Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeal 2A1 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board denies reconsideration for committee fined $12,000, allows settlement talks
Summary
The State Board of Elections denied a motion to reconsider a $12,000 fine against a committee over late A1 filings, finding the record did not meet the narrow standards for reconsideration; the board then authorized settlement negotiations.
The State Board of Elections on April 15 denied a motion to reconsider a final order imposing $12,000 in fines on a respondent committee for four late A1 filings in 2024, following a staff recommendation that the board had not been shown extraordinary circumstances or a meritorious basis for appeal.
The board’s general counsel told members she recommended denial because the committee had not shown that its failure to appeal was “outside the control of the respondent or otherwise extraordinary,” and that the committee offered no evidence establishing a meritorious basis for appeal. “Here, I recommend denying the motion as neither element is satisfied,” counsel said.
Attorney Kevin Morphew, representing the respondent committee, said the committee had mail-delivery problems while its office was under construction and that staff screenshots showed three of the four contributions had been entered into the state’s IDIS system in a timely manner. “We think it was all four; at least three of the four were attempted to be timely filed,” Morphew said, arguing the omission was a filing-step error rather than concealment.
Board members questioned whether the committee had satisfied the procedural requirements for an electronic-filing defense, including notifying board staff within required timelines and completing the final ‘‘file report’’ step in IDIS. Staff said three contributions were entered on July 18 and a fourth on Aug. 20, but that data entry alone did not prove the final filing step occurred.
After deliberation, the board voted to accept the general counsel’s recommendation to deny reconsideration (roll call resulted in seven yes votes and one no). The board then voted to authorize the parties to engage in settlement negotiations; that motion passed unanimously.
The board’s action does not alter the underlying findings in the final order; it only declined to reopen the matter. Counsel for the respondent said he would consult with his client about settlement and follow up with board staff.
