Committee caps fee for statewide voter list at $1,000, bars release of phones, emails and SSNs

The House Constitution, Campaigns and Elections Committee in Montgomery voted to cap the fee for an electronic statewide voter list at no more than $1,000 and to bar publication of Social Security numbers, email addresses and telephone numbers, the bill's sponsor said during the committee meeting.

Representative Ke, who presented House Bill 67, told the committee the current method charges roughly one cent per name — a practice that makes the entire statewide roll cost about $38,000 for a single purchase. HB67 would set a statutory ceiling of $1,000 per electronic request and would prohibit the publication of Social Security numbers, telephone numbers and email addresses. “People are very upset when they find out the state is selling their phone number,” the sponsor said.

Supporters and staff told members the cap is framed as a maximum rather than a required fee; the Secretary of State’s office would post a fee schedule so requests for smaller subsets (for example, a district list) would cost less. Secretary of State staff explained that voter lists are a snapshot at the moment they are produced and that purchasers pay per request because the database is updated frequently.

Committee members questioned enforcement and downstream sharing: several asked what would prevent a purchaser from buying an allowable copy and then reselling or sharing it for commercial use. Secretary of State staff responded that the bill targets use, not merely purchase, making commercial exploitation unlawful; staff emphasized that prosecuting misuse is distinct from the mechanics of producing the list.

Committee members also debated the utility of retaining some contact fields. The committee considered an amendment that would explicitly redact email addresses, telephone numbers and Social Security numbers while retaining certain identifying fields (voter ID and month/day of birth were discussed). The amendment, which replaces lines 63–67 in the packet to clarify the prohibited releases, was seconded and adopted by voice vote.

Some members raised concerns that redacting phone numbers could limit voter-contact efforts to notify people about polling-place changes; one member said phone numbers have helped reach voters who would otherwise go to the wrong location. Others argued that the public-safety and privacy risks of freely available home addresses and phone numbers justify the limits.

After brief additional comments, the committee moved the bill for a favorable report. The chair announced the bill passed the committee. A small number of members asked that their dissenting votes be recorded; the transcript records requests to have names recorded but does not include a complete roll-call tally in committee minutes.