Print đź–¨

The House Committee on Constitutional Rights & Remedies met on August 23 to take up SB 6 (Huffman), HB 20 (Cain), and SB 1 (Huffman). Part one of the hearing can be found here, and part two of the hearing can be found here.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Opening Comments

  • Chair Ashby – Will be voting on SB 6, then hearing HB 20, then SB 1; if necessary, will recess for the floor at 4:00 p.m. and return after
  • Will be hearing a CS to SB 1

 

SB 6 (Huffman) Relating to rules for setting the amount of bail, to the release of certain defendants on a monetary bond or personal bond, to related duties of certain officers taking bail bonds and of a magistrate in a criminal case, to charitable bail organizations, and to the reporting of information pertaining to bail bonds.

  • CS laid out
  • Chair Ashby – Reflects changes many expressed to bill, removes provisions related to charitable bail orgs, gives OCA more time to dev programs
  • CS adopted

 

CSSB 6 voted out (9-5)

 

HB 20 (Cain) Relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages.

  • CS laid out
  • Cain – Lays out history of issue, requires social media to publicly disclose how the platform selects content, requires complaint procedure for unallowed or illegal content, must remove illegal content within 48 hours, provide description of way content was removed
  • Draws distinction between removing posts based on viewpoint and based on content
  • Prohibits political or religious emails from being blocked by service providers
  • CS changes reporting to biannual report, extends timeline for social media to respond to complaints
  • Bucy – What is your inspiration for this bill?
    • Cain – Had a similar bill drafted in 2017
  • Bucy – What was your inspiration in 2017, trying to figure out the problem we’re solving?
    • Have witnesses who can explain concerns, social media is acting as a common carrier
  • Bucy – How’d you come up with the 50 million threshold?
    • Kind of a shot in the air, advised on this issue; tried to craft something that was constitutional
  • Bucy – So you had this idea in 2017, someone in Florida had this idea too; you working on the same agenda?
    • Movement across the country, my voters are concerned about this
  • Bucy – Voters, not constituents?
    • Appreciate you being here
  • Bucy – Trying to work, but you’re not answering my questions
  • Bucy – What businesses are we going to catch in the threshold?
    • YouTube, Tik Tok, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Facebook; wouldn’t catch Reddit, Twitch
  • Bucy – What’s not classified? There are companies under 50 million out there? Wondering why we’re choosing businesses to attack in Texas
    • Anyone under 50 million; size is based on competition
  • Bucy – You mentioned multiple competitors; is it necessary to participate on Facebook?
    • Treat freight and phones similarly
  • Bucy – What is the definition of common carrier
    • Private entity that moves freight or goods for hire, exceptions being dangerous goods
  • Bucy – What fee do you pay to be on Facebook
    • Pay advertisers, etc., companies pay to be on it
    • Akin to common carriers
  • Bucy – What do you pay to be on Facebook?
    • I pay to advertise
  • Bucy – So you’re redefining common carrier
    • No, bill states “akin” to common carrier
  • Bucy – What would the user experience be like on social media after this law passes?
    • People would be informed about why their content is restricted
  • Bucy – What type of content can be restricted? Holocaust denial?
    • Holocaust denial absolutely could be blocked
  • Bucy – How do we get an answer on this? Lawsuits paid by taxpayer dollars?
    • Don’t think taxpayer dollars would be involved
  • Bucy – Why are we using a US threshold?
    • May have a witness who can better answer this
  • Bucy – Business of Texas is business, have a bill that is an attack on business and trying to understand why we’re doing that
  • Bucy – Have you had personal experience with this? Tell me about this?
    • Had an experience with Beto O’Rourke, posted “my AR is ready for you” and was suspended for 180 days
  • Bucy – You disagree with Twitter suspension when you make a threat on someone’s life; under your law what would happen
    • Wouldn’t be able to do anything about it right now
  • Bucy – What would happen if you say something like that again
    • They would tell you the exact reason, if this was illegitimate you could bring suit
  • Bucy – You’d go to AG?
    • You could bring your own lawsuit, AG can take what cases they choose
  • Bucy – What is the status of the Florida bill right now?
    • Preliminary injunction, made drafting changes to this bill to avoid Florida’s issues, e.g. Florida bill prohibited banning candidates
    • Florida bill did not prohibit viewpoint discrimination
  • Bucy – Do you believe social media platforms are private companies?
    • Yes
  • Bucy – Why are we going to regulate them?
    • Due to their size
  • Bucy – Are we going to regulate Walmart being able to remove people for behavior
    • Slightly less akin to a common carrier
  • Bucy – Slightly less akin? Neither meets definition of common carrier, being akin isn’t the same; no cost
  • Bucy – What is the line you’re willing to cross on regulating private business?
    • Do you support the eviction moratorium
  • Bucy – This is a private business regulation bill, restricting their speech; frustrating that we would show up for a war on business; won’t even talk about inspiration, tied to the Big Lie
  • Ann Johnson – References users in state, are you trying to avoid interstate commerce and federal regulation issues?
    • Wasn’t in my mind
  • Johnson – You were also part of legislation this past session on silencers, required only in-state action, and could be an attempt to avoid federal regulation
    • Has to do with cause of action
  • Johnson – Have you ever tried a human trafficking case?
    • No, but I bet you’re going to tell us about how you were a prosecutor
  • Johnson – Appreciate that; in human trafficking cases interstate commerce issues are often used to prosecute; if there is an unintended consequence of being unable to prosecute human traffickers, would you be willing to look at this?
    • If there was a definite issue would look at it, novel issue no one has raised before
    • Bill does speak to sex trafficking
  • Johnson – Probably in response to FOSTA and SESTA? Would you consider that your definition may conflict with legitimate prosecution purposes?
    • Open to all type of legitimate discourse
  • Johnson – On the 50 million users, could you tell us who the ones are who will testify today on this?
    • Wasn’t able to get as many witnesses as I would have liked, have Scott McCullough today
  • Chair Ashby – We do have a number of industry reps for many different sizes testifying today
  • Johnson – Could you give us a heads up on who these experts are who could testify on the 50 million
    • There are people out of state who helped us on that number
  • Johnson – Reason for 50 million is to create concept of common carrier, but they do not transport people, goods, or services? Is Amazon a common carrier?
    • Amazon is not part of the bill, certain companies can be akin to common carriers
  • Johnson – Typically has to do with monopolies, Amazon still likely isn’t a common carrier; are you suggesting that government needs to step in and modify your business when you get large?
    • State has an interest in protecting rights for large companies
  • Johnson – Is it your opinion that these large companies tend to lean towards a liberal setting?
    • Some may say that, bill applies to all content; bill doesn’t touch warning messages
  • Johnson – Not touching My Space, Parler, Gab; Parler is more conservative?
    • Trying to avoid social media platforms
  • Johnson – Highlights media being perceived partisan in general
  • Johnson – What is the definition of content versus viewpoint?
    • Content is what is contained in the expression, foul language could be excluded
  • Johnson – Business could cap their userbase at 49 million and avoid the law?
    • Someone could do that
  • Johnson – Requiring companies to provide info on business practices, developed algorithms; requiring private companies to disclose trade secrets?
    • No, provision limits it to within IP law
  • Johnson – If disclosing an algorithm is protected by IP law, why is it in here?
    • Bill is asking companies to explain manner
  • Johnson – Can you tell us your distinction on which social media platforms have been given gov funding
    • All participants benefit from the means that have been supported by gov funds
  • Johnson – What if someone spreads info on holocaust denial?
    • Can be removed if it falls under the bill provisions
  • Johnson – Why do we give so much power to the AG?
    • Applies to disclosure requirements
  • Johnson – Also allowing a user to bring an action for removed content; could allow thousands of individuals to bring a lawsuit on posts removed
    • Possibly, but bill does apply retroactively
  • Johnson – Are you suggesting that the filing fee will cover costs incurred from large amount of lawsuits
    • Anyone bringing litigation will act in a risk averse way, will only get attorneys’ fees
    • AG’s Office has determined
  • Johnson – So the LBB determined that despite potential for a flood a lawsuits, there would be no impact? Not just undetermined?
    • This is my understanding; not here to speak on hypotheticals

 

Spotlight Public Testimony for HB 20

Steve DelBianco, Net Choice – Against

  • Bill is bad for conservatives and would be overturned in court, First Amendment does not restrict rights of public entity who are not performing exclusive functions
  • Chair Ashby –
    • Facebook, Twitter, Tik Tok, Ebay
  • Thompson – What is the threshold for the Florida law?
    • Florida law had thresholds in it, but judge didn’t look at this, only looked at whether the state can compel private actors
    • Questioning on 50 million would help to prove targeting, could come up in a Texas lawsuit
  • Thompson – What are some of the criteria you use to exclude content?
    • Each platform sets criteria to create communities they want to cultivate, changes over time; there is transparency and community guidelines are posted
    • Public safety and health are concerns, but standards are up to them and have nothing to do with Sec. 230
  • Johnson – Asks after Sec. 230 distinction and First Amendment concerns
    • First Amendment allows these companies to moderate their content
  • Johnson – 50 million and common carrier issue?
    • Once someone is designated a common carrier, they still have first amendment protections & cannot be forced to act
    • Common carrier designation doesn’t fit on these companies at all

 

Michael Belsick, Self – For

  • Supports bill, concerned about censorship

 

Don Garner, Texas Faith & Freedom Coalition – For

  • Agree with premise that large social media companies are common carriers, have virtual monopoly, support private action under the bill

 

Tom Giovanetti, Institute for Policy Innovation – Against

  • Doomed to fail First Amendment scrutiny, gov not able to compel businesses to speak or host speech; similar to the Colorado case where the baker did not want to host certain speech
  • Thompson – Wanted to hear more
    • Conservatives are not being consistent on First Amendment, cannot compel the Colorado baker in the same way gov cannot compel social media
    • Most of the other details don’t matter, idea fails first level constitutional analysis
  • Thompson – So if this bill was law, social media companies would need to go to court
    • Creates enormous and costly legal friction; private rights of action are typically anathema to conservatives
  • Thompson – So this bill is a lawyer’s paradise?
    • Legislative branch has an obligation to apply and interpret the Constitution, judicial branch doesn’t have sole right to do this
    • Should not move a bill that you strongly suspect is unconstitutional

 

Paul Hobson, Grassroots Gold – For

  • Not good to encourage separation of viewpoints on social media

 

Janet Marianni, Self – For

  • Big tech was given a deal under Sec. 230, not moderating platforms transparently; HB 20 brings transparency and accountability to editorial process

 

Mary Krenneck, Self – For

  • Facebook, Google, and others are unconstitutionally censoring individuals

 

Rep. Cain Closes

  • Cain – Highlights definition of censorship, social media platforms acting and preventing users from interaction; would not open private action for users not being able to view certain posts
  • 50 million number was arrived at after consultation with stakeholders
  • Johnson – Can we clarify the provision on the private cause of action?
    • Reading in context it is likely clear that it needs action against a user; can look at clarifying language, and also for big box stores

 

SB 1 (Hughes) Relating to election integrity and security, including by preventing fraud in the conduct of elections in this state; increasing criminal penalties; creating criminal offenses; providing civil penalties.

  • Chair Ashby – Proposed CS is available on the web here; CS is identical to the bill considered int eh 14 hour hearing last month
  • Chair Ashby – Sponsor layout and questions will be limited to 40 minutes
  • CS laid out
  • Thompson – 14 hours of testimony on the bill previously, will the record also include dialogue of members of the committee? Rep. Neave’s statements
    • Chair Ashby – Correct, entire discussion is already submitted for the record
  • Murr lays out CS & bill – Identical to HB 3 previously filed, had a 5 hour layout previously and responses should be the same or similar now
  • Murr – CS contains language offered by both Republicans and Democrats, viewpoints are being considered regardless of affiliation
  • Does not contain Souls to the Polls provision or election overturning provision
  • Intent of bill is to make election code uniform to reduce likelihood of fraud, protect ballot secrecy, and ensure all votes are counted
  • Thompson – Identical to what was heard in the First Special?
    • Murr – Yes, identical to what was filed in First Special and Second Special
  • Thompson – Have you thought about improvements on the poll watcher provision?
    • Reviewed the majority of the previous 14-hour hearing, biggest concern seemed lack of training or guidelines
    • SB discusses some training, have spoken to other House members on how additional training could be beneficial
  • Thompson – Would the training just be a manual?
    • Important that watchers understand roll does not include interaction with voters, part of the oath included in the bill
  • Thompson – Since additional powers are going to be given to watchers do you think manual may not be able to address the issues?
    • Texas law makes it illegal for a watcher to invade space of a voter while voting
    • Need to make sure watchers understand the restrictions in place in current law
  • Thompson – Highlights groups that come to primarily minority districts, incl. King Street Patriots hovering over those trying to cast ballots; if this does happen, what is the criminal penalty imposed?
    • Sounds like violations of state law; watcher is not there to observe voters, sounds like these watchers were not observing election process as directed
    • Election official would also be able to remove the watcher for violating the law
  • Thompson – King Street Patriots were training watchers to deliberately intimidate
    • Oath includes affirmation that the watcher will not harass the voter, intimidation tactic
  • Thompson – What is the penalty?
    • Removal
  • Thompson – But if the watcher felt like they were not removed properly, the election official could get charged with a felony
    • Presiding judge can also call law enforcement, watcher would be violating oath which is violation of law
  • Thompson – Watchers must be observed by clerk and the election judge themselves, why?
    • Anecdotally, perception of violation may or may not have actually been a violation
    • Second observation could indicate intentional conduct
  • Thompson – What is the rational of giving watchers opportunities to pace the floor while count is going on
    • Watchers are there to watch the election process
  • Thompson – How many watchers can you have in a particular area?
    • Watchers are typically volunteers, probably not that many available to all candidates; won’t always find enough people to serve as watchers
  • Thompson – 10k watchers were recruited to police minority areas in Harris counties
  • Thompson – Do you think election day should be a holiday?
    • Becomes a de facto county holiday, no prohibition on cities or counties declaring election day to be a holiday
  • Bucy – Everything mentioned last time is transferred to the record?
    • Chair Ashby – Testimony has been preserved in accordance with House rules, this testimony will also be preserved
  • Bucy – Can you describe free movement? New provision for poll watchers
    • Murr – Had issues during COVID where watchers were placed far away from election activity and weren’t allowed to move
  • Bucy – Election judge cannot restrict?
    • Eyes and ears of candidates have opportunity to observe election officials, policy intent is to ensure they are able to do this
  • Bucy – Thought we were gong to see positive changes from the 14-hour hearing, but have the same bill before us
    • Same bill from where we paused at the last hearing, discussions have continued between members, constituents, and stakeholders
    • Will be entertaining floor amendments, changes are yet to come
  • Bucy – Had previous concerns on ID numbers not matching
    • Goal is to ensure issues are taken care of & no matter which number is being used your vote will be counted
  • Bucy – New reqs in bill on assistants, why does bill concern itself with info from relatives
    • Goal is to minimize likelihood of fraud that could happen in an election
  • Johnson – Everything in record previously is part of the record on this bill?
    • Chair Ashby – Part of the public record
    • Murr – Would respond to same or similar questions with same or similar responses
  • Johnson – 24-hour voting is being taken away, have you had a chance to look at racial impact of these policies?
    • Disagree with idea that 24-hour voting is being taken away
  • Johnson – Reducing 100k threshold to 55k for voting hour restrictions
    • Disagree we’re taking this away, traditionally it is a minimum of 8 hours; no one had tried 24 hour process before the pandemic
  • Johnson – Since the previous hearing, have you had a chance to look at racial impact?
    • No, have not
  • Johnson – Why can’t we apply reqs to poll watchers similar to registrars
    • Watchers do not have same responsibility, don’t disagree that some type of training may be good
  • Johnson – Would you be open to making them the same?
    • Happy to discuss, don’t agree initially that they should be the same
  • Chair Ashby – Recognizes Rep. moody, notes there is 3 minutes left in the
  • Moody – Will you entertain a motion to extend time after this?
    • Chair Ashby – Would not be recognized for that, discretion of chair to limit given the previous extensive testimony
  • Moody – Answer that you had not done any impact studies is the same?
    • Murr – Correct
  • Moody – Any intent to do this
    • No, not aware of agencies to request info from
  • Moody – Cities and counties can institute election holidays now?
    • That is my understanding
  • Moody – Would you be willing to look at explicitly preserving this in this bill?
    • Bill also allows employees to take off work during early voting; don’t know that this is necessary given counties and cities can declare these holidays for employees
  • Moody – Can we explicitly say this here given the recent tension between state and local govs?
    • Purpose here is to give time off for people to go vote, current law already provides that employees cannot be punished for going to vote on election day

 

Spotlight on Public Testimony for SB 1

Ann Robinson, Paralyzed Veterans of America – For

  • Appreciates work done to ensure integrity of voting process,
  • Signature looks significantly different in multiple instances for some disabled individuals; would like provision to accommodate these individuals like unique identifier that could be matched

 

Courtney Pugh, The Arc of Texas – For

  • Highlights difficulty of accessing polling locations and voting with a wheelchair; signature is often not similar for disabled individuals and could lead to votes being discarded

 

Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen – Against

  • Not seeing large numbers of fraud investigations or convictions; haven’t seen a conviction for cases of intentional fraud
  • Online tracker is great, being able to cure defects online is great, but no mandate on counties to notify, people will need to use the tracker and identify issues themselves
  • No provisions to remotely cure issues with signatures
  • Highlights Rep. Thompson’s accounts of watcher intimidation
  • Thompson – Asks Shelley to continue
    • Impact statements were powerful, experience of people of color in voting is likely very different from others
  • Thompson – Spoke on the tracker and opportunity to cure?
    • Opportunity to cure some defects but not others, need consistency across counties, counties need to notify voters of issues
  • Thompson – Do you think large counties should have option of using drive thru voting or not?
    • Yes, want everyone to have an equal chance to vote, equal chance will mean something different in large counties, need all hours and methods possible
  • Lozano – There has never been a conviction of an intentional case of voter fraud?
    • My understanding
  • Lozano – There have been many, Dallas man plead guilty to voter fraud in 2017 and was responsible for one tainted ballot
  • Bucy – Whether there’s been one case or not, we’re talking about a fraction of a fraction, majority of what the bill would do is make it harder to vote
    • Yes, willing to believe there are cases, but a very small number have been vilified in the press for political reasons
  • Bucy – How does this restrict voting hours?
    • During administration of last election in Harris there were increased hours, nothing in the law restricted this increased hours, but bill implements restrictions
  • Shaheen – Allowing for 15 hours a day during earlier voting
    • Restricting voting hours for counties like Harris that had 24 hours
  • Lozano – New restrictions constitute voter suppression?
    • New provisions are restricting hours and could impact ability
  • Lozano – Highlights previous legislation that increased requirements for mail in voting, was not suppression

 

Donna Isles, Self – For

  • Should include copy of ID with signature for mail-in voting
  • Should be unlawful to distribute mail-in ballots if any portion is already filled out

 

Bob Kafka, REV UP Texas – Against

  • Disability vote is growing, some provisions in the bill will harm this growth

 

Robert Green, Travis County Republican Party Elections Integrity Committee – For

  • Supports legislation, no reason to oppose scrubbing of voter rolls, punishing those who violate elections code, election transparency with observation by watchers

 

Colleen Vera, Self – For

  • Uses PIR system to investigate ballot fraud, found evidence of 3 voters who were deceased registering for mail-in ballots

 

David Jacoby, Dallas County Republican Party Election Integrity Committee – For

  • Supports bill, concerned about fraud at the counting stage and election hacks
  • Dallas County has been given several election code waivers

 

Chris Vasquez, Self – Against

  • Hearings being conducted under an illegal quorum

 

David Billings, Stand Up Republic Texas – Against

  • 2020 elections were safe & secure, run well by local officials

 

Melissa O’Brian, Self – For

  • Supports bill, served as poll watcher

 

Stephanie Gomez, Common Cause Texas – Against

  • Anti-voter bill boosting a partisan issue, will make it harder for all Texans to vote, especially minority communities

 

Roy Sanchez, AFSCME HOPE Local 123 – Against

  • 24-hour and drive thru voting was used by many shift workers during the 2020 election

 

James Dickey, Self – For

  • Bill treats all Texans equally in voting with reasonable accommodations to early and absentee voting; some areas of the state took actions that were not intended or foreseen, closing loopholes

 

Katya Iruzhman, Common Cause Texas – Against

  • Texas is one of the most difficult states to vote in, significant issues like COVID, Winter Storm Uri still exist

 

Shannon Rust, Self – For

  • Appreciates voter registration, mail-in ballot, and poll watchers
  • Should have transparent, auditable elections with access to all materials, shortened timelines between early voting and election day, and remove waivers

 

Susan Hayes, Self – Against

  • Concerned about the specific legal language in the bill regarding poll watchers, recommends changes based on experience as an Attorney
  • Geren – Would some social distancing language in the bill between poll workers and the voters appease you?
    • Yes, there should be measures in place to provide balance between election workers and voters
  • Johnson – Can you send us what you have in writing? The specific language you think would improve the bill
    • Yes

 

Dr. Laura Pressley, True Texas Elections LLC – Neutral

  • Concerned with the obstruction of poll watchers getting to their official posts
  • Company trains poll workers to do their job and be deployed at last minute’s notice
  • Clardy – In regard to poll watchers, we don’t have any standards with which they’d be trained; is this concerning to you?
    • It is important for them to be trained; supports proposal of adding a training manual
  • Clardy – Did you do in-person, hands-on training?
    • Yes
  • Clardy – You don’t want to limit training to where it’s a burden, but some sort of virtual/interactive program could suffice; do you agree?
    • We have trouble finding volunteers to be poll watchers; need to fill spots quickly, need to get people out there; a manual would be easy and quick
    • Concerned that a mandatory state training program would deter volunteers
  • Clardy – Want to find a balance between training and the burden it imposes; poll watchers need to understand what is permissible, which doesn’t come from being handed a manual
    • Not when amount of training required limits a candidate from deploying a poll watcher to remedy issues on election day
  • Clardy – You don’t deploy untrained personnel; need good/solid training; how do you train your workers?
    • Spend 2 hours with each poll watcher in training, give them all the election codes
    • Judge has the final say as to whether or not poll watchers stay
  • Clardy – More training will reduce the problems poll workers have had in the past
  • Geren – The problem exists at central count, not necessarily at the polls; there’s one central count per county, so candidates can have people properly trained to be there
    • More complicated than that, central count has a lot of flexibility in when they can open
    • Can’t trust when central count will start and when poll watchers need to be there
  • Johnson – You’re concerned about burden on participation; why can’t we make poll watchers do the same kind of training that deputy voter registrars do?
    • Being a poll watcher is not fun, it’s an ugly job
  • Johnson – You keep saying deployment, that poll watchers are going into war; what do you mean?
    • Poll watchers have been not allowed to sit, go to the bathroom; hostile environment for poll watchers
  • Johnson – What wars are poll workers fighting in other counties? Doesn’t think there are wars
    • Respectfully disagrees, tells anecdotal stories about poll watcher’s abilities being limited
    • Not easy to detect fraud in elections in TX because of limitations in the voting software

 

Keith Ingram, Resource Witness, Director of Elections from Secretary of State’s Office

  • Bucy – Relating to concept that information must be supplied by person registered to vote; what does this mean exactly? For blind voters?
    • Voter just has to supply information, those with disabilities can be assisted in filling out the form
  • Bucy – Unlawful voting or registration, is this a common occurrence? Can online voter registration eliminate accidental voter registration?
    • No
    • Potentially; establishes a check to stop the process so they can’t register if they are not eligible
  • Bucy – Regarding polling locations and movable structures, do you see any need for exceptions for certain emergency situations?
    • Current bill language would not prevent emergency set-up; would do that with Commissioner’s Court vote
  • Bucy – Any security issues you have with people voting after 10 pm?
    • Process is the same regardless of hour; only concern is rotating out poll watchers
  • Bucy – Topic regarding poll watchers is where we get greatest concern regarding this bill; what does warning system mean?
    • Presiding judge has the give warning if someone violates election code; not sure what necessitates warning versus a call to law enforcement?
    • Based on bill language, first offense does not have to be witnessed by election judge, but second offense needs to be observed by election judge
  • Bucy – Ink on paper clause; hasn’t there been a lawsuit regarding this language?
    • Yes, lawsuit is pending; can’t comment
  • Bucy – Have heard from disability community that they want to use a signature stamp; would have to put it in the bill to let them do that; what do you think?
    • A policy choice for you to make; if something isn;t in election code, it isn’t allowed
  • Bucy – Can use a variety of IDs in order to register to vote; want to make sure that changing up which ID number you use doesn’t throw out ballot; what do you think?
    • Want to gather as many ID numbers as possible within voter’s file, so this shouldn’t happen
    • Cure process will be mandatory with this current bill
  • Bucy – Early voting ballot board notetaking, lots of concerns; what are ways in which notes can be taken but privacy be protected?
    • Not sure why members of the board are taking notes; will be on election record so have to leave a copy with county commissioner
    • Not right now, but if bill passes then yes, they will
  • Bucy – Any implications in the bill that would restrict voters with disabilities?
    • No, nothing looks problematic or would violate ADA etc.
  • Bucy – Does this bill create a new perjury offense?
    • Don’t know enough about perjury law
  • Bucy – What is being repealed regarding the election code?
    • Polling places being movable structures
  • Moody – Heard from people in disability community that suggested we add in an avenue for communication between secretary of state, election officials, and disability community; is there a construct today that we could build upon? Would there be a benefit?
    • Not aware of anything like that; we have a working relationship with the disability community
    • Yes, not sure what it would look like or what kind of recommendations it would create but communication would work
    • Need certain things allowed in statutes to solve problems for disability community; communication isn’t going to solve everything
  • White – Nothing in this bill that makes it difficult for troops overseas to vote?
    • No, nothing to make it more complicated
  • Murr closes on the bill

CSSB 1 voted out of committee (9-5)

CSHB 20 voted out of committee (9-5)