House committee backs language to bar relatives and close associates from recount committees

A provision in H.450 that would prohibit family members and other interested persons from serving on recount committees drew detailed explanation from legislative counsel and support from members of the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on March 13.

The proposal, presented to the committee as part of the miscellaneous elections bill work, would prohibit candidates and their immediate relations or those subordinate in an employment relationship from serving on a recount committee. "Disinterested individual means an individual who is not a relative of ... subordinate to ... and shares no direct pecuniary interest with the candidates," legislative counsel Tucker Anderson said, reading the bill text and explaining the terms used in the draft.

The language, Anderson said, uses the term "individual" to signal a natural person and builds a three-part test: consanguinity (shared blood or legal family relationship), subordinate employment or supervision, and a shared pecuniary interest such as business partnerships or other financial ties. "Taken in total, this means that you cannot be related to the candidate. You cannot be subordinate in employment ... and even if you don't meet those two criteria, you don't have some sort of shared financial interest," Anderson said.

Representative Alice Emmons, who described local experience with recounts, told the committee the change responds to concerns from town clerks and residents who found it unsettling when people related to candidates participated in recounts. Emmons said candidates currently submit names to the court and the judge selects members of recount committees; "our town clerk was a little upset ... it was a family member, and she was upset in that the family members were not allowed to work the polls on election day ... and in a recount, we're silent on that," Emmons said.

Members asked for clarifications about who would be captured by the prohibition. Anderson told the committee the draft includes subordinate volunteers who are supervised by a candidate and those with shared financial interests; a person who merely helped with yard signs would likely not be barred, he said. Representative Coffin asked whether people who helped on a campaign but were unpaid volunteers would be excluded; Anderson said the test focuses on supervision and control — people who are subject to a candidate's direction in organizing or running activities could be considered subordinate.

Committee members also noted that judges currently appoint recount committee members from names submitted by candidates and questioned how a court would detect familial or financial ties. Emmons noted that candidates submit up to 10 names and judges select from those lists, and she said local clerks sometimes identify and exclude family members at earlier stages.

The committee signaled support for including the disinterested-individual language in the larger elections bill. "We're having that conversation ... but I believe rolling this in is logical," the committee chair said. Counsel confirmed staff will draft the precise statutory language for insertion into the elections bill.

The discussion was technical and focused on definitions and implementation; there was no final, recorded committee vote on the provision during the March 13 meeting.

Looking ahead, committee members asked counsel to ensure the bill's definitions are clear about "relative," "subordinate," and "pecuniary interest" and signaled they want the court's duties and any enforcement or reporting responsibilities spelled out when counsel returns with revised language.