Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ballot Timing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conference committee weighs whether Amendment 4007 goes on primary or general election ballot
Summary
The conference committee on Amendment 4007 debated whether to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the primary ballot, where the Senate-approved version was slated, or on the general election ballot, where the House had placed it.
The conference committee on Amendment 4007 debated whether to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the primary ballot, where the Senate-approved version was slated, or on the general election ballot, where the House had placed it.
Committee members discussed two competing rationales: keeping the measure on the primary to avoid crowding multiple high-profile measures on a single ballot, and moving it to the general election to secure a larger, more representative turnout for a constitutional change. Several members said the House’s decision to move the measure to the general ballot reflected a desire to reach more voters; others said splitting measures across elections reduces the risk that voters, overwhelmed by multiple measures, will vote “no” on items they might otherwise approve.
The committee noted three related ballot items that factored into the timing discussion: the single-subject amendment (4007), a separate proposal to set a 60% voter-approval threshold for some measures, and a term-limits measure. Members said the presence of multiple constitutional questions on the same ballot could influence voter behavior across those measures.
Committee members agreed there are trade-offs. Supporters of placing Amendment 4007 on the general ballot argued a constitutional amendment should appear where the highest turnout is likely, to maximize participation. Supporters of keeping it on the primary said spreading measures across election dates reduces the chance that voters will reflexively vote against multiple measures on a crowded ballot.
No formal motion or vote was recorded. Several members asked for additional time to consider the competing rationales; Representative Steiner requested another meeting to “noodle” on the issue, and one member said they would be absent the rest of the week. The prime sponsor was reported to prefer keeping the measure on the primary ballot, but committee members acknowledged the sponsor was not present for the discussion.
The committee did not reach a decision and adjourned with plans to revisit the question at a subsequent meeting.
