Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Absentee Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee to restore election‑day procedures, remove absentee 'preprocessing' language and limit Secretary of State error authority
Summary
The conference committee agreed to delete sections on absentee preprocessing, add clarifying language to proof-of-identity/domcile rules and strike a proposed provision giving broad authority to the Secretary of State to process errors, though some members opposed the bill overall citing voter access concerns.
A legislative committee of conference agreed on Thursday to remove ‘preprocessing’ provisions from a house-amended absentee voting bill, to add the word “applicable” in two locations to clarify proof-of-identity and domicile requirements, and to delete language that would have given the Secretary of State broad authority to process errors identified during absentee procedures.
The committee’s proposal would strike sections 5 and 6 of the senate version — the provisions tied to preprocessing absentee ballots adopted during the COVID period — and add the word “applicable” on page 1, line 24 and page 2, line 23 of the house text so that voters only need to prove the elements relevant to their situation (for example, identity only if they remain in the same ward; identity and domicile if they’re registered elsewhere).
Why it matters: The changes would return some absentee handling to election day and clear ambiguity about what proofs are required in different circumstances. Opponents said the underlying bill — taken together with other recent changes — could nonetheless make voting harder for some residents.
Senator Perkins said she would not support the bill as amended and urged caution, saying recent tightening had already led to voters being turned away from the polls. “The biggest danger to our elections is not fraud. It is our people who have the right to vote being turned away,” Perkins said, noting examples of elderly voters, veterans and parents who were turned away in earlier elections.
Committee members also objected to a senate-added sentence that read, in the draft, that errors “shall be processed as directed by the Secretary of State.” The house argued that language was “vague and broad” and that established statute and supervisors of the checklist provide a statutory process for raising and resolving errors; the committee agreed to remove the sentence and leave statutorily codified procedures in place.
Procedure and outcome: The house said it would accept the compromise edits; committee leadership said the amendments would be written and circulated for signature. Committee polling recorded a majority in favor of the proposed compromise (a member reported “we got 3 yeses” during the meeting).
No final statutory text was enacted in the meeting; the committee agreed on the edits and planned to circulate written amendments for signature.
