Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ballot Initiatives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to stagger petition turn‑ins draws sharp debate over voter access and administrative burden
Summary
SB226 would require petition gatherers to turn in collected signatures periodically (roughly every four weeks) rather than in large last‑minute 'dumps'; county clerks said the change would reduce emergency workloads, while opponents warned it could disenfranchise signers and urged penalties aimed at ballot committees instead.
Senate Bill 226, offered by Sen. Mike Cuff, would require petition circulators and committees to submit signatures to county election offices on a rolling schedule (the draft language discussed a roughly four‑week interval). Sponsor testimony said the measure responds to the 2024 petition cycle when counties received large late deliveries that overwhelmed staff and risked missing constitutional deadlines.
Ravalli County election administrator Regina Plettenberg and Austin James of the Secretary of State's office described operational difficulties during the last cycle — triple-stapled packet deliveries, short staffing, and reliance on temp workers — and urged a more continuous stream of filings so counties can verify signatures without being rushed. They framed SB226 as codifying prior recommended practice.
Opponents including former Commissioner Jonathan Motl, long-time initiative advocate Mark Makin, and S. K. Rossi of the ACLU warned the bill's draft language could strike individual electors' signatures if a signature page is filed after the 30‑day window tied to the page's first signature. Motl argued 'the punishment should not be on the elector' and proposed fines or campaign‑practice penalties aimed at the ballot committee instead. The ACLU and others proposed alternative timelines (for example, a single earlier required submission seven weeks before deadline) or amendments to preserve petitioners' signatures while addressing county workloads.
Committee members explored amendments (mail/postmark options, verified delivery procedures, and liability targeted at committees). Sponsor said he welcomed compromise but insisted the process needs a serious fix to avoid repeating last cycle's emergency workloads.
No vote occurred on the bill during the hearing; the committee left open the possibility of amendments.
