Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Voter Registration Challenges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislature reviews tighter rules for third‑party voter registration challenges
Summary
House Bill 1223 would tighten who may file voter registration challenges, increase the proof standard, and add penalties for knowingly false challenges; supporters say it shields eligible voters from mass, duplicative challenges, while some county auditors warned it may restrict a tool they use to correct registration lists.
House Bill 1223 would revise the process for challenging a registered voter's eligibility. Key changes in the bill explained in the staff briefing include limiting who may file a challenge (the challenger must be registered in the same city or county as the challenged voter), requiring separate signed forms and affidavits for each challenged registration, permitting auditors to conduct an initial merits review before scheduling a hearing, and raising the standard of proof for challenges to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The bill also creates penalties for knowingly false challenges and requires additional notice methods to inform a challenged voter of a hearing.
Representative Beth D'Oleo, sponsor of the bill, said the draft responds to an observed increase in large‑scale, duplicative challenge efforts across the country that can overwhelm county auditors and may remove eligible voters from the rolls unnecessarily. “Since the 2020 election, various groups and individuals have endeavored to distort voter challenge laws... attempting to use these laws as a tool to call into question the eligibility of large numbers of registered citizens at once,” D'Oleo said.
The Brennan Center for Justice offered written and oral support, saying HB 1223 will protect eligible voters from improper removal and help auditors prioritize credible claims. Alice Clapman, senior counsel at the Brennan Center, said recent national experience shows “an explosion” of third‑party mass challenges using unreliable data and that the bill equips auditors and voters with safeguards against improper purges.
County auditors gave mixed testimony. Mary Hall, Thurston County auditor and representing the County Auditors Association, said challenges have become more common and supported targeted statute updates while continuing negotiations with stakeholders on final language. Kittitas County Auditor Brian (Brian Elliott in testimony) testified in opposition and argued the current challenge process is a necessary tool for auditors to address legitimate local concerns; he objected to provisions he said would import criminal‑law standards into an administrative process and said the bill's removal of an auditor’s ability to cancel when properly notified of out‑of‑state registration (section 62a in the draft) would increase the workload of managing inactive voters.
Other witnesses were split. Some volunteers and canvassers argued the bill would criminalize ordinary civic participation and make it harder to report apparent eligibility issues; others representing voting‑rights organizations said the bill protects eligible voters from improper mass challenges. The committee did not vote during the hearing; sponsors and stakeholders said they were continuing to negotiate language changes and requested more time to refine the draft.
