Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate delays vote on bill to bar future use of ERIC voter‑data sharing after floor concerns
Summary
Senate Bill 142, which would bar Alabama from participating in the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) and codify a separate state voter‑data system, was carried over at the chair’s call after extended questions about security, interstate MOUs and whether the state’s replacement system provides equal safeguards.
Senate Bill 142, sponsored by Senator Kitchens, was carried over to the call of the chair after lengthy floor discussion and unanswered questions about voter‑data sharing and election security.
Kitchens said SB142 would codify limits on using the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) and rely on the state’s Alabama registration infrastructure. He told colleagues the bill codifies current practice for data sharing and aims to keep personal voter data under state control. "With this ERIC system, we don't know where those servers are. We don't know where that data is being stored," Kitchens said on the floor, arguing for a state‑centered system.
Senator Singleton objected to advancing the bill without further review, citing long‑standing procedural and technical questions, the number of interstate memorandums of understanding (MOUs), and the need to consult the secretary of state's office and other stakeholders on the cybersecurity and operational differences between ERIC and the state system. Singleton said he wanted more information about the system Kitchens' office favors, how many states participate by MOU, and whether the change was driven by political considerations rather than documented security failures.
After extended remarks and requests for more information, the Senate agreed to carry SB142 over to the call of the chair to allow further review and consultation; no final vote was taken. Senate floor exchanges made clear several senators were not opposed to strengthening data security but wanted additional briefings and written technical information from the secretary of state before altering the state’s interoperability arrangements.
Ending: SB142 was not advanced and will return to the calendar for further review; sponsors and skeptics agreed to continue technical conversations with the secretary of state's office and other stakeholders.
