Five House elections bills fly through Senate committee, head to the floor

CHEYENNE — A record number of elections-related bills were filed for the 2025 general session, and a majority of them are still in play.
One bill, Senate File 78, 'Distribution of unsolicited absentee ballot request forms,' is already headed to the governor's desk, and others are not far behind. The Legislature's Senate Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee passed five election-related House bills Wednesday night, finishing the work they started last Friday morning.
The proposals in these bills would require proof of residency for voter registration, heighten requirements for independent candidate filings, create a statewide ban on all ballot drop boxes, prohibit the activity of ballot harvesting and amend current laws related to voter fraud.
Committee members had their work cut out for them, having spent three cumulative meetings (one last week and two on Wednesday) taking public testimony and discussing and amending each of the five bills sent over by the House of Representatives.
Last Friday, committee members didn't even get through the first of the five bills, House Bill 131, 'Ballot drop boxes-prohibition,' before time ran out and senators rushed upstairs for the start of the floor session.
Ballot drop box ban
A House bill banning ballot drop boxes in Wyoming received a total of three hours of public testimony, spanning over the course of two meetings, before it was passed Wednesday morning on a 3-2 vote.
Chairman Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, and Sen. Bill Landen, R-Casper, voted against the bill.
Around a dozen or so members of the public, including county clerks, offered anecdotes either in support of or against the ban on ballot drop boxes. Those who testified in support of the bill argued ballot drop boxes are a breach in the 'chain of custody' of elections.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Chris Knapp, R-Gillette, told committee members on Feb. 14 that voters should return to a full reliability on the U.S. Postal Service.
Rep. Christopher Knapp, R-Gillette (2025)
Rep. Christopher Knapp, R-Gillette
'Wyoming is extremely vulnerable due to the low population,' Knapp said. 'I think it's very important that the chain of custody be true in any election, and especially in Wyoming.'
Knapp and supporters of the bill said the Postal Service is a safe and secure way of delivering absentee ballots to the county clerk. Secretary of State Chuck Gray recounted recent attempts to tamper with or destroy ballot drop boxes in Montana, Washington and Oregon.
Chuck Gray mug
Chuck Gray
A video went viral on social media last October of a person, allegedly aligned with the Democratic Party, attempting to remove a ballot drop box from a wall in Glacier County, Montana. However, the person was not successful in removing the ballot drop box from its secured position, 'The National News Desk' reported on NBC Montana.
A spokesperson for Montana Secretary of State Christi Jackson told TNND the individual failed to remove the box and was turned over to Montana law enforcement.
Also last October, ballot boxes were set on fire in Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington, destroying hundreds of ballots, the Associated Press reported. The FBI is offering a $25,000 reward for information related to the ballot drop box fires.
'These incidents illustrate the inherent risks posed by relying on drop boxes, which could undermine public trust in elections and compromise the secure handling of ballots,' Gray said.
'Banning ballot drop boxes would eliminate these vulnerabilities, ensuring that ballots are returned through more secure and regulated channels, such as direct submission and election offices, or via the U.S. Postal Service.'
Wyoming county clerks have previously testified there's never been a reported incident of tampering with ballot boxes in their counties, and they insist these are a safe, secure way of delivering absentee ballots.
Platte County Clerk Malcolm Ervin confirmed to the Wyoming Tribune Eagle there have been no reported tampering incidents with ballot drop boxes in the state. The only anecdote he provided was in Fremont County, where some individuals were concerned with the security of a ballot drop box, but did not tamper with it.
Fremont County Clerk Julie Freese said she has never had an incident of tampering with the ballot drop box since it was installed in 2016.
'Something to note is that former-Secretary (of State Ed) Buchanan's directives regarding drop boxes were the first time security requirements were attached to the use of drop boxes,' Ervin said in an email to the WTE. 'Once those directives expired, the counties who utilized drop boxes agreed upon certain security measures, which were consistent with former-Secretary Buchanan's directives.'
Laramie County Clerk Debra Lee said a combined 5,600 ballots were delivered to the ballot drop box in the 2022 and 2024 election cycles.
The 2024 election cycle accounted for more than 2,000 of those ballots. In contrast, 770 ballots for the 2024 election were returned in person to the county clerk, Lee said.
Debra Lee portrait after Canvassing Board meeting (copy)
Laramie County Clerk Debra Lee poses for a photo after the Laramie County Canvassing Board meeting, where they certified the results of the primary election in the Historic County Courthouse on Aug. 23 in Cheyenne.
'Chain of custody has been mentioned as a reason for this bill, and I would argue chain of custody is a reason to have a drop box,' Lee said.
The Postal Service also announced additional cuts of rural mail carriers last fall, Lee said, which means slower delivery of absentee ballots. With a new change in Wyoming election code creating a shorter window for absentee ballot mail, this could put voters at risk of not getting their ballot counted on Election Day, she said.
'This just underscores, I would say, the need for us to have alternative methods for voters,' Lee said.
Sen. Brian Boner, R-Douglas, successfully brought an amendment to the bill that would allow for a 'secured receptacle' to be placed on the exterior of a courthouse for receiving ballots. Case also successfully amended the bill to provide reimbursement to counties for the removal or relocation of ballot drop boxes.
Firearm v. election regulations
Twice, Chairman Case asked bringers of two different election bills whether firearms should be regulated as heavily as they're pushing to regulate elections.
Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander (2025)
Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander
'So, do you think the right to vote is as important as the right to keep and bear arms?' Case asked. Knapp responded that certain rights rise to that level of importance, before Case interjected.
'Which one's more important?' Case asked.
'I think one ensures that the other one stays important,' Knapp answered.
The chairman repeated his line of questioning Wednesday night, during discussion of another bill, HB 156, that requires proof of residency in voter registration. Critics of the bill argued the new proof of residency requirements could disenfranchise qualified electors, such as senior citizens and individuals without homes, from voting.
If these same regulations were being discussed on gun rights, instead of elections, elected officials and members of the public would be 'prickling right now,' Case said.
'We're talking about people that have the right to vote, and we're making them jump through hoops, unlike with gun rights,' Case said. 'In my mind, the right to vote and the right to carry a firearm are equivalent constitutional rights, guaranteed by different amendments, but fundamental to our democracy.
'So, the more restrictions you put on someone, it's no different than putting restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, as well.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Los Angeles Times

28 minutes ago

• Los Angeles Times

Big state budget questions linger about crime, Medi-Cal, Delta tunnel

SACRAMENTO — California really does still have a Legislature, even if you haven't been reading or hearing much about it. In fact, it's currently making a ton of weighty decisions. They'll affect many millions of Californians — with a gamut of new laws and hefty spending. But the lawmakers' moves have been slipping under the news radar because of our focus on more compelling non-Sacramento events — including protests against overzealous federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, President Trump's power trip of calling up the California National Guard over Gov. Gavin Newsom's objections and Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla's being shoved to the floor and handcuffed for simply trying to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question. Plus congressional wrangling over Trump's 'Big Beautiful' ugly, debt-hiking bill — and the eruption of a Middle East war. Meanwhile, it's one of the busiest and most important periods of the year in the state Capitol. This is budget time, when the Legislature and governor decide how to spend our tax dollars. The Legislature passed a $325-billion so-called budget June 13, beating its constitutional deadline by two days. If it hadn't, the lawmakers would have forfeited their pay. But although that measure counted legally as a budget, it lacked lots of details that still are being negotiated between legislative leaders and Newsom. The final agreements will be tucked into a supplementary measure amending the main budget bill. That will be followed by a long line of 'trailer bills' containing even more policy specifics — all currently being hammered out, mostly in back rooms. The target date for conclusion of this Byzantine process is Friday. The annual budget will take effect July 1. Some budget-related issues are of special interest to me and I've written about them previously. So, the rest of this column is what we call in the news trade a 'follow' — a report on where those matters stand. For starters, there's Proposition 36 funding. Californians cast more votes for Proposition 36 last year than anything else on the ballot. The measure passed with 68% of the vote, carrying all 58 counties. Inspired by escalating retail theft, the initiative toughened penalties for certain property and hard-drug crimes, such as peddling deadly fentanyl. But it offered a carrot to drug-addicted serial criminals. Many could be offered treatment rather than jail time. Proposition 36 needs state money for the treatment, more probation officers to supervise the addicts' progress and additional law enforcement costs. The measure's backers estimate a $250-million annual tab. Newsom, however, was an outspoken opponent of the proposition. He didn't provide any funding for it in his original budget proposal and stiffed it again last month when revising the spending plan. But legislative leaders insisted on some funding and agreed on a one-time appropriation of $110 million. Woefully inadequate, the measure's backers contend. They're pushing for more. But some fear Newsom might even veto the $110 million, although this seems doubtful, given the public anger that could generate. Greg Totten, chief executive of the California District Attorneys Assn., which sponsored the initiative, says more money is especially needed to hire additional probation officers. Treatment without probation won't work, he insists. Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) is trying to change the $110-million allocation mix. There's nothing earmarked for county sheriffs who now are handling lots more arrests, she says. 'I want to make sure we uphold the voters' wishes and are getting people into drug treatment,' Blakespear says. 'This passed by such a high percentage, it should be a priority for elected officials.' Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) predicts the Legislature will still be fiddling with the budget until it adjourns in September and vows: 'I'll continue to advocate for adequate funding for 36.' He asserts the budget now being negotiated won't hold up because of chaos under Trump, who's constantly threatening to withhold federal money due California. Another sticky issue is state-provided healthcare for immigrants living here illegally. Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature decided a few years ago to generously offer all low-income undocumented immigrants access to Medi-Cal, California's version of federal Medicaid for the poor. But unlike Medi-Cal for legal residents, the federal government doesn't kick in money for undocumented people. The state foots the entire bill. And it didn't set aside enough. Predictably, state costs ran several billion dollars over budget. The Newsom administration claims that more adults enrolled in the program than expected. But, come on! When free healthcare is offered to poor people, you should expect a race to enroll. To help balance the books, Newsom proposed $100 monthly premiums. The Legislature reduced that to $30. They both agreed to freeze enrollments for adults starting Jan. 1. The Legislature also wants to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for even more people who are non-citizens: those with what it considers 'unsatisfactory immigration status.' What does that mean? Hopefully it's being negotiated. And there's the matter of the governor's proposed water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Newsom tried to squeeze the controversial issue into the budget process, although it had nothing to do with the budget. But as a budget trailer bill, it could avoid substantive public hearings in the Legislature. The governor wants to 'fast-track' construction of the $20-billion, 45-mile tunnel that would transmit more Northern California water to Southern California. Delta farmers, local residents and coastal salmon interests are adamantly opposed. Fast-track means making it simpler to obtain permits and seize property. Legislative leaders told the governor absolutely 'No': come back later and run his proposal through the ordinary committee process. Don't try to fast-track the Legislature. The must-read: 'A good day': Detained U.S. citizen said agents bragged after arresting dozens at Home Depot The visit: Vice President JD Vance rips Newsom, Bass and mocks Padilla during visit to Los Angeles The L.A. Times Special: Welcome to the deportation resistance, Dodgers. What's next? Until next week,George Skelton —Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Politico

an hour ago

• Politico

Capitol agenda: How Johnson may block an Iran rebuke

President Donald Trump already had Republicans scrambling to get their 'big, beautiful bill' to his desk by next week. Now he's got Congress grappling with something even bigger: the aftermath of his airstrikes on Iran. The issue could come to a head with a vote as soon as this week. Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) resolution requiring congressional approval for military action in Iran ripens on Friday, but is expected to be on the floor sooner with the megabill set to eat up the back half of the week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is pushing to move up the vote. He's urging his party to support the measure, but Democrats expect to lose the vote of Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.). On the GOP side, keep an eye on Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who said Sunday on X 'Congress alone' has the power to authorize war. Lawmakers in both chambers are set to receive briefings Tuesday on the situation in Iran; they were on the books before the strikes. In the House, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna's (D-Calif.) war powers resolution, which would block U.S. involvement in Iran, will not ripen until next week. But House GOP leadership is considering getting ahead of that: Speaker Mike Johnson could move this week to kill the effort with language getting rid of the privileged nature of the resolution, according to a person granted anonymity to relay the private discussions. Trump and GOP leaders are moving to unify the rank-and-file behind Trump's decision to strike, even as Trump openly muses about pursuing regime change in Iran. Take note of Trump's renewed attacks on Massie — a source tells POLITICO it's part of an effort to keep members in line. Adding to the chaos for Republicans is Trump's Sunday evening musing about pursuing 'regime change' in Iran if its current leaders can't 'MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN.' 'This is not America First folks,' Massie said in response to Trump's Truth Social post. House Democrats are less unified. Most are questioning the constitutionality of the strike, but the party is split on where to go from there. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) has brought up impeachment. Others, like Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), were more supportive of the strike. That could be a problem for Democrats trying to strengthen their opposition. The top Democrats on Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Armed Services are drafting their own resolution in response to the strikes, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss the plan. There are likely a handful of pro-Israel Democrats who will vote against any war powers resolution. Even if the bill makes it to a House floor vote there likely won't be enough Republicans. What else we're watching: — Megabill's big week: Republicans will hold a closed-door meeting Monday night after votes for leadership to update members on the GOP megabill and its outstanding issues. Full bill text could land Monday, though it may also slip. While the 'big, beautiful bill' could hit the floor as soon as Wednesday, Thursday is looking more likely. — First Dem oversight vote: House Democrats' steering committee will vote this evening on who should be the party's leader on the Oversight Committee, followed by a full caucus vote Tuesday. California Rep. Robert Garcia, 47, is seen as the favorite in a field split along generational lines. He's running against Reps. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, 44; Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, 76; and Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, 70. — Slashes to GAO funding: House Republican appropriators are proposing to cut funding for the Government Accountability Office by nearly half. It's the latest in a series of flashpoints between the GOP and the watchdog agency, which has been involved in clashes this year over DOGE, regulatory rollbacks and Trump's incursions into the power of the purse. Meredith Lee Hill, Jordain Carney, Nicholas Wu and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Yahoo

2 hours ago

• Yahoo

Week in review: Major universities take steps to rein in budgets

This story was originally published on Higher Ed Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Higher Ed Dive newsletter. The Senate's education committee released its own higher education proposals earlier this month for the sweeping reconciliation bill. While like the House-passed version it seeks to end Grad PLUS loans and add accountability for student outcomes, it also differs from the House bill in key ways. Number of the week 8% The largest excise tax wealthy private colleges could pay on their endowments under a proposal put forward by the Senate Finance Committee — well short of the 21% top rate approved by House Republicans. In the Senate version, the tax would start at the current rate of 1.4% and rise to 4% and 8% depending on a college's endowment assets per student. Florida's Board of Governors cleared a plan to allow the state's universities to hike out-of-state tuition by 10% this fall and 15% the next, Spectrum Local News reported. Individual university boards will ultimately decide on how much to raise tuition. Temple University is projecting a $60 million structural deficit for fiscal year 2026. The university's deans and vice presidents were asked to develop plans to shrink how much they spend on employee compensation by 5% — a move that will require cutting positions, President John Fry said in a community message. Cornell University President Michael Kotlikoff and other top officials said the institution must adopt 'financial austerity' in the face of federal research cuts, potential endowment tax increases, escalating legal expenses, inflation and other cost pressures. The Ivy League institution plans to review programs and positions, restrict hiring and travel expenses, and find ways to streamline operations. A federal judge vacated the National Institute of Health's directives to terminate research grants for projects related to diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge William Young also ordered the agency to reinstate the plaintiffs' canceled research funding, which amounts to roughly 800 grants. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy granted a temporary restraining order blocking the U.S. Department of Defense from implementing a 15% cap on reimbursement for colleges' indirect research costs. Murphy's ruling marks the third agency that has been blocked by a court from carrying out the cuts to federal funding for research overhead. However, another federal judge recently declined to block the U.S. Department of Education's cuts to the Institute of Educational Sciences, which gathers and analyzes higher education data. In rejecting the motion for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled that while the Education Department 'has likely gone too far in downsizing IES,' the associations that sued have not shown that IES is required to operate as it did before the agency's mass layoffs. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data