Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers press Secretary of State on election security and funding; analysts directed to split recurring gap
Summary
The committee questioned Secretary of State staff about rising election costs, cybersecurity needs, tabulator replacement and voter‑database funding. Members voted to direct analysts to split the difference between LFC and executive recurring recommendations for the office and to report back.
The Appropriations & Finance Committee probed the Secretary of State’s FY26 request for recurring and nonrecurring funding on cybersecurity, voter‑registration modernization and tabulator replacement, then directed analysts to bridge differences between the Legislative Finance Committee and executive recommendations.
Ruby Ann Esquivel, LFC analyst, summarized the office’s request and the LFC/executive split, noting a structural issue created after SB108 and the election‑fund mechanism that now reimburses counties for direct election costs. "In the LFC recommendation, there is 6,750,000 for the e file campaign IT system," Esquivel told the committee and highlighted a $2.6 million capital outlay recommendation for tabulator upgrades.
Why it matters: Committee members repeatedly emphasized cybersecurity and the coming 2026 midterm elections. Lawmakers said underfunding core election infrastructure would push the secretary’s office to emergency funding and imperil service levels for counties and voters, including newly implemented same‑day registration and Native American Voting Rights Act provisions.
Key points from the hearing: Secretary of State representatives explained that the agency requested a recurring operating base to stabilize annual election costs previously budgeted unevenly. "This is purely running the election," a deputy said of the election fund. Agency staff said past reliance on federal HAVA funding has declined while statutory and security requirements have not, increasing the state's share of recurring costs.
Cybersecurity and tabulators: The agency asked for recurring funding to restore previously underfunded staffing and to expand cybersecurity protections for statewide voter systems. The agency also requested capital funding to replace tabulators that are at or near end‑of‑life and to comply with federal voting‑system certification guidance. Staff warned of heightened targeting of election infrastructure in 2026 and urged funds for VMware and other baseline protections.
Implementation and service impacts: Agency leaders said vacancies are pushing processing times for business filings and are likely to reduce same‑day turnaround on some services while still meeting statutory requirements. The agency said if additional recurring funding is not approved, it will make service‑level adjustments (for example, closing in‑person filings on Fridays) to maintain statutory compliance.
Committee action: Vice Chair Dixon moved—and Representative Silva seconded—that LFC and executive analysts meet to split the recurring‑budget difference halfway for the Secretary of State. The committee took a roll‑call vote and adopted the motion, directing analysts to return with a merged recurring recommendation. Several members who voted "no" explained objections were procedural (preferring to adopt one slate outright) rather than substantive.
What’s next: Analysts were instructed to calculate the midway recurring budget increase and to allocate that across the Secretary of State’s two main programs (administration/operations and elections); the committee reserved decisions on specials and capital requests for the scheduled specials hearings.
