Committee hears proposals to decentralize signature verification and require notice when voters sign petitions

Representative (presenter) told the committee the package of bills would ‘‘decentralize the signature verification process with the theme of my signature, my clerk.’’ The sponsor said decentralization would return verification of multi‑county candidate petition packets to the originating counties rather than centralizing tens of thousands of pages in a single office.

Under the draft discussed, petition packets would be county‑specific for paper filings (or routed electronically to the appropriate county for e‑petitions). The sponsor said each verified signature would trigger an email to the signer notifying them their name, precinct and date of signature will be posted on the lieutenant governor’s website; the website posting would remain public for 90 days after the relevant election. The draft also would amend petition forms to notify signers in advance that their name will be posted and explain a removal process. The bill would allow a three‑day removal window after posting and move certain deadlines so petitions are finalized at least 21 days before the relevant party convention.

Representative Cutler asked how multi‑county signature packets would be handled; the sponsor said campaigns could use county‑level packets or an electronic system that routes signatures automatically to the correct county. Representative Miller and others asked about administrative load if verification were distributed to 29 counties rather than handled centrally; the sponsor replied clerks can absorb smaller, localized workloads and that decentralization would improve transparency and local accountability.

The sponsor also addressed posting names publicly. Representative Cutler expressed concern about public internet posting of signers’ names versus other public lists such as convention delegate lists. The sponsor said that delegate lists are already public and that publication of petition signer names is a comparable public disclosure. Opponents at the hearing raised privacy concerns for individuals pressured to sign and asked for careful limits on what is published; the draft proposed excluding withheld or protected voters and required notice to signers about the posting and the removal process.

Ending: Committee members requested additional time to consider details, and the presenter said the electronic‑petition/verification aspects would be addressed at a subsequent meeting; the committee postponed action on the proposed petition legislation to a future meeting.