Committee hears bill to narrow election-official impersonation statute after court rulings

Senate Bill 258, which would amend an election-crime statute described in testimony as “20 five-two thousand 438,” was the subject of a hearing before the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs. The bill would remove a statutory element that criminalized engaging in conduct that “gives the appearance of being an election official” and would add a specific-intent requirement so a person must act with the intent to cause another to believe they are an election official; proponents said the bill preserves the existing criminal penalty.

The bill matters because supporters said it addresses language the courts found overbroad and therefore unenforceable. Jason (committee staff member) told the committee that the statute at issue was first enacted in 2021 and that “the second and third elements there in the statute have actually been enjoined by the court and are not currently enforceable.” He described SB 258 as striking the “appearance” element and inserting a specific-intent provision so that a person must act “with the intent to cause another person to believe that they are, an election official.” Jason added the bill clarifies the first element by citing examples such as “the use of official seals or other insignia of the secretary of state or a county election office.”

Clay Barker, Deputy Secretary of State, testified as a proponent on behalf of the Secretary of State’s office. Barker described the statute’s litigation history and said the office’s litigation team has pursued this issue for several years. Barker said the state government’s attorney general agreed in December to permanently enjoin enforcement of the earlier version after the state Supreme Court’s May 2024 opinion called parts of the statute into question. Barker said the reviser’s small language changes — moving some text and adding words in specified places — were recommended by the state’s litigation attorneys and that they believe “they think it's going to work.” He told senators, “they think it would be sufficient to overcome any litigation challenging the statute.”

Committee members asked whether the bill would affect volunteer poll workers and groups such as the League of Women Voters. Barker said the bill’s focus is on people who fraudulently portray themselves as election workers and that the revised language uses an intent standard rather than the broader “knowingly” formulation the court criticized. In explaining the legal difference, Barker said the Supreme Court had indicated the word “knowingly” could be read to criminalize speech that a speaker did not intend to deceive; by contrast, he said, the bill’s “intent” standard requires proof that a person intended to fool someone. Barker told the committee that proving intent would be “a little harder than showing that the result of what you did fooled somebody,” and he emphasized that criminal prosecution would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Senators pressed for examples of the behavior the bill targets. Senator Tyson summarized past incidents the bill seeks to prevent: websites that mimic official Secretary of State pages, collection of Social Security numbers and other personal data, and mailed letters bearing state seals. Several senators asked whether the bill’s language would discourage legitimate civic activity such as voter registration drives; Barker and Jason both said the revised intent requirement is intended to avoid chilling lawful volunteer activity while allowing prosecution of actors who seek to deceive or defraud voters.

No committee action or vote occurred at the hearing. The committee closed the SB 258 hearing and immediately opened a separate hearing on SB 234.

The hearing record includes proponents’ testimony, committee questions and clarifications about scope and proof, and no formal vote on SB 258 at this session.