Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Ballot Format topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses bill that would remove explanatory guides from constitutional amendment ballots
Summary
The Election Law & Municipal Affairs Committee heard House Bill 1695, which would require strike‑through/bold formatting of proposed constitutional changes and remove separate voter guides; the Secretary of State's deputy raised concerns about ballot length and voter understandability. The committee voted to send the bill to interim study for redrafting.
The Senate committee opened public testimony on House Bill 1695, a proposal to change how proposed constitutional amendments appear on ballots and to repeal the statute authorizing voter guides. Representative (co‑sponsor) Senator Perkins Qu introduced the measure as a housekeeping change intended to make amendment language clearer to voters.
Brendan O'Donnell, Deputy Secretary of State, told the committee the Secretary of State's office neither supports nor opposes the bill but warned of practical problems with the drafting. He said the bill's requirement to print entire provisions with both struck and added text would lengthen ballots and could make the text harder for voters to parse, not easier. He also cautioned that removing the statutory option for voter guides would eliminate an existing tool for explaining complex legal terms to voters and could shift the burden of explanation solely to the ballot format.
Committee members asked staff and the deputy secretary of state for statutory references (including current text under what the testimony referred to as 663 3A) and discussed alternative approaches that preserve explanatory material while addressing formatting concerns. After brief deliberation and clarification about redundancy in the bill text, a committee member moved that HB1695 be made an interim study so the sponsors and staff can rework the language. The motion carried on a voice vote.
The committee closed public hearing after noting online participation (32 in support and 10 opposed for the initial bill record) and said sponsors would return with revised language. The committee did not adopt the bill in its present form.
