Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ballot Counter Oaths Repository topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to forward provisional-ballot counter oaths to state held for further consideration
Summary
Senate Bill 186 would require circuit court clerks to transmit a copy of provisional-ballot counters' oaths to the Election Division; the committee heard testimony and held the bill for future consideration.
Senate Bill 186, which would require circuit court clerks to transmit copies of provisional-ballot counters’ oaths (the statute’s section 20 oath) to the Election Division within 30 days after the election, was presented to the committee and held for possible future consideration after testimony and questions about necessity and administrative burden.
Representative Voltoff (presenting) said the bill adds a layer of accountability and acts as a backup repository for an oath that counters must take when handling envelopes or bags of provisional ballots. The measure passed the senate unanimously earlier, the sponsor said.
Matthew Kosheiver, Democratic co-general counsel for the Election Division, testified in opposition in his personal capacity. He told the committee that the bill applies specifically to provisional-ballot counter oaths (the Pro 8 form) and described practical concerns: counties already retain the forms as public records and can respond to public-records requests; some counties store the oaths on envelopes, which complicates scanning and transmission; and the Election Division would incur storage and security costs and would need space in its office to keep additional paper or scanned records for the federally required retention period (22 months).
Brad King, Republican co-director of the Election Division, supported the bill and said it arises from county experience (Lake County) where producing records in response to a public-records request was difficult. King pointed to an existing statutory precedent that requires forwarding certain challenge affidavits to the state and said centralizing another category of election records can aid transparency and preservation.
After questioning and discussion, the committee held Senate Bill 186 for possible future consideration rather than advancing it; the sponsor indicated technical amendment 1 (removing 2024 from an effective-date clause) was adopted by consent during the hearing. The transcript does not record a committee vote to pass the bill; the chair announced the bill would be held.
