Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Integrity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary reviews bill to criminalize interference with voters and election officials
Summary
The Senate Judiciary heard an explanation of House Bill 541, which would create an offense for interfering with voters and election officials and allow prosecution for conduct that is "intentional or reckless." Legislative counsel Tim Deloitte said the measure overlaps with Senate Bill 298 and members discussed harmonizing the bills and clarifying language before further action.
The Senate Judiciary convened March 17 to consider House Bill 541, a proposal to create a stand-alone offense for interfering with voters and election officials.
For the record, "my name is Tim Deloitte, legislative council," Deloitte told the committee as he summarized the bill's text and history. He said H 541 would be inserted into the chapter of criminal law addressing election offenses and would prohibit conduct in language that reads, in part, "no person shall intentionally or recklessly intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate" another person to affect that person's right to vote.
Deloitte told the committee the proposed penalty for violating the new provision would be imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. He said those penalties mirror enhancements already used elsewhere in the criminal code for related threatening conduct.
Committee members asked whether H 541 duplicates provisions in Senate Bill 298. The chair noted that S 298 was discussed in the previous week's session and asked whether the bills' mens rea requirements differ. Deloitte said the measures were developed separately and that S 298 generally requires intentional conduct, whereas H 541's phrasing includes "recklessly," which Deloitte described as a lower mental-state threshold than "intentional."
The chair raised a concrete example: whether showing another person a completed ballot as someone leaves the voting booth could, under the statute, trigger criminal exposure. Deloitte said existing law already reaches some ballot-disclosure and vote-buying scenarios and described the historical purpose of similar statutes as counteracting bribery-like schemes; he characterized the example as within the sorts of situations the laws have targeted.
On procedure, Deloitte suggested that lawmakers could harmonize overlapping language by agreement between chambers or in a conference committee, noting that a provision granting a private right of action could make one bill more likely to advance. Committee members discussed options including removing a duplicative section and clarifying section 1's wording before taking up H 541 later in the day.
The committee did not take a vote on H 541 during the session summarized here; members said they would return to the bill after a short recess with possible edits under consideration.
