Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ballot Names topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee leans toward using campaign finance/consent form name for ballot listing
Summary
Members discussed which document should determine how a candidate's name appears on the ballot and indicated a preference that the campaign finance filing and the candidate consent form be consistent and used as the primary source for ballot names.
The committee considered proposed statutory language to make candidate name listings on ballots consistent across official sources. Tim explained current statutory practice requires alphabetical listing by surname but asked members which document should govern the exact name used on the ballot.
Members said the candidate consent form—where a candidate answers “how do you want your name to appear on the ballot?”—is the most recent affirmative statement and should be the controlling reference. The secretary of state’s office, however, had suggested using the digital name entered in the campaign finance filing system because it is easily accessible; staff noted that the campaign finance name should be identical to the consent form name for transparency and public linkability.
Senators discussed edge cases (name changes, married names, differing middle initials or campaign labels) and emphasized the need to make the consent form question and the campaign finance filing question identical so candidates attest that the names match. Tim said the secretary of state already cross-references names in practice and recommended statutory language requiring the campaign finance filing, the consent form, and the ballot name to match and for candidates to attest to that alignment.
Committee members agreed in principle that candidates’ ballot names should be based on a single, attested source and asked staff to draft conforming language that requires cross-referencing among the campaign finance filing, consent form and ballot listing.
