Clerks warn of storage costs as committee weighs extending election-record retention to five years

Senator Schmidt told the committee that Senate Bill 113 would extend the retention requirement for election materials from 22 months to 60 months, aligning state practice with the federal felony statute of limitations and allowing records to be available for audits, investigations and litigation. "It ensures election records are preserved long enough to support audits, investigations, litigations, and public records requests," he said.

Knox County Clerk David Shelton described a local example from the 2020 election in which missing physical poll-book evidence made prosecution impossible despite documentation indicating irregular voting: "I have documentation that she voted twice," Shelton said, and he argued the absence of preserved original materials hampered the case. Shelton and the Indiana Election Division argued longer preservation would help evidence gathering in delayed investigations.

County clerks from Marion, Monroe and Porter counties testified in opposition, calling the change an unfunded mandate. Evan Davis, testifying for the Marion County Clerk's Office, said Marion currently uses eight of 18 storage bays for 2024 election material and estimated a storage-cost increase from about $15,391 for 22 months to roughly $168,000 if retention were extended to 60 months. Monroe County Clerk Nicole Brown and Porter County Clerk Jessica Bailey described acute space constraints and the need for climate-controlled, secured storage to protect materials and voting equipment, and they urged the committee to reject the proposal as written.

Senator Schmidt and Indiana Election Division staff said clerks could retain records now at their discretion but argued a statutory minimum would ensure statewide consistency and preserve evidence through the statute-of-limitations window. Committee members asked whether a consolidated state solution or amendment could mitigate local costs; the author said language was being drafted with Representative Matt Pierce and the bill was held for further consideration and possible amendment at a future meeting.