Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Election Records topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Proposal to centralize provisional‑ballot counter oaths held for further consideration after questions about records and cost

2784932 · March 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 186 would require circuit court clerks to send copies of provisional‑ballot counter oaths to the Election Division within 30 days. Witnesses raised concerns about storage, scanning workload, and office space; committee held the bill for future consideration.

Senate Bill 186 would require circuit court clerks to transmit a copy of each ballot‑counter oath (the oath taken by provisional‑ballot counters) to the Indiana Election Division within 30 days after the election for which the oath was taken. The sponsor framed the change as adding a layer of accountability and a centralized backup for local records.

Brad King and Matthew Kochiver of the Election Division testified about practical implications. Kochiver, speaking in a personal capacity, told the committee that counties already retain the forms as part of election records and that the forms are subject to public‑records requests; he questioned whether the state needs a duplicate repository. He described potential costs and labor—scanning or copying envelope‑based forms, storing additional records for the statutory retention period, and reduced office space because of a planned Election Division remodel and new security barriers.

The sponsor and supporters said the requirement mirrors existing code provisions that forward other election documents to the state and provides a backup in case county records are unavailable. Committee members asked for more detail about the Lake County experience that prompted the bill. The sponsor said the bill was brought forward because obtaining the records in one county was problematic and that having a centralized copy is a worthwhile safeguard.

After testimony and questioning, the committee did not advance the bill; the sponsor asked the panel to hold the bill for possible future consideration so staff can gather additional information.