House debates major substitute to election-law bill, creates 24-hour cure window and $500 fine for missed filings

Representative Sam McKay, sponsor of House Bill 48, brought a third substitute to the chamber, framing it as a package of election‑law changes intended to clarify filing deadlines and respond to recent court rulings. "If a candidate fails to file their financial, statements, they then have 24 hours to cure," McKay said, describing a cure period that starts at the midnight deadline and expires the following midnight.

McKay told colleagues the substitute moves some filing deadlines (previously 5 p.m.) to midnight to reflect electronic filing and adds a remedy for candidates who miss required finance reports. He said the substitute also removes a statutory requirement compelling parties to allow unaffiliated voters to participate in primaries — language a court had struck — returning the code to prior practice and requiring parties to notify the lieutenant governor whether they permit unaffiliated participation.

The substitute keeps a penalty structure for repeated failure to file: the bill retains language that can remove a candidate from the ballot if they miss filing in three defined filing periods and adds a procedural cure window. McKay also explained the bill includes enforcement measures. "There'll also be a fine of $500 to, to to for failing to file a financial statement," he said, adding the fine is not a condition of returning to the ballot.

Members questioned logistics and fairness. Representative Brad King pressed whether a candidate removed from the ballot seven days before the election would create wasted votes if ballots already were in circulation; McKay acknowledged imperfections and invited further work. Representative Arendt and others sought clarification about whether the cure period was effectively 24 or 48 hours when accounting for notification windows; McKay clarified the party and candidate will be notified the morning after the missed midnight filing and must cure by midnight the same day.

Several legislators expressed concerns about the portion of the bill that restricts parties' ability to replace candidates during the election cycle except under narrow circumstances (death, moving, ineligibility). Representative Casey Anderson asked directly, "Can a party replace somebody?" McKay responded that parties may replace a candidate only in specified ineligibility circumstances and not for ordinary withdrawal after the nomination process.

Because the substitute raises timing and constitutional cleanup questions, members debated whether to "circle" the bill (pause and return later) or take it up immediately. An initial motion to circle the third substitute failed when it did not receive the 50 votes necessary to secure an immediate-effect approach. Later, a second substitute proposed by Representative Thurston (to separate school‑board items from more controversial provisions) led the House to circle the revised substitute to allow off‑floor work and further refinement.

Next steps: the bill was circled after substitute motions, giving authors and interested members time to negotiate clarifying language before the House resumes floor consideration.