Senate bills to close Indiana primary elections, reduce early voting days die. Could they come back?
Two Indiana Senate bills that might have made it harder for Hoosiers to vote have died, just before the halfway point of the legislative session.
Senate Bill 201 would have closed primary elections in Indiana to allow only people affiliated with a specific party to vote in that party's primary election. Senate Bill 284 would have shrunk the state's early voting period from 28 days to 14.
Both bills, carried by Republican senators, passed through legislative committees earlier this month but are now considered dead after the authors did not open them up for amendments on the Senate floor before a deadline to do so on Wednesday.
Sen. Mike Gaskill, R-Pendleton, who authored SB 201 on closed primaries, said there wasn't enough support for the bill to pass the Senate. A similar bill filed in the House from Whiteland Republican state Rep. Michelle Davis also died this week after it did not receive a committee hearing.
Similar language to all three bills could potentially be amended into other legislation during the second half of the legislative session, but it's unlikely that the concepts would pass the full Senate if they couldn't garner enough support the first go-around.
More: Indiana voter turnout is almost last in the nation. Many are working to turn this around.
The closed primary bills were filed after ReCenter Indiana, a centrist group, encouraged Democrat-leaning voters to cast ballots in the six-way Republican gubernatorial primary last year. The Democratic primary for the 2024 race was uncontested.
Gaskill said he plans to continue to study the issue and share information with fellow lawmakers and political parties around the state. In recent years, there has been a national trend of Republican-leaning states closing primaries.
'I think it's something that people in Indiana are just completely unfamiliar with and a little cautious about,' Gaskill said. 'So it's fine to move a little slower on that and see if the appetite changes in the future.'
Questions sent to a press secretary for Byrne about his bill reducing the number of early voting days were not immediately returned Wednesday evening. During the bill's hearing in the Senate's Committee on Elections, Byrne argued that some counties struggle to staff voting centers for the 28-day period for Hoosiers.
While those two bills died, the Indiana Senate earlier this month advanced a different bill seeking to prohibit the use of student IDs for voting. Senate Bill 10, from Republican Sen. Blake Doriot, passed on a vote of 39-11. It now heads to the House.
Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Brittany Carloni at brittany.carloni@indystar.com. Follow her on Twitter/X @CarloniBrittany.
Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Kayla Dwyer at kdwyer@indystar.com or follow her on Twitter @kayla_dwyer17.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana Senate bills to close primary elections, slim early voting die
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Georgia Supreme Court makes ruling on changes to elections
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that multiple proposals by election officials to change how elections are run in the state were not allowed by state law. Seven changes, proposed by several members of the Georgia State Election Board, led to a lawsuit by several groups, including the organization Eternal Vigilance Action, over claims that they went beyond what state law allowed. In the latest ruling, members of the state's highest court said efforts to require hand counting of ballots, make county election officials make a 'reasonable inquiry' before they could certify results, required voters show identification before dropping a ballot off and that officials 'examine all election' documents that are created during elections were not legal. Separately, a rule proposing surveillance of drop box locations was allowed. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] Two additional rules proposed for poll watchers and daily reporting requirements were ones that plaintiffs could not challenge 'as voters, community-stakeholders or organizations.' The ruling said that while a trial court had ruled Chatham County Board of Elections member James Hall had standing as a member of that body to sue, it was 'not based on correct legal analysis.' RELATED STORIES: Lawsuit filed against State Election Board by Republicans to 'rein in unelected' members' authority Raffensperger says voters 'should be concerned' over new, possibly illegal, Election Board rules Secretary of State say State Election Board has overstepped legal authority over new rules State elections board votes to require hand-counting of ballots at polling places Georgia AG says new rules from State Election Board may 'conflict' with state election laws Brad Raffensperger calls Georgia Election Rule Changes misguided, criticizes state board Judge says new Georgia election rules are 'illegal, unconstitutional and void' Georgia Election Board member's appearance at Trump rally sparks debate over code of conduct As a result, the court chose to vacate those two decisions blocking the rules and send them back to a lower court for further hearings. Those contesting the rules, including Eternal Vigilance Action and its CEO Scot Turner, said previously that they were going to court to prevent 'empowering the administrative state to act with the force of law.' They said Georgia's state constitution does not allow rules from unelected appointees on the State Election Board to supersede our laws. Responding to request for comment, one of the Republican board members told Channel 2 Action News in September that they would 'continue to do the work of the people with the goal of restoring faith in our election process.' Previously, Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger came out against some of the proposed changes, particularly the hand counting proposal, saying the board was 'misguided.' He has also said the recent actions by board members should have voters 'concerned' and that they might not even be legal. Should a lower court rule that Hall does have standing in his official capacity, it would then have to rule on the two proposals the Supreme Court declined to make a decision on. In response to the latest decision at the Georgia Supreme Court, Turner said in part that the ruling was a major victory, adding that 'this ruling makes clear: the legislative power belongs to the General Assembly, not executive agencies operating without proper constraints. The Georgia Constitution means what it says, and thanks to this decision, the nondelegation doctrine is once again alive and well in our state.' Channel 2 Action News has reached out to members of the State Election Board and the Secretary of State's Office for comment and are waiting for their responses. The Associated Press contributed to this report. [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
2024 Election Results Under Scrutiny as Lawsuit Advances
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A legal case questioning the accuracy of the 2024 election is moving forward. The lawsuit, brought by SMART Legislation, the action arm of SMART Elections, a nonpartisan watchdog group, filed the lawsuit over voting discrepancies in Rockland County, New York. Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court ruled in open court in May that the allegations were serious enough for discovery to proceed. Newsweek has contacted SMART Elections for comment via email. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters The lawsuit could renew debate about the 2024 election, though it won't change the outcome since Congress has certified the results declaring President Donald Trump the winner. It comes amid unconfirmed reports that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were cast in November's election. The federally accredited testing lab, Pro V&V, that signed off on "significant" changes to ES&S voting machines—which are used in over 40 percent of U.S. counties—"vanished from public view" after the election, according to the Dissent in Bloom Substack. What To Know According to the complaint, more voters have sworn in legal affidavits that they voted for independent U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare than the Rockland County Board of Elections counted and certified, contradicting those results. The complaint also cited numerous statistical anomalies in the presidential election results. They include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but none voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. Max Bonamente, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the author of the Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data, said in a paper that the 2024 presidential election results were statistically highly unlikely in four of the five towns in Rockland County when compared with 2020 results. What People Are Saying Lulu Friesdat, the founder and executive director of SMART Legislation, said in a statement: "There is clear evidence that the Senate results are incorrect, and there are statistical indications that the presidential results are highly unlikely. "If the results are incorrect, it is a violation of the constitutional rights of each person who voted in the 2024 Rockland County general election. The best way to determine if the results are correct is to examine the paper ballots in a full public, transparent hand recount of all presidential and Senate ballots in Rockland County. We believe it's vitally important, especially in the current environment, to be absolutely confident about the results of the election." Max Bonamente said in a paper on the voting data from Rockland County: "These data would require extreme sociological or political causes for their explanation, and would benefit from further assurances as to their fidelity." Costas Panagopoulos, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "Statistical irregularities in elections should always be investigated, but the sources of such inconsistencies, which can include error or miscalculation, are not always nefarious. Still, scrutinizing election results can strengthen confidence in elections. Mistakes can happen. "In this case, the drop-off inconsistencies could reflect the idiosyncratic nature of the 2024 presidential election cycle. Alone, statistical comparisons to previous cycles cannot provide definitive proof of wrongdoing. "In any case, it does not appear that any of these inconsistencies would be sufficient to change the outcomes of any of the elections in question in New York state. That does not mean they should not be scrutinized, and any errors, if verified, should be corrected for the historical record. But there is not necessarily any need to invalidate any of these elections in these jurisdictions." What's Next The lawsuit is seeking a full, hand recount of ballots cast in the presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County. A hearing has been scheduled for September 22.
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.'
