Transcript Highlights:

• </c> of where the ballot was mailed. of where the ballot was mailed.
• </c> the questions on the ballot. the questions on the ballot.
• We have two ballots.
• The total number of absentee ballots used as official election ballots.
• </c> ballots at all. ballots at all.

Keywords: 9:00am HB 158 9:10am HB 281 9:20am HB 317 9:30am HB 340 9:40am HB 1062 9:50am HB 1187 10:00am HB 1234 10:10am HB 1300 10:20am HB 1306 10:30am HB 1381 10:40am HB 1541, 928, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference first resolved House Bill 158, which concerns public inspection of absentee ballot lists. The Senate explained a revised approach that removed the broader bill language and instead directed the Secretary of State to review absentee ballot data after each general election for patterns such as common addresses and to report findings to the committees of jurisdiction. The House agreed to the Senate position, and the conference committee voted unanimously to concur. The committee then took up House Bill 281, dealing with a sortable electronic voter checklist. Members debated the Senate’s removal of language that would have included the absentee ballot mailing address when different from the voter’s registration address. Concerns were raised that releasing mailing addresses could expose where voters are not home and could affect overseas and military voters. The committee also discussed a related form for election officials who personally know a voter, including how long the form would be retained and whether it would be subject to public records law. After further discussion, the House agreed to the Senate changes with an additional requirement that the form be signed, and the committee voted to proceed with the amended Senate position. House Bill 317, concerning verification of a person’s identity by a supervisor of the checklist without identification, was also discussed at length. The Senate’s version preserved the ability for election officials to identify people they know, but required a signed form under penalty of perjury and added a nursing home-related provision. Members described the measure as balancing community-based identification with tighter documentation, and a House witness described local problems with inconsistent ID checks and concerns about voting in nursing homes. The House sought one additional change requiring the nursing home verification form to be signed, and the Senate accepted that addition; the committee then voted to move the bill forward on the consent calendar. The conference committee next considered House Bill 340 on electioneering by public employees. The chair presented a replace-all amendment that tied the definition of electioneering to existing law, added a prohibition on expressly or primarily political surveys, and created a civil penalty of up to $1,000 alongside the misdemeanor penalty. Members discussed clarifying when the misdemeanor versus civil penalty would apply and which categories of public employees were covered. After caucus, the Senate agreed to the House’s replace-all approach with the clarifying changes, and the bill was closed. The committee also resolved House Bill 1062 by agreeing to strike a sunset clause from the Senate version authorizing random audits of citizenship qualifications, and it began discussion of House Bill 1187 on the filing window for special-election candidates, where the House proposed requiring local election officials to arrange a filing time on the same day or next business day after being contacted.

Transcript Highlights:

• , 21 ballots going two times to a different physical address, 19 ballots went to the same physical address
• </c> Hampshire town clerks mailed 23 ballots Hampshire town clerks mailed 23 ballots to<00:08:41.360>
• <00:15:06.160><c> under</c><00:15:06.519><c> this</c> ballot under this ballot under this circumstance
• </c> deal with fraudulent absentee ballots deal with fraudulent absentee ballots being<00:16:27.920><
• they would gather ballots.

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You received two ballots?
• be added to the ballot.
• all in one ballot.
• Or would you be now dealing with the need to have a second ballot? It would be the same ballot.
• hopefully get on the '26 ballot.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Election Laws

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House and Senate Election Laws committees held a hearing focused on campaign finance and several local election-related bills. Office of Campaign and Political Finance Director William Campbell testified in support of H. 848 and S. 515, saying the campaign finance law needs modernization and highlighting proposals for stronger Super PAC disclosure, more timely reporting, improved security for campaign participants, and other reforms. He said the bills would help update a 50-year-old system to reflect legal, economic, and cultural changes. A major portion of the hearing concerned H. 868/S. 507, which would require earlier and more frequent reporting by ballot question committees. Witnesses from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and others argued that ballot campaigns now involve tens of millions of dollars, much of it raised during periods with no real-time disclosure, and that moving these committees into the depository system would improve transparency without burdening grassroots signature-gathering. The committee also heard support for H. 811 and H. 812, which would allow municipalities to create citizen-funded election programs and require identifying information on political text messages, as well as S. 525/H. 875, which would bar political spending by foreign-influenced corporations. The committee also heard testimony on S. 2605, a Canton home rule petition to move town elections from April to November. Canton residents, a select board member, and a poll worker said the change would increase turnout, better align local elections with the November voting cycle, and give newly elected officials more time to prepare for town meeting. Senator Rausch also testified in support of S. 530, requiring presidential primary candidates to disclose recent tax returns. The hearing ended with no votes taken and the committee adjourning, with a note that the next hearing was tentatively scheduled for January 13.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, paper ballots and audits.
• That ballot is the best evidence.
• We rely on paper ballots in Florida.
• or spoil a ballot.
• What happens to those paper ballots? How long do we keep those ballots? What do we do with them?

Summary: The Government Operations Subcommittee met to hear a lengthy presentation from Secretary of State Cord Byrd on Florida election administration, with a focus on how elections are handled during natural disasters, election security, and preparations for the 2026 cycle. Byrd described Florida’s response to hurricanes in 2022 and 2024, saying the state works directly with county supervisors of elections to tailor executive orders to local conditions, add or relocate polling sites, extend deadlines, and help displaced voters and emergency workers cast ballots. Members from affected areas echoed that local supervisors had managed storm disruptions well and that turnout remained strong despite major damage. A large portion of the meeting covered election integrity and security. Byrd emphasized Florida’s use of paper ballots, pre-election logic and accuracy testing, post-election audits, public canvassing, standardized voter-intent rules, and strict vote-by-mail request and signature-match requirements. He said the Department of State’s Office of Election Crimes and Security investigates complaints and refers matters to law enforcement, and that Florida has expanded access to the federal SAVE database to verify citizenship. Members asked about threats to election workers, staffing vacancies, cybersecurity, ballot design, vote-by-mail address changes, and how the state coordinates with county supervisors, emergency management, and other agencies. Several members raised questions about voter eligibility and returning citizens, and Byrd said the department provides free information to help people determine whether their rights have been restored, while noting that court and clerk reporting practices still create challenges. He also said the department is considering additional legislative proposals, including more safeguards tied to driver’s license and citizenship verification and a possible statewide 100% audit of races before certification. The meeting ended with the chair encouraging members to visit supervisors of elections offices and submit specific ideas for future elections legislation; no votes were taken and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The reason is because it's a ballot measure now.
• Now it's a ballot measure.
• proposition, to make... ...regarding a ballot proposition, to make incidental remarks concerning a ballot
• And by the way, this became a ballot...
• You should not talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to challenge by a ballot

Summary: The meeting focused on whether legislators and legislative staff may use official resources, including newsletters and social media, to comment on a bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members discussed older ethics guidance allowing comments on legislation previously before the legislature, but questioned whether that rule still applies to modern social media posts and to ballot measures, especially when the language is strong or could be seen as an indirect appeal to voters. Several members argued that once a bill becomes a ballot measure, using state resources to advocate for or against it is prohibited, while others emphasized the importance of allowing officials to explain their votes and speak to their legislative record. The group debated possible guardrails, including whether comments should be limited to the bill itself, whether tone and timing should matter, and whether the rule should apply only to members not subject to election-year restrictions. One motion proposed extending the prior ethics guidance from the immediately preceding legislative session to the full biennium and applying it to social media, but that motion failed. Members then shifted toward a brighter-line approach tied to the primary election date, with discussion that after the primary officials should not use state resources to talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to ballot challenge. A second motion to use the primary date as the cutoff for monitoring these discussions was made, seconded, and passed. The chair then noted that officials are still free to speak on personal or campaign accounts, and to respond to questions, but the board’s guidance would help distinguish permissible official communications from campaign-like advocacy. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• ballot be better?
• ballot be better?
• an August ballot.
• And I would anticipate whether it was on a June ballot, an August ballot, or a November ballot, there's
• And in many senses, we are fast-tracking this onto a ballot, specifically the August ballot.

Bills: HB4028 , HB4029 , HB4059 , HB4063 , HB4073 , HB4074 , HB4075 , HB4076 , HB4077 , HB4078 , SB1130 , SB1131 , SB1132 , SB1133 , SB1134 , SB1142

Committee: House Joint Committee on Appropriations and Budget

Keywords: tax deduction, venture capital, economic development, Oklahoma, investment, ALS, funding, healthcare, State Department of Health, emergency declaration, public finance, state budget, financial regulations, monetary policy, referendum, constitutional amendments, special election, Oklahoma legislature, public voting, recovery fund

Summary: The committee considered a series of bills largely focused on reappropriating and closing out ARPA-related funds, transferring interest earnings, and filling funding gaps in existing state projects. Measures included funding for the Health Care Workforce Training Commission, juvenile services in Rogers County, rural hospital rebuild projects, DHS-related projects for Boys and Girls Clubs and the YWCA, water and wastewater projects through the OWRB, ALS grant limits for OSDH, pandemic relief accounting, administrative costs for ARPA projects, pediatric cardiology and OSU-related projects, rural industrial park and port water/wastewater gaps, and emergency response grants through the Department of Emergency Management. Most of these bills were presented by Rep. Newton, Chairman Caldwell, Speaker Hilbert, Rep. Osborne, Rep. Hill, and others, with committee substitutes adopted without objection where noted. One bill, House Bill 4028, drew the most discussion. It would extend the sunset on the qualified equity investment deduction for venture capital investments. Members questioned the lack of program-specific evaluation data, including return on investment, jobs created, and how much of the tax deduction had actually been used. The sponsor said the program had helped grow Oklahoma venture capital and that he would seek better data, but argued the sunset should be extended for now. The bill passed 23-6. Another extended exchange centered on House Bill 4063, which combined measures related to placing state questions on the August ballot, including HJR 1024 and a bill tied to House Bill 1440. Members raised concerns about single-subject issues, ballot timing, voter turnout, and whether combining the measures limited legislators’ options. The Speaker defended the approach as election-related and noted prior precedent. The bill passed 23-6. The remaining bills were approved overwhelmingly, generally by votes of 27-0, 28-0, or 29-0, and were reported out with due pass recommendations before the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The reason is because it's a ballot measure now.
• Now it's a ballot measure.
• proposition, to make, Regarding a ballot proposition, to make incidental remarks concerning a ballot
• mentioned the ballot measure?
• You should not talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to challenge by a ballot

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The meeting focused on ethics guidance for legislators’ official newsletters and social media posts about a major tax bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members and staff debated whether existing board guidance, which allowed comments on legislation previously before the legislature, should also apply to social media and to the current biennium rather than only the immediately preceding session. Several members argued that legislators should be able to state how they voted on the bill and discuss it as part of their legislative record, while others stressed that using state resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure is prohibited and that posts could become an indirect appeal to voters. The discussion also covered whether there should be a bright-line cutoff tied to the primary election date, after which official communications should stop discussing the bill if it is now a ballot measure. Staff and members raised concerns about tone, tenor, and proximity to the election, and whether official social media, caucus communications, and newsletters should be treated differently. One motion to extend the prior rule to the full biennium and apply it to social media failed. A second motion then passed establishing the primary date as a date certain for monitoring these discussions, with the understanding that official communications should be more limited after that point. Members noted that personal social media and campaign resources remain separate from official legislative resources. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered, before a brief break and executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• an overvote on their ballot, causing the ballot machine to reject the ballot and therefore require a
• ballots by mistake.
• ballots by mistake.
• </c> what's on the ballot. what's on the ballot.
• the ballot to the election official manning the ballot machine, who shall place the ballot in the auxiliary

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That is not a provisional ballot, right?
• For instance, provisional ballot procedures.
• Since our November ballot could have as many as 12 ballot questions, can we convince you, our legislators
• I think the process that's being objected to is not so much how the ballot questions get to the ballot
• , but that they are getting to the ballot.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a hearing on Initiative Petition 25-01, H.5-001, an act relative to election day registration. The co-chairs explained the Article 48 initiative process and noted that the committee must report on the petition to the legislature. The hearing focused on how election day registration differs from same-day registration, how it is used in other states, and what implementation would require in Massachusetts. Three expert witnesses testified in support of the concept. A Northeastern University political science professor said the research shows election day registration would likely increase turnout, especially among younger voters, renters, recent movers, and other underrepresented groups, while requiring planning, training, and funding. A National Conference of State Legislatures policy analyst described how election day and same-day registration work in other states, including proof-of-residency and ID requirements, provisional ballot options in some states, and the need for updated voter systems and staffing. An MIT election administration professor said the proposal is mainstream, likely popular with Massachusetts voters, and administratively workable if the state addresses workload, wait times, and system integration. Committee members asked about costs, residency documentation, use of Real ID, provisional ballots, rural polling places, and whether election day registration could increase lines or discourage advance registration. Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin and volunteer proponent Norma Shulman testified in favor of the petition. They argued that election day registration would help eligible voters who miss deadlines or move before an election, reduce reliance on provisional ballots, and improve participation. Galvin said the proposal includes a 10-day reconciliation period and would likely require additional staffing and possibly technology, but he viewed the reform as worth the cost and consistent with broader election reforms. Shulman said voters she encountered during the signature drive strongly supported the measure and viewed it as common sense. In questioning, Galvin said the measure would help voters who move within a community or arrive at the polls unregistered, and he said many provisional ballots are not counted because of eligibility or registration problems. Opponents from the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association argued that while expanding access is important, election day registration would add to already heavy workloads for local clerks, who are managing early voting, vote-by-mail processing, and election-day operations with limited staff and resources. They said any major election change should be developed through the traditional legislative process with direct input from local officials, and they urged caution until municipalities receive more administrative and financial relief. The hearing then moved into the public testimony section, beginning with a representative from Mass for Fair Elections.

Transcript Highlights:

• or just submitting their ballots by mail in time to be counted. ...or just submitting their ballots
• privacy to a voter's ballot.
• ballots.
• ballots.
• of their home, combined with the reassuring experience of putting their ballot directly into a ballot

Committee: Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Summary: The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments heard several election-related bills. SB 1175 would require lobbyists to file employment changes, terminations, and amendments directly with the Secretary of State through the Cal-Access replacement system, rather than through their employer or firm, to reduce delays and improve transparency. SB 1357 would protect the privacy of voters who sign a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition by omitting signatures and street addresses from the published notice and adding a disclosure explaining that the notice is not itself a petition. Both bills drew support from the Secretary of State’s office and election officials, with no opposition heard in committee. The committee also heard SB 1369, which would add safeguards to judicial recall efforts by requiring disclosure when signature gatherers are paid and shortening the signature-gathering period for judicial recalls from 160 days to 80 days. Supporters, including judges and trial lawyers, said the measure would protect judicial independence and safety amid what they described as politically motivated recall campaigns; one member raised concerns about treating judges differently from other officials. SB 1414 would create an independent redistricting commission for San Bernardino County, modeled on other California jurisdictions, to draw supervisorial districts through a more transparent process. It had support from good-government groups and only limited concerns from the county, which said it wanted further amendments. The committee then heard SB 970, which would direct the Secretary of State to develop regulations allowing military and overseas voters to return ballots electronically, with the author saying California should modernize as fax service declines and mail service becomes less reliable. County election officials and veterans’ groups supported the bill, while the Secretary of State’s office and voting-security advocates opposed it, arguing that secure electronic ballot return is not currently feasible and could conflict with existing law. SB 1420 would expand voter education and guidance around “sign, scan, and go” voting, which lets voters cast a vote-by-mail ballot in person at a voting site; supporters said it can speed processing and improve voter convenience, while the Secretary of State’s office sought more clarity on double-voting safeguards. SB 1310 would allow limited information from jury questionnaires to be shared with election officials to help identify possible voter-registration issues, but opponents warned it could lead to wrongful purges and harm eligible voters. All bills were voted out of committee, with SB 1175 and SB 1357 receiving unanimous support, SB 1369 and SB 1414 passing on 4-1 votes, and SB 970, SB 1420, and SB 1310 passing unanimously or near-unanimously after absent members were added on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• or just submitting their ballots by mail in time to be counted. or just submitting their ballots by
• privacy to a voter's ballot.
• ballots.
• ballots.
• of their home, combined with the reassuring experience of putting their ballot directly into a ballot

Committee: Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and sample ballots.
• and sample ballots.
• and ballot envelopes.
• process for sample ballots.
• </c> the mailing process for sample ballots. the mailing process for sample ballots.

Committee: Senate Elections

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ballot, returning them to the precinct, and then the counting of those ballots that caused them to be
• You had eligible voters who were given ballots, allowed to vote, and their ballots were lost.
• These ballots were, in fact, put into the ballot box, as we heard Mr. Zoll say.
• If a ballot is marked, right, then the ballot must be given effect, no matter how crude the mark might
• I just find it troubling that we're accepting ballots, we're accepting testimony on ballots that don't

Committee: House Ethics

Transcript Highlights:

• ...with less than 1% on provisional ballots.
• But we would like to not see it at the ballot.
• So all of those ballots have to be processed.
• So all of those ballots have to be processed.
• So all of those ballots have to be processed.

Summary: The Judiciary and Elections Committee approved the minutes from February 18, February 20, and March 4, 2026, then took up several measures while holding others in reserve. House Bill 2006, which would require counties without a USPS processing and distribution center to mail printed sample ballots 14 days before an election instead of 11, received support from the Association of Counties and passed on a 7-0 vote. House Bill 2167, which would impose liability on the Attorney General for certain public nuisance or consumer fraud actions that are dismissed or found meritless, drew opposition from some members who said it would interfere with the AG’s work, but it passed 4-3. The committee also discussed House Bill 2109, a hands-free driving bill that would increase penalties and expand the prohibition to watching or streaming video on a device; after extensive testimony and concerns about vagueness, dash cameras, CarPlay, navigation, and other in-car systems, the chair held the bill without prejudice for stakeholder discussions. The committee then heard House Concurrent Resolution 2016, which would send to voters a proposal to eliminate county vote centers and on-site early voting and require precinct-based polling places with a 2,500-voter cap per precinct. Testimony from voting rights groups, county officials, and rural and tribal representatives strongly opposed the measure, citing higher costs, more provisional ballots, longer lines, delayed results, and reduced access for voters in rural areas and on the Navajo Nation. County representatives asked for a delayed effective date, funding, a higher precinct cap, and a fallback option if precinct sites cannot be secured. After hearing the testimony, the chair announced the resolution would be held without prejudice until the following week to allow further stakeholder discussions with the sponsor.

Transcript Highlights:

• . ballot. ballot.
• </c> ballot card. ballot card.
• I mark a ballot. I insert I scan system. I mark a ballot.
• The ballot on your left would be the Hart summary ballot, which comes from our ADA-compliant ballot marking
• The ballot on handmark paper ballot.

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Californians like using mail-in ballots, even Republican voters like mail-in ballots.
• But when you mail out the ballot, it means that you have to protect the But when you mail out the ballot
• It diminishes participation using our mail-in ballots, and again, our mail-in ballots should be seen
• Fresno County has holes in their ballot; you can't see Fresno County has holes in their ballot.
• ballot in increases.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on March 25, 2026, with nine measures on the agenda and three bills taken on consent. The committee approved the consent calendar for AB 1736, AB 1853, and AB 2153. The committee also heard several election-related bills, including AB 1993 on ballot-envelope privacy, AB 1788 on nonprofit disclosure of travel payments for elected officials, AB 1560 on barring people convicted of public corruption from lobbying, AB 1539 on presidential and vice-presidential ballot eligibility certifications, AB 1919 on Santa Cruz Metro local tax initiative procedures, and AB 1562 on county selection of poll workers. The chair also noted membership changes and welcomed new and returning members and staff. AB 1993 drew the most debate. The author argued it was a common-sense safeguard to prevent voters’ choices from being visible through ballot-envelope holes, citing a Sacramento County incident and public concern about ballot privacy. County election officials, the Secretary of State’s office, and Disability Rights California opposed the bill, saying the holes also serve accessibility and processing functions, that existing voter instructions already address privacy, and that the measure would create implementation problems and an unfunded mandate. After extended discussion, the committee voted the bill out on a 2-6 roll call and it failed. AB 1788 was supported by the FPPC and the League of Women Voters and passed as amended to Appropriations, with members emphasizing transparency while seeking to avoid unintended coverage of organizations like NCSL and CSG. AB 1560 passed 6-0 despite the Secretary of State’s implementation concerns about how the office would learn of relevant convictions. AB 1539, which would require party representatives to certify presidential and vice-presidential nominees’ constitutional eligibility, passed 7-0 as amended. AB 1919, which would clarify procedures for a Santa Cruz Metro voter initiative to place a transit tax on the ballot, passed 6-2, and AB 1562, which would allow counties to randomly select poll workers, passed 7-1 after discussion about civic engagement, guardrails, and election administration. The committee then completed roll-call adjustments for absent members and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• . ballot. ballot.
• </c> secret ballots. secret ballots.
• </c> official ballot. official ballot.
• We determine the number of absentee ballots. ballots. ballots.
• </c> ballots at all. ballots at all.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference first took up House Bill 158 on public inspection of absentee ballot lists. The Senate explained that its amendment replaced the original bill with a requirement that the Secretary of State review absentee ballot data after each general election and report findings to the committees of jurisdiction, focusing on unusual patterns such as multiple ballots sent to the same address. After a brief caucus, the House agreed to the Senate position, and members voted individually to concur. The committee then discussed House Bill 281, which concerns making the electronic voter checklist available in a sortable format. The main dispute was whether the public list should include the mailing address where an absentee ballot was sent if it differs from the voter’s registered address. The Senate argued that including mailing addresses could expose where voters actually live or are away from home and could create safety concerns, while the House argued the information could help candidates reach voters and was not primarily a fraud measure. The parties also discussed a related nursing home verification provision and record-retention/public-records questions. After caucusing, the House agreed to the Senate’s position with the added nursing home signing language, and the committee closed the bill on consent. House Bill 340, concerning electioneering by public employees, was then taken up with a Senate amendment that narrowed the definition of electioneering by tying it to existing statutory language, added a prohibition on expressly or primarily political surveys, and created a civil penalty option alongside the misdemeanor penalty. Senators and representatives debated whether the penalties should be mandatory or discretionary and how the language would apply to certain categories of public employees. After further clarification and caucus, the House accepted the Senate’s amended replace-all language, and the committee closed HB 340. Finally, the committee opened House Bill 1062, authorizing the Secretary of State to conduct random audits of citizenship qualifications of registered voters. The Senate explained that its changes removed the need for a permanent audit power by allowing records to be checked against databases and by requiring identification for registration going forward, which is why it added a sunset clause. The House member objected to the sunset and wanted the authority to continue indefinitely, and discussion continued as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a constitutional ballot referral.
• They hold on to that ballot.
• What I'm referring to is the voters who get an early ballot by mail, fill out that early ballot, and
• The voter who goes in person gets a ballot and leaves with the ballot? That's not permitted by law.
• Mexico banned mail-in balloting. Russia. Israel has been mail-in balloting.

Bills: HB2009 , HB2022 , HCM2001 , HCM2002 , HCM2004 , HCR2001 , HM2001 , HM2004

Committee: House Federalism, Military Affairs & Elections

Keywords: campaign contributions, foreign contributions, constitutional amendments, public disclosure, Arizona Revised Statutes, elections, voter registration, provisional ballots, primary election, voter participation, Muslim Brotherhood, terrorism, foreign terrorist organization, national security, Islamist extremism, Congress, Arizona, domestic security, CAIR, terrorist organization

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, curious if these are going to be on the November ballot, why would the August ballot be better
• Speaker, curious if these are going to be on the November ballot, why would the August ballot be better
• So Then, wouldn't the November ballot be a better ballot because there would be more Oklahomans voting
• Do you anticipate that the August ballot will have a higher turnout than the November ballot.
• , an August ballot, a November ballot.

Bills: HB4028 , HB4029 , HB4059 , HB4063 , HB4073 , HB4074 , HB4075 , HB4076 , HB4077 , HB4078 , SB1130 , SB1131 , SB1132 , SB1133 , SB1134 , SB1142 , HB4028 , HB4029 , HB4059 , HB4063 , HB4073 , HB4074 , HB4075 , HB4076 , HB4077 , HB4078 , SB1130 , SB1131 , SB1132 , SB1133 , SB1134 , SB1142

Committee: House Joint Committee on Appropriations and Budget

Keywords: tax deduction, venture capital, economic development, Oklahoma, investment, ALS, funding, healthcare, State Department of Health, emergency declaration, public finance, state budget, financial regulations, monetary policy, referendum, constitutional amendments, special election, Oklahoma legislature, public voting, recovery fund

Transcript Highlights:

• privacy to a voter's ballot.
• ballots.
• as in-person ballots at voting sites.
• type correctness and ensure ballot secrecy.
• of their home, combined with the reassuring experience of putting their ballot directly into a ballot

Summary: The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments heard several election-related bills. SB 1175 by Senator Rubio would require lobbyists to file employment changes and terminations directly with the Secretary of State through the new Cal-Access replacement system, rather than through employers or firms, to reduce delays and improve transparency. SB 1357 by Senator Ochoa Bogh would protect the privacy of voters who sign a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition by omitting signatures and street addresses from the published notice and adding a disclosure explaining the notice’s purpose. Both bills drew support from state election officials and were advanced by committee vote. The committee also heard SB 1369 by Senator Reyes, which would add safeguards to judicial recall efforts by requiring oral disclosure when signature gatherers are paid and shortening the signature-gathering period for judicial recalls from 160 days to 80 days. Supporters, including judges and trial lawyers, argued the bill would protect judicial independence and safety amid recent recall efforts, while one senator questioned whether judges should be treated differently from other officials. The bill passed on a 3-1 vote and was re-referred to the Senate Committee on Public Safety. SB 1414, also by Senator Reyes, would create an independent redistricting commission for San Bernardino County; supporters said it would reduce gerrymandering and improve public trust, while county representatives raised concerns but remained open to amendments. It advanced on a 3-1 vote to the Local Government Committee. SB 970 by Senator Cervantes would direct the Secretary of State to adopt regulations allowing military and overseas voters to return ballots electronically, responding to the loss of the federal DOD fax service and mail delays. County election officials and veterans groups supported the bill, while the Secretary of State’s office and voting integrity groups opposed it, arguing that secure electronic ballot return is not feasible and could conflict with existing law. The bill passed 4-0 to Appropriations. The committee also heard SB 1420 by Senator Richardson, which would expand voter awareness of “sign, scan, and go” voting and require guidance on implementation; it was supported by election officials and advocacy groups and advanced to Appropriations. Finally, SB 1310 by Senator Choi would allow limited sharing of jury questionnaire information with election officials to help update voter rolls, but opponents warned it could lead to erroneous voter cancellations; the author narrowed the bill’s scope in response to concerns, and it passed to Judiciary. Several bills were held on call briefly until absent members were added, after which the committee completed its business and adjourned.