we experienced a significant interruption in services through a lack of leadership in Hancock County,\" he said.

Opponents — including the Indiana County Commissioners Association and the Association of Indiana Counties — said the bill lacks independent judicial review and risks political misuse. Jake German, testifying for the commissioners association, urged retaining the judicial remedy in Indiana Code 5‑8‑11 and warned that a two‑thirds removal mechanism carried no formal appeals process: \"We worry about this bill being used as a political tool without a neutral arbiter,\" he said.

County Commissioner Susie Wyrick of Elkhart County told the committee she supports accountability but urged additional due‑process safeguards and an independent review step before removal: \"Without an independent review... there is a risk that removals could be influenced by political or personal motivations,\" she testified.

Committee members asked whether the bill language duplicates existing county council and legislative removal language; Representative Lawson and witnesses said the language intentionally mirrors those prior statutes. Witnesses also discussed the practical question of how \"official duties\" would be defined; witnesses said some duties are listed across Title 36 and that local associations may provide further guidance.

No vote was taken. Chairman Gaskell announced the bills on the committee's agenda are being considered \"testimony only\" and are set for amendment and vote at next week's meeting.

The hearing record includes multiple county officials, election administrators and residents who urged either adoption with safeguards or rejection in the bill's current form. The committee did not amend or vote on the measure at the hearing.

Looking ahead, proponents asked for a high statutory bar for removal to limit political uses, while local officials and associations asked for explicit judicial review or other due‑process protections to be added in an amendment next week.","House Bill 11‑97 would require caucus candidates to meet the same eligibility and party‑affiliation rules as ballot candidates and create a new statutory removal process for county commissioners, Representative Lawson told the Senate Elections Committee during a testimony‑only hearing.",{"_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},6626005,"Panel debates broad election security, registration and absentee rules in House Bill 16‑80",2616,3182000,5798000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2754986-3f6f5ec50fd6974e64440df3c4b62848&start=3182&end=5798","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2754986-3f6f5ec50fd6974e64440df3c4b62848/thumbnail_3182000.jpg","/articles/6626005/Indiana/Panel-debates-broad-election-security-registration-and-absentee-rules-in-House-Bill-1680","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6626005-7cbfcc00960ed3be9ef9c9afb7f8a256/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185678&Signature=KP14nnWTYB9HdbaIOCL5qTBlJvPJc6qVTawU5LsXZnbjBv8FZvb2Mz7k~-QntF~lK40CAsbo6NaHgt2IQKCItXN7a7cpoVnFzWB11NshQAPlFzOdGO~w8UBEIrC0dl2qj-D4JLgsjBQgD1tYGyNN7uovH5RnK76Q1iQWNHtf7JO1T3kOGXYvOsXZzSH39Yb3qc3LIWu9mxszyIgBP~oQIp0ipnt06KW8vufYJl6vvfdfBPCyRT3e0DeZZ84iOKn1QJ1gL247WJubzRLyoEhz0pEWfkJ1ev8OXLgyxSp-Wi87cd9vRNUiBjKfjTRID6lBka4KZzNOL6pZc-gZ8SDr~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 16‑80, labeled \"Election Security and Transparency\" in the synopsis read to the Senate Elections Committee, bundles numerous changes to registration, absentee and election‑day procedures and drew detailed opposition from voting‑rights groups and caution from bipartisan election administrators.

Sponsor language presented a multi‑part synopsis that includes requiring counties to submit information about their information‑technology providers to the Secretary of State; allowing poll book holders, challengers and watchers to enter, leave and reenter multiple polling places on election day (intended to accommodate vote centers); requiring counties to request proof of citizenship when a registrant used a temporary credential; prohibiting listing a post office box or commercially available mailing box as a resident's address; restricting pre‑filling of voter registration forms by third parties; permitting the Secretary of State to enter memoranda of understanding with other states to share voter‑registration data for maintenance; and allowing the Secretary to order procedural audits of county election procedures after an election.

Opponents — including Common Cause Indiana and the League of Women Voters — raised three primary concerns in testimony: (1) a proof‑of‑citizenship requirement aimed at people who used temporary credentials could disproportionately burden naturalized citizens and may conflict with federal law; (2) provisions limiting assistance to people filling out registration forms could harm voters with disabilities or limited English proficiency; and (3) an absentee‑envelope provision that would require an accurate date on a signature and leave no cure process risks improperly rejecting ballots.

\"This provision likely violates federal law,\" Julia Vaughn of Common Cause told the committee about the proof‑of‑citizenship element, adding there is no evidence of widespread noncitizen registration. Barbara Tully of the League of Women Voters warned the PO‑box prohibition could disenfranchise unhoused voters who use a shelter or nonprofit address for mail.

Bipartisan election officials expressed operational concerns and sought clarifications. Angie Nussmeier, Democratic co‑director of the Indiana Election Division, said the proposal to let the Secretary of State conduct procedural audits would permit the office to select any county and audit past elections without the county election board or an underlying contest: \"This allows the Secretary of State to cherry pick any of the 92 counties to perform a procedural audit, at any time,\" she said. Nussmeier also flagged the absentee envelope date rule and urged an opportunity for voters to cure errors.

Keegan Prentice and Brad King (Republican co‑director) representing the Secretary of State's Office and the Republican co‑director of the Election Division respectively said their offices support many provisions, including improved contact with county IT providers for cybersecurity, clarifying registration and challenger procedures for vote centers, and rules to prevent knowingly false petitions or registration forms from being accepted.

Committee members sought detail about safeguards for interstate data sharing MOUs, how assistance restrictions would be interpreted, and mechanisms for curing absentee envelope problems. Multiple witnesses urged amendments to add cure procedures for absentee envelopes and to limit burdens on citizens who naturalized but have not yet updated credentials at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

No vote was taken; the committee held HB 16‑80 for amendment and vote next week. The hearing record shows strong disagreement between voting‑rights advocates and the Secretary of State's office about the breadth of procedural authority and the potential voter impacts of some registration rules.","House Bill 16‑80 contains multiple changes: county disclosure of IT providers, expanded challenger/observer mobility at vote centers, proof‑of‑citizenship notices tied to temporary credentials, prohibiting PO boxes as residence addresses, limits on registration assistance, procedural audits by the Secretary of State and stricter absentee envelope",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6626007,"Committee hears opposition to Secretary of State leading study of local election scheduling and vote centers",689,2530000,3219000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2754986-3f6f5ec50fd6974e64440df3c4b62848&start=2530&end=3219","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2754986-3f6f5ec50fd6974e64440df3c4b62848/thumbnail_2530000.jpg","/articles/6626007/Indiana/Committee-hears-opposition-to-Secretary-of-State-leading-study-of-local-election-scheduling-and-vote-centers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6626007-5cab674cd0271fc7116e8177749433a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185678&Signature=hgVjr-b7lNfVGDcyTZuyhMnRULD6YJjsFFhva24xku5oyw3KD-E7a1Dpl1Cv4KVaDpJ4H9y~CfArPLWV-v6TktFYgxAkj~LZej9uQ9CjsMG09L1EGABVds1cmMha6284V8D8ds3~P~vlsLKurOS0uemzyp4PtK4M4e-3z4Ub6ISa5thXlKj4SjSm1sV2D-uerr5vjkCuSMv3mVbY1k~nrlb81AOJzLF5VYoaFuhtWCZHrOZl8DUiLrtsyVclEOKGh3pv8DtfA~mKnYuIs4txaIx99btYiEd22X7hMIo0ObmCl9W7gNGPSCTAs3u2pSb2ma-vumRu8jQHpXFpED2S1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate sponsor Senator Gaskell described House Bill 16‑33 as a study requiring the Secretary of State to analyze scheduling of local elections and the use of vote centers and to produce a report to the Legislative Council by Nov. 1, 2025.

\"Basically, if you look at the synopsis, it's a study of election issues, requires the Secretary of State to do the following: 1, study scheduling of local elections and requiring all counties to use vote centers; 2, conduct at least 3 public meetings on the topics studied; 3, report the results of the studies to the Legislative Council before 11/01/2025,\" Gaskell told the committee.

Witnesses representing voting‑rights organizations said they do not oppose studying the issues but object to the Secretary of State being the entity charged with the study. Julia Vaughn, executive director of Common Cause Indiana, said the state already has an interim legislative study committee charged with election matters and that the study should be conducted by a bipartisan legislative body: \"We are not opposed to a study on local elections or vote centers, but we are opposed to giving that study to the Secretary of State's office,\" she said.

Barbara Tully of the League of Women Voters of Indiana voiced similar concerns and said vote centers themselves are broadly supported by advocates, but the study authority belongs with the legislature: \"It belongs in an election study committee and as Ms. Vaughn just said, there are many issues and this is one of them,\" she said.

Keegan Prentice of the Secretary of State's office said the office supports the legislation and believes it can collect data and hold public meetings statewide, pointing to the office's existing data and contacts in counties.

No committee action was taken; Senator Gaskell said the bill is being held for amendment and vote next week so sponsors and interested parties can discuss concerns about study authority.

The hearing record shows organized, bipartisan civic groups urging the committee to transfer study authority to a legislative interim committee or to add bipartisan guardrails if the Secretary of State's office remains the lead agency.","House Bill 16‑33 would require the Secretary of State to study municipal election scheduling and the use of vote centers, hold at least three public meetings and report to the Legislative Council by Nov. 1, 2025; Common Cause and League of Women Voters urged the study be run by the legislature's interim study committee instead.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Omnibus election bill (House Bill 16‑79) draws mixed response on school closures, redistricting and recount costs

Indiana bill would align caucus eligibility rules and add removal process for county commissioners

Panel debates broad election security, registration and absentee rules in House Bill 16‑80

Committee hears opposition to Secretary of State leading study of local election scheduling and vote centers