Bill to give Secretary of State formal supervisory powers over county election administrators draws mixed reaction; tabled by committee

Senate Bill 298, a proposal to give the Montana Secretary of State formal supervisory authority over county election administrators, produced sharply divided testimony before the Senate State Administration Committee and was tabled during the committee’s executive session.

Sen. Theresa Manzella, R‑District 44 and sponsor of the bill, said the measure was intended to provide the secretary of state with the power to require reports and to “promptly gather and diligently provide any information requested related to voter registration, voter rolls, elections, and election management systems.” She said the change was prompted by concerns raised in the Butte‑Silver Bow recount and would help the Legislature and the secretary of state “safeguard the process.”

Proponents — including local volunteers and county‑level election advocates — urged stronger oversight. Dave Nims and Gina Riley, who have worked on voter‑roll cleanups, told the committee counties lack uniform resources and that a stronger supervisory role for the state could provide technical help and enforce compliance. “We need oversight,” Nims said, describing lingering problems he has found in voter rolls.

Opponents included the Montana Association of Counties, county commissioners and several elected county clerks and recorders. Shane Gorder, speaking for MAKO, said Montana’s decentralized, locally run election system is a feature rather than a flaw and warned that the bill would centralize control. “Elections are run locally by local elected officials and local volunteers,” Gorder said. Regina Plettenberg, a county election administrator, testified that many counties already work closely with the secretary of state and that the bill’s scope and fiscal impacts were unclear. “We think the strength in Montana election lies in the division of power,” she said.

Halston (Austin) James, director of elections for the Secretary of State, testified as an informational witness and said the office runs training, produces forms and offers resources. James said the secretary’s office and the attorney general already have roles with respect to investigations and that criminal matters would naturally involve the attorney general. He also indicated parts of the bill were ambiguous and that the state could not yet produce a detailed fiscal impact without more precise statutory language.

After hearing the testimony and debating the scope, the committee moved to table the bill in executive action. The roll-call vote in executive action recorded 4 votes in favor and 5 opposed, and the committee tabled the proposal.