Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over school-election deadlines: county clerks, OPI differ on amended language in HB406
Summary
House Bill 406, which adjusts candidate filing and ballot-deadline windows for school elections, drew support from county clerks and election administrators and caution from the Office of Public Instruction about an amendment that changes when school election resolutions must be filed.
Representative Seekins Crowe (presenting for Representative Fiona Nave) opened the House Bill 406 hearing, saying the measure was requested by county clerks and recorders to expand pre-election windows and ease the tight timeline for preparing school ballots.
Proponents, including Ravalli County Election Administrator Regina Plettenberg and Lewis and Clark County elections supervisor Connor Fitzpatrick, told the committee the current filing and certification windows are too tight for ballot printing and mail preparation; Fitzpatrick said Lewis and Clark County expects to prepare roughly 43,000 ballots this cycle and would benefit from additional lead time to avoid overtime printing costs and staff strain.
Nicole Thuotte of the Office of Public Instruction (OPI), serving as a pro opponent, supported many aspects of the bill but objected to an amendment (adopted earlier in the House executive action) that changes when the election resolution is initially filed. Thuotte said sections of the bill covering candidate filing, write-in deadlines and ballot certification are useful, but the amendment on section 3—related to when trustees or calling entities must pass initial resolutions—could cause confusion when districts have mixed-term, appointed, or outlying-trustee seats. She recommended restoring language to ensure the initial resolution occurs before candidate filing opens, so county clerks and schools have time to detect and correct errors in the posted positions before filing begins.
Committee members asked detailed questions about the amendment and whether compromise language could be developed; the sponsor and other committee members agreed to facilitate additional discussion. The vice chair volunteered to carry the amendment in the Senate and to shepherd a resolution of the language. The hearing closed with the sponsor encouraging further work so the bill can be cleaned up and moved forward.
The debate centers on balancing county election administrators’ need for more lead time with OPI’s concerns about the accuracy and timing of trustee-position postings that affect candidate filings.
