Committee backs single annual window for special elections, flags bond-election changes for further review

The Federal and State Affairs committee discussed narrowing the schedule for special elections to a single annual date — the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March — while agreeing the floor amendment that would have broadly eliminated some bond elections needs more study.

Committee members said adopting one set day for special elections would reduce cost and administrative burden on counties and could allow parties to hold a presidential preference primary the same day. “After talking to one of the state parties, they thought, hey, wouldn't it be great if we could just do the presidential primary on that day too,” the chair said, summarizing colleagues’ remarks.

The change under consideration would let jurisdictions place special elections on either the primary, the general, or the new March date, rather than permitting special elections throughout the year. A committee member clarified the March date would follow the usual formulation for federal and state elections: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

Members also discussed a floor amendment affecting bond elections. The committee’s original aim, a member said, was “to tighten it down so that counties weren't dealing with multiple bond elections in a short span of time,” but a floor amendment went further than intended. Several members urged additional testimony from county election officials before codifying broader limits. “I would have felt a lot better had we had testimony from the counties, from everybody involved in the committee before we take it to the floor,” one committee member said.

Committee staff and the revisor raised a related statutory issue: a provision in current mail-ballot law that could limit holding multiple early elections at once. As one staffer said, the secretary of state's office suggested a conforming amendment that would allow the statutory language to accommodate the single-date approach so that multiple early ballots could be prepared for that date without legal conflict.

The committee indicated it will continue work on the proposal, with at least one additional meeting likely before final action. No formal vote was recorded in the transcript.

Ending: Members said the changes are intended to lower costs for counties and reduce voter confusion, but several asked for more stakeholder input — particularly from county election officers — before any broader limits on bond elections are adopted.