House Bill 1680, written by Rep. Timothy Wesco, R-Osceola, would enact roughly 15 different provisions regarding elections in Indiana.
On Monday, the Senate Elections Committee met to review the bill, which passed the House 65-25, with several testifiers highlighting sections 2, 7, 9, 11 and 12.
Section 2 would mandate that a voter who registered with a temporary ID provide proof of address within 30 days or their registration would be rescinded. Furthermore, section 2.5 states that an applicant must not “list on the registration form a post office box or a commercially available mailing box as the residence address.”
Barbara Tully, representing the League of Women Voters, testified against the bill.
“‘The commercially available address’ not being allowed on a voter registration form, I think, can potentially disenfranchise the unhoused voters,” she said. “Folks will sometimes use a soup kitchen or maybe even a church or something like that, and they have every right to vote as any of us that are housed.”
According to the National Health Care for the Homeless Council, 1 in 10 unhoused people vote. In Indiana, with a current unhoused population of 4,398, around 400 people are likely to cast votes.
Section 7 of the bill introduces restrictions on voter registration assistance, meaning a person cannot complete any part of a voter registration form on behalf of someone else without additional steps.
The section also addresses the issue of disabled voters who may not be able to sign their absentee ballot forms. In such cases, these voters may request that their signature (or mark) be attested to or witnessed by a third party, ensuring the authenticity of the signature or mark.
“This section restricts voter registration assistance,” said Julia Vaughn, policy director at Common Cause. “It could violate federal law by preventing citizens with disabilities or limited English proficiency from receiving the necessary help they need to fill out a registration form.
“There is no evidence that providing assistance during the registration process leads to inaccurate registrations or the registrations of individuals who are not qualified to vote.”
As mentioned in testimony, HB 1680 could violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal act passed in 1990 that “requires state and local governments to ensure that people with disabilities have a full and equal opportunity to vote.”
Moreover, a report by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and Rutgers University found that “states providing easier access to voting by mail between 2018 and 2022 had significantly higher turnout increases among people with disabilities.”
Section 9 of the bill addresses the security of voter registration information. It would allow the Indiana secretary of state to enter into an agreement with another state to share voter data “for the purpose of voter list maintenance.”
Angela Nussmeyer, co-director of the Indiana Election Division, while neutral on the bill, said the section would allow the Indiana secretary of state to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with another state to share voter data.
According to Harvard University, “A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is an agreement between two or more parties/institutions. MOUs are not legally binding, but serve to document each collaborator’s expectations or intentions.”
In this context, two states would enter into an MOU to understand the scope of voter list maintenance.
In her testimony, she also mentioned the Indiana Data Enhancement Association (IDEA) program, a pre-existing several-statewide voter registration data sharing tool that performs the same task.
“We already have a program to engage in such a process, and from my perspective, when you’re dealing with a person’s registration, it should be bipartisan,” she told TheStatehouseFile.com.
Section 11 focuses on primary election voter challenges. If someone believes a citizen is trying to vote for a party they didn’t support in the last primary, they can challenge the vote.
When a challenge is enacted, the person is not allowed to vote unless they complete a PRE-6 form to declare intent or apply one of six other written provisions allowing them to continue with their vote.
Vaugh spoke with TheStatehouseFile.com regarding the language in the 11th section of the bill, calling the use of terms like “intends to vote” vague and confusing.
“If you go in as a Republican and say you want to pull a Democratic ballot, then you have to intend to vote for the Democrat in the general election. How can they regulate future behavior?” she said.
Tully of the League of Women Voters also noted her opinions on section 11 of the bill in the committee meeting.
“It would allow any voter who resides in any precinct to challenge a voter or person who offers to vote in a primary election,” said Tully. “That would be an expansion of what a challenger would be able to do and could possibly result in voter intimidation.”
Section 12 pertains to affidavit ballots, a provisional ballot that is used when a voter’s eligibility is questioned. It clarifies the procedure of handling said ballots with incorrect dating or signatures. According to the bill, an affidavit ballot that is submitted without an accurate date will be considered incorrect and will be rejected.
However, the voter has the opportunity to rectify this issue by appearing in person before the county election board no later than 6 p.m. on Election Day, which critics said is often impossible for a voter. Upon doing so, individuals can provide the necessary information to validate their ballot.
Nussmeyer of the Indiana Election Division spoke of her concerns with the 12th section, noting the impossibility of the situation a voter may find themselves in.
“There is no opportunity for the voter to cure it unless they get informed that their absentee ballot was rejected by 5 p.m., go to where the county election board is meeting, receive an affidavit from the county election board to then take it to a polling location before 6 p.m. to vote,” she said.
“Requiring that the voter date their signature for it to be approved and accepted without any type of cure is problematic and will result in a number of rejected ballots.”
House Bill 1680 remains in the committee, which next meets on Monday.
