Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves minutes and finds recall petition reasons sufficiently clear; other items carried for further staff work
Summary
At the meeting the Board of State Canvassers approved minutes from July 10 and determined a recall petition met sufficiency standards; the board instructed staff to return revised manuals and a circulator‑challenge procedure for further consideration.
The Board of State Canvassers approved the minutes of its July 10, 2025 meeting and voted that reasons printed on a recall petition against state Representative Peter Herzberg were “factual and sufficiently clear.”
At the meeting the board considered the sufficiency of a recall petition submitted by Keith Butkovich accusing Representative Peter Herzberg of voting against House Bill 4170 (a personal income tax reduction). The petitioner, Keith Butkovich, confirmed his name and the reason printed on the petition. After discussion about prior similar recall petitions and confirmation of the recorded vote, a board member moved and the board voted “aye” to determine the reasons for recall were factual and sufficiently clear; the motion passed.
Other business: the board heard public comments and bureau staff briefings on (1) the Invest in My Kids petition timeline and (2) circulator‑signature investigations relating to Cornel West petitions. On the manuals item the board asked the bureau to refine proposed changes and return updated manuals and a change log; on the circulator investigation the board asked staff to prepare an estimate of the investigation cost so it could consider assessing expenses to the sponsor. No final certification votes on the Invest in My Kids petition or on circulator enforcement were taken during this meeting.
Why it matters: the recall‑petition sufficiency determination allows a petitioner to circulate recall petitions consistent with board practice; the other items may bear on ballot access and possible enforcement actions. The board set follow‑up tasks for bureau staff and scheduled further consideration of items at a future meeting.
