Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State elections director opposes funneling party objections to Office of Elections; committee defers SB 335
Summary
Scott Nago, state election director, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that objections by political-party officers to candidate nomination papers should not be channeled to the Office of Elections because the office might be forced to advocate for a party in court; the committee deferred SB 335 indefinitely.
SB 335, a proposal to require objections made by an officer of a political party to candidate nomination papers to be filed with and determined by the Office of Elections, was heard Feb. 6 by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Scott Nago, State Election Director, said the Office of Elections "doesn't believe we would be the appropriate place to file a party challenge because depending on the outcome, we would have to file and advocate for that party in court." Nago described a historical concern that led to earlier changes in law: when the chief election officer previously made determinations on party membership the attorney general might be required to represent the chief election officer — and, in one cited 1994 instance, that resulted in the attorney general effectively representing the party in litigation.
Committee members probed alternatives. One senator asked whether all such challenges could instead go directly to circuit court to avoid the elections office taking an advocacy role; Nago said the office performs administrative decisions before ballots are printed and noted that sending all challenges immediately to court could create timing and ballot-printing problems if the court takes time to resolve disputes.
After brief questioning and no additional public testimony, the chair announced a decision to defer SB 335 indefinitely. The chair explained she did not think the proposed change made sense, and moved that the bill be deferred.
The exchange focused on the institutional role of the Office of Elections in balancing prompt administrative rulings before ballot printing with the risk that handling party-member objections could place the office in the awkward position of being represented in court as a party advocate.
