Committee reviews wide-ranging elections-bill changes; fusion (cross‑nomination) section removed for separate study

The House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on March 13 reviewed a large set of amendments in draft 1.7 of the miscellaneous elections bill, addressing topics from electronic ballot definitions to candidate data collection, campaign‑finance terminology and write‑in deadlines.

Legislative counsel Tim Devlin walked the committee through multiple changes in the draft. Among the notable edits: a definition of "overseas voter" and a new authorization for voters participating in the Secretary of State's address‑confidentiality program to receive ballots electronically (definition and delivery only, not electronic return); a voluntary candidate demographic collection for local offices (excluding school boards) with a public‑records confidentiality exception and aggregate publication by the Secretary of State; and a standardized filing deadline for presidential primary candidate registration mirroring other races (registration noted at 5 p.m. on the second Friday preceding the primary, as reflected in the draft).

The bill also modifies campaign‑finance language by replacing references to an "independent‑expenditure‑only political committee" with a definition of "public question campaign" (campaigns that make independent expenditures to influence non‑candidate questions and do not give contributions to candidates or party committees). Devlin quoted federal guidance while describing the definition: "A public question campaign includes any campaign making independent expenditures as defined by U.S. Code 52 U.S.C. section 30101," he said during the briefing.

The draft contains deadline harmonizations: it would allow election officers to return defective petition signatures for a presidential primary to a candidate within two business days of receipt rather than the current 72‑hour rule. Members also discussed write‑in candidate consent timelines; some representatives urged more flexibility for local races, and clerks noted operational tradeoffs tied to ballot printing schedules.

A longer, policy‑sensitive debate focused on fusion or cross‑nominations — provisions that would require a candidate nominated by multiple parties to choose a single party label for the general‑election ballot. Committee members voiced a range of opinions: some described fusion as a mechanism that can help minor parties, others said it risks confusing voters or being used as a political identity. After extended discussion, committee members signaled they would remove the cross‑nomination (fusion) sections from the miscellaneous elections bill and treat the subject separately. "Let's do a thumbs up on to remove the sections around cross party nomination," the chair said, and counsel was asked to produce a clean revised draft; Devlin estimated approximately 15 minutes to prepare edits.

Committee members asked staff and the Secretary of State's office to provide follow‑up on implementation details for the proposed changes, including clerk instructions on candidate demographic collection and the scope of electronic ballot delivery for address‑confidentiality participants. The committee did not take final floor votes on the measures during the March 13 meeting; staff will return with revised bill language for the committee to consider.