Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Irregularities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects bill to let state commission order new local elections after confirmed irregularities
Summary
The Elections & Campaign Finance Subcommittee considered HB 2568, which would have prevented county certification of local contests with confirmed irregularities and referred them to the state election commission; after questions about standing and practical effect the bill failed on a 1–6 vote.
The Elections & Campaign Finance Subcommittee on March 17 heard testimony on HB 2568, sponsored by Representative Kumar, a bill that would bar certification of county and municipal elections when a local county election commission confirms an irregularity and instead refer the matter to the state election commission, which could order a special election.
Kumar said the bill grew out of a 2024 Cross Plains municipal contest in which “a poll worker by mistake allowed certain voters who did not live in the city boundaries to vote,” and the losing candidate’s only practical recourse was a chancery-court challenge. “This act applies to local county and municipal elections only,” Kumar said. “It requires that when an irregularity is reported and confirmed by the local county election commission, the election will not be certified.”
Members pressed the sponsor on what types of errors would qualify and whether county processes already provide remedies. The chair asked whether county commissions could reject provisional ballots or otherwise exclude ineligible votes before certification; Kumar replied the current pathway is costly litigation for a candidate, and the bill’s intent is to provide a nonlitigious alternative. Mark Goins, coordinator of elections, told the committee that under long-standing law certification triggers court standing: “The moment that they certify, that gives the candidate standing,” he said, explaining why current statutes were written to allow certification to establish a contestable record.
Other members warned the bill could invert standing rules and create uncertainty. One committee member said the measure “would really turn current law on its head” because challengers typically need certification to obtain standing in court. Vice Chairman Wright also raised concerns about the burden the bill could impose on state and local budgets if new elections are ordered. After discussion the committee voted; the clerk reported one aye and six no votes, and the bill failed. The chairman asked the sponsor to consider working on a revision.
