Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Absentee Ballots topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee introduces RS32734 to change absentee ballot envelope and add identity fields
Summary
Representative Mike Moyle (presenting RS32734) told the committee the RS would require additional, interior envelope information for absentee ballots (signature plus a form of ID, last four of Social Security and date of birth) to help clerks verify voters; the committee introduced RS32734 and sent it to the second-reading calendar.
Representative Mike Moyo presented RS32734, which would change the absentee ballot envelope process so that verifying information is carried inside the mailed envelope but shielded from public view.
What the RS would do
Under the RS as described, a voter returning an absentee ballot would place the completed ballot inside a security (inner) envelope and then include on that interior envelope identifying information the clerk could use to verify the voter: a signature, the voter's driver's license or state ID number, the last four digits of the voter's Social Security number (if used in the clerk's registration record) and the voter's date of birth. Representative Moyo said the change would "give the clerk the information they need to verify who you say you are" while keeping that information out of public view.
Supporters and costs
Moyo said the change would cost about $4,000 to implement. He and other supporters told the committee the objective is to reduce risk that a ballot returned by a third party was not cast by the registered voter.
Questions and concerns
Members asked operational questions about clerk workload, whether clerks could check the inner envelope before election day and how many envelopes would be used (two or three). Clerks would still not open ballots for counting before election day, supporters said; the outside envelope would continue to provide the public signature check while the inner envelope would give clerks additional verification information out of public view. Members also expressed concern about potential voter confusion and additional clerks' workload verifying multiple identity fields; Representative Keeley asked for data on the number of absentee ballots that had been rejected in prior cycles because that information was not provided in the testimony.
Formal action
- The committee introduced RS32734 and sent it to the second-reading calendar. An attempted substitute motion to delay further vetting was withdrawn by the maker, and the original introduction motion carried.
Ending note
Supporters said the change is intended to protect the integrity of absentee ballots and help clerks confirm that the person returning a ballot is the person entitled to vote it; opponents urged further vetting and data about the scale of absentee-ballot problems before making statutory changes.
