Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Presidential Primary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missouri committee hears push to reinstate presidential preference primary; debate centers on cost, delegate binding and absentee voting window
Summary
The House Elections Committee heard testimony for and against two bills to reinstate a presidential preference primary and change in‑person absentee voting windows. Supporters said a primary boosts participation; critics cited a $9M fiscal note and urged binding language or retention of longer in‑person windows.
Representatives and party officials told the Missouri House Elections Committee that reinstating a presidential preference primary would increase voter participation while county clerks and some lawmakers warned changes to in‑person absentee windows and the bill’s nonbinding structure risk confusion and increased costs.
Representative Rudy Veidt, sponsor of House Bill 24-80, told the committee the bills “are reinstating the presidential primary” to allow more Missourians a voice in selecting delegates and to reduce overlap with April elections. He said the bills place the primary in March and preserve the six‑week mail ballot window while proposing to shorten the in‑person absentee window to three weeks and make those three weeks no‑excuse voting.
Supporters — including the Missouri Republican and Democratic parties, the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, the ACLU and the Missouri Farm Bureau — said a primary would boost turnout and make Missouri more relevant on the presidential calendar. Mike Hafner of the Missouri Republican Party said turnout comparisons show the effect: “In 2024, there were less than 25,000 Missourians involved in the presidential caucus… During the COVID year, over 311,000 Missourians voted in a republican primary,” and he argued those numbers show a full primary increases participation.
Democratic Party chair Russ Carnahan also backed a primary, saying it would “elevate Missouri” and that his party’s rules already reflect proportional allocation by popular vote; he offered to share party language that addresses binding delegates.
Opponents focused on cost and statutory effect. Multiple speakers cited a fiscal note of roughly $9,000,000; conservative witness Mike Compton said, “It’s $9,000,000 we don’t need to spend,” and urged the committee to delay action until parties adopt binding language. Several lawmakers warned that, as written, the bill is nonbinding and could mislead voters who believe their primary vote will determine delegate selection.
Committee members pressed sponsors about operational impacts on county election authorities. Vice Chair McGaugh asked whether sponsors had coordinated with clerks; sponsors said they had worked with clerks previously on related changes but not on the specific proposal to shorten the in‑person excused period. The Missouri Association of County Clerks and Election Authorities told the committee it prefers a longer no‑excuse in‑person window (one referenced alternative expands it to four weeks) because shrinking the excused period risks increasing mail ballots and compressing clerks’ workloads.
On binding, several members said they could support a reinstated primary if statutory language required parties to bind delegates at least on the first convention ballot, or if primaries were closed rather than open. Sponsors and party representatives said they were willing to work on language and potential party contracts to address binding but did not present binding statutes during the hearing.
The committee did not take a vote on House Bill 23-87 or House Bill 24-80 during this hearing. The chair closed the public testimony after a full day of witnesses and adjourned the meeting.
