It just can’t be an accident. It can’t. Every year, the election law bill(s) are just impenetrable. Section after section of a bit of stricken text here, a bit of bold text there, almost like flour being used to thicken up a stew. Then, every so often, a chunk of beef or potato: a long stretch of bold text. This year will be no different. Senate Bill 37 is an election law bill that was prepared by the census data advisory committee. According to the synopsis, it does the following:
Provides that the fee a person must pay to receive a complete compilation of voter registration information contained in the statewide voter registration list is an annual fee and includes the price for receiving updates of voter registration information throughout the year. Provides that an election official may not receive an election law filing that is offered to be filed after a deadline for the filing unless election law provides for the filing after the deadline. Provides that a vacancy in a legislative office last held by an individual who was not a member of a major political party shall be filled in a special election. Requires the county executive to file a copy of an approved precinct establishment order with the county auditor. Provides that a precinct establishment order issued after June 30, 2005, complies with certain polling place accessibility requirements if the order: (1) includes a statement that the precinct meets the requirements; or (2) states that before April 1, 2006, the county will designate a polling place for the precinct that meets the requirements. Conforms statutes to recognize the requirement in current law for electronic transmittal of data between license branches and the statewide voter registration list. Removes or repeals expired, superseded, or obsolete provisions of election law. Corrects erroneous cross-references. Makes technical changes. Updates election schedules.
Obviously it is necessary from time to time to update the law in complicated and comprehensive ways that affect a lot of sections. But with election law, it’s every year. And, from this voter’s perspective anyway, elections don’t seem to change a great deal. So, either Title 3 is poorly designed in that, every minor change requires alteration of a dozen sections of the code, or there is some nefarious intent on somebody’s part. Or a little of both. (And by “nefarious intent,” I’m not really thinking about anything big — maybe just an intent to hide the ball a bit as to what changes are really being made, even if those changes are no big deal.)
Leave a Reply