Committee reviews broad 'elections miscellaneous' draft including ranked‑choice pilot, electronic returns and write‑in registration

A legislative counsel presented draft 1.5 of an “elections miscellaneous” bill to the House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs, outlining a package of changes that would pilot ranked‑choice voting (RCV) for major parties’ 2028 presidential primary, expand mailed ballots to primaries, permit certain electronic ballot returns, tighten write‑in candidate rules and change several campaign finance and local‑election procedures.

The bill “proposes to institute rank choice voting for the 2028 presidential primary election for each major political party, but sunset the same law on 07/01/2029,” legislative counsel Tim Devlin told the committee. The draft describes the RCV methodology as the instant runoff voting (IRV) system and places the mechanics and tabulation instructions in an appendix and new statutory sections for presidential primaries.

Why it matters: The draft bundles statewide changes (presidential primary rules, mail and electronic ballots, campaign finance thresholds, voter‑checklist audits) with numerous local‑election amendments (municipal meeting rules, appointment/election of local officers and petition timing). Committee members and municipal clerks flagged implementation, cost and confidentiality issues that would affect clerks, voters with disabilities, overseas voters and town operations if adopted.

Key provisions and how they would work

- Ranked‑choice voting pilot: Sections 1–4 would require the 2028 presidential primary for each major party be conducted using RCV (IRV), with a statutory sunset on July 1, 2029. The bill directs the Secretary of State to adopt implementing rules and to ensure canvassing and tally forms accommodate RCV.

- Mail ballots for primaries: The draft would expand the statutory mailing of ballots to include regular primary elections as well as general elections.

- Electronic ballot returns for limited voters: The bill would allow voters who have a disability, overseas voters (as defined by the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act), and participants in the Secretary of State’s address‑confidentiality program to return ballots electronically via a secure online portal administered by the Secretary of State. Under the draft, electronically returned ballots would be transmitted to and printed by the clerk and processed “in the same manner as all other early absentee ballots.” A town clerk at the meeting said, “I would just be concerned about the confidentiality of that ballot.”

- Cross‑nomination (fusion) prohibition: Sections 8–9 would bar candidates from appearing on a general election ballot under more than one party label; a candidate must choose one party to appear next to their name before ballots are printed.

- Write‑in registration and threshold: Sections 17–19 would require a write‑in candidate for specified offices to file a consent‑to‑candidacy form no later than 5 p.m. on the second Friday preceding the primary. The draft increases the minimum threshold for successful write‑ins in primary elections: a write‑in winner must receive at least the same number of votes as the number of signatures required for that office’s primary petition, except where a write‑in receives more votes than a printed candidate.

- Candidate demographic data (voluntary): Sections 14–16 would add statutory language enabling collection of voluntary demographic information supplied by candidates (name, gender, age, race or ethnicity) for certain local, school board, county and state offices. Devlin corrected an earlier statement and said the disclosure by candidates is voluntary.

- Campaign finance changes: Sections 20–23 would remove existing registration thresholds and require broader filing: instead of triggering registration at a specific dollar threshold (examples discussed in committee included $500 or $2,500), candidates would register and file financial information regardless of amounts raised or spent. The draft also modifies definitions (including a new “public question campaign” definition) and other reporting language.

- Voter‑checklist audit: The draft would require the Secretary of State, in consultation with town clerks and local boards of civil authority, to perform a statewide audit of all voter checklists for representative and senatorial districts to ensure checklists correspond to prescribed district boundaries, and to deliver a written report to the committee. Committee discussion recorded two different target dates (11/15/2025 and 11/25/2025) in the transcript; the draft should be clarified to resolve that discrepancy.

Local‑election and administrative changes

Part 10 of the draft collects many local‑election edits: it would expressly exclude annual town meetings from the open‑meeting law definition, revise procedures for petition withdrawal and charter warnings, remove a special two‑thirds requirement tied to written protests for some local changes, permit clerks to begin processing mailed ballots 45 days before an election (up from 30), and remove the word “random” from the Secretary of State’s post‑election audit requirement for voting equipment. The draft also standardizes some appointed municipal officer terms and removal procedures.

Questions, concerns and next steps

Committee members and municipal clerks raised operational and timing concerns repeatedly. Several members asked who would pay for voter education and training for clerks and voters if RCV were adopted as a pilot for 2028; one member said 2028 may be too soon for statewide implementation. Clerks questioned how electronic returns would integrate with local workflow and whether returned ballots would be delivered directly to clerks or routed through the Secretary of State’s system. Devlin read the draft language saying electronically returned ballots “shall be printed by the clerk and processed in the same manner as all other earlier absentee ballots,” and that voters would be notified when an electronically delivered ballot is received and printed.

Municipal officials pressed for clarity on timelines: for example, the draft would require write‑in consent forms by a deadline relative to the primary, while it would also permit mailed ballots to be processed weeks before election day; members asked how late write‑in declarations would be reconciled with early processing. Clerks also supported provisions that would reduce time spent tabulating miscellaneous write‑ins (the draft would allow clerks to list only registered write‑in candidates by name, with other write‑ins recorded as generic write‑ins).

No votes were taken. Devlin and Tucker Anderson (legislative council) remained available for more detailed review; committee leaders said they will schedule follow‑up briefings and tutorials with the Secretary of State’s office and elections staff to address implementation, confidentiality, and timeline questions before the committee advances any language.

Ending

Committee members said they want targeted follow‑up on several topics — the Secretary of State’s portal and address‑confidentiality program, RCV education and implementation timelines, the exact audit date and scope, and campaign‑finance definitional changes — and assigned staff to arrange witnesses and briefings before further action. No final decisions or legislative votes were recorded during the session.