SB2222 amends the Illinois Election Code to remove direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems from the list of authorized election technologies and to clarify that only voting machines or voting systems approved by the State Board of Elections may be used by election authorities. The bill adds new definitions stating that “voting machine,” “voting system,” and “electronic voting system” do not include DRE systems or systems that use a computer as the marking device to mark a ballot sheet. It also repeals the Election Code’s Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems Article and makes conforming changes throughout the Code.
The bill also updates related election procedures to align with the removal of DRE systems, including provisions governing ballot marking, provisional ballot counting, recount definitions, and the operation of optical scan and tabulation equipment. It preserves and cross-references procedures for paper ballots, automatic tabulating equipment, and precinct optical scan systems, while eliminating references to the repealed DRE article. The effective date is January 1, 2026.
Impact
If enacted, SB2222 would substantially narrow the Election Code’s treatment of voting technology by excluding direct recording electronic voting machines and computer-marking systems from the statutory definitions of approved voting systems. It would repeal Article 24C and remove or revise references to DRE-based procedures, while leaving intact the statutory framework for paper ballots, optical scan systems, and automatic tabulating equipment. Election authorities would be limited to using systems approved by the State Board of Elections under the remaining articles of the Code.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or vote history to gauge formal support or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for moving away from direct recording electronic voting technology and toward other approved voting systems. The absence of recorded legislative action in the provided materials means sentiment cannot be assessed from committee or floor proceedings.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely the bill’s elimination of direct recording electronic voting systems and its exclusion of computer-based ballot marking devices from the definition of approved voting equipment. Supporters would likely view the measure as a security or reliability reform that standardizes voting technology under State Board-approved systems, while opponents may argue it restricts local election authorities’ flexibility, imposes replacement costs, or removes technology that some jurisdictions already use. The bill also touches on how provisional ballots and recounts are handled under different voting systems, which could raise operational concerns among election administrators.