Meeting Public Comments

KAY QUIRK

I would like to express my opposition to Section 4 of HF 356. Clean voter rolls are essential to voting integrity in every election. One of the most significant problems facing the electoral system is the chronic inaccuracy of county voter registration rolls. Reports of noncitizens & other ineligible individuals voting are harming Iowans confidence in the integrity of elections. The goal should be for all candidates to be confident that winners & losers are clear & that the election was conducted appropriately. Requiring individuals who would like to challenge a voters registration to pay to voice that challenge seems inappropriate. This would cause some to avoid challenges even though they may be certain that a voter is or should be ineligible. Why on earth would our state legislature want to dissuade voters from helping their county to maintain accurate voter rolls? This seems an undue burden & I would request that Section 4 be removed from HF 356. Thank you, Kay Quirk

Randy Hefel

I am writing to oppose H.F. 356, Sec. 4. Section 48A.14, Code2023, is amended by adding the following new subsection: NEW SUBSECTION. 6. . My way of looking at this new language is that anyone voting for this new language is complicit in helping to commit voter fraud. Its a slap in the face of the Iowa citizens who work hard all day and then come home and volunteer their time to earnestly help clean up the voter rolls at no additional expense to the county or state. I would think a good commissioner of elections would be open and accepting to proper challenges, as this should be included in their job duties. For these reasons I pray that this language is removed. Thank you.

Kathryn Hove

First, I respectfully oppose HF 356 language which requires a citizen challenger to post a bond, the amount determined by the county auditor, in order to challenge a voter registration. This language seems clearly designed to kill the valuable citizen challenge process by adding a financial burden of unknown amount to the already taxing process a citizen challenger must meet, including signing an affidavit subjecting ones self to possible criminal prosecution for knowingly providing false information. The bond requirement is not, it seems, to thwart citizens making false challenges . Rather, the bond requirement language seemsdesigned to discourage good citizen challengers who are willing to make legitimate challenges. Where would a citizen challenger even get a bond and what if the few bond companies refused to sell bonds to citizen challengers? The bond requirement is an indirect way of killing citizen challengers. Iowa laws should be written to encourage and not kill citizen oversight of government voting roles and procedures.Secondly, the biggest elephant in the room problem to insure fair elections in Iowa is not addressed In this bill and should be. The elephant is that the software in Iowa voting machines is never inspected or checked for integrity. Instead, voting machine companies selling voting machines to Iowa counties use the Iowa Trade Secret Act as a legal wall and prevent county or state officials from examining the software in voting machines purchased. For example, how would any county purchasing a voting machine know whether the machine software has been programmed to convert one vote out of every two votes for a Democratic Presidential candidate to the Republican Presidential candidate, after the first 400 votes have been cast? The answer is that no county can truly know. A county can test a machine by running 50 to 200 ballots through it, but that is no guarantee that the software is totally clean. In one sense, election officials are blindfolded because the voting machine software is not allowed to be seen or tested. Why is Iowa allowing counties to use voting machines for election use with software that has not been inspected? This bill should have a provision which says that any company selling voting machines inIowa must waive Iowa Trade Secret rights and agree to the examination of the machinesoftware on a regular basis and the bill should have language that clearly and rigorouslysets forth the software examination process Iowa would use, so as to insure security for the software from competitor knowledge while allowing those Iowa election software security experts to inspect the software, looking for evidencesof rigging, malware and other problems.As it is, WITH NO INSPECTIONS OF THE SOFTWARE OF IOWA ELECTION VOTING MACHINES, HOW CAN ANY IOWA ELECTION OFFICIAL GUARANTEE THE INTEGRITY OF ANY IOWA ELECTION? Thirdly, regarding HF356, one final concern would be the provision which fines a candidate $100 per county if a candidate does not file a request for recount in all counties for the candidates election. Is this language in the bill to chill recount requests? What if there were problems with voting machines in only one county in a candidates district and the candidate wanted to challenge in only this county? I oppose the $100 per county fine language in the billbecause it chills legitimate challenges by requiring a choice between onerous burdens or financial pain.Iowas motto is Our liberties our prize and our rights we will maintain. Citizen oversightvia voter challenges and candidate recount requests should be encouraged and notburdened or killed by financial demands. Most importantly, Iowa should guarantee clean elections by requiring regular software inspection of all Iowa voting machines . As it is,It seems there are no guarantees.Thank you for your efforts to improve voting integrity.

Susan Frazer

Regarding HF 356 People claiming noncitizen status on jury questionnaires should not be on our voter rolls.People who died in 1998 should not be on our voter rolls.People who are voting in Chicago should not be on our voter rolls.The auditors are not finding these faults, so volunteers in Iowa must.This bill as written stops citizens from exposing frauds.

Diane Holst

Please see what a challenger swears to. Challengers Affirmation and StatementI am a registered voter in County, Iowa. I swear or affirm that information contained on this challenge is true. I understand that knowingly filing a challenge containing false information is an aggravated misdemeanor (Iowa Code 48A.14).Signature:

Brian Hanson

I am opposed to the section requiring the posting of bond for citizens volunteering to challenge a voter registration. The current law provides a penalty for submitting false information of two years in jail or a $8,500 fine. Citizens who volunteer their time, in effect, are helping the county auditors to do their jobs and therefore should not be hindered with the bond requirement. If county auditors are not fully doing their job, then volunteers should be paid so much for each successful challenge and that money should come out of each respective county auditor's budget. As mentioned in the comment above, it takes at least an hour's worth of time for each challenge. If county auditors do not have time for voter challenges, which I seriously doubt, then they should welcome the efforts of citizens to help clean up the voter rolls.Thoughtfully and respectfully submitted,

Kathleen McCarthy

I echo Michael Bayer's comment: "I am writing to vehemently oppose Section 4 of HF 356. This would modify Iowa Code 48A.14 to require a challenger to post a bond at the time of filing a challenge in an amount to be determined by the commissioner that is sufficient to cover the costs of verifying the registration of the challenged registrant. Voter registration challenges are one of the few tools that Iowa citizens can use to help clean and maintain the voter rolls. This requirement of a bond of unspecified amount would have a deterrent effect to having a citizen use this challenge process. The challenger is already signing an affidavit under penalty of law that if they file the challenge with any information they know to be false they can be found guilty of aggravated misdemeanor with penalties of up to 2 years in jail and fines up to more than $8,500. That is enough to make sure the challenge is not frivolous. When I and my fellow citizens file challenges, we make sure (under penalty of law) that we have solid evidence..."I would only add that too much of our state's election processes are unreasonably opaque, with limited access for public oversight. Any additional legislative (or administrative) obstacles further limiting public transparency and access, begs the question: Why? Going forward, Iowa voters must hold their representatives accountable by asking the too oft missing 'Why?" questions, insisting on legislators' rationale and justification for all legislation that impacts Iowa voters' abilities to secure fair and clean elections.

David Hartsuch

While HF 356 brings some much needed integrity to the vote I am concerned about Section 4 of HF 356 which requires that a challenger post a bond. Voter registration challenges are essential in order to clean up the voter rolls. A bond would place a major impediment to a citizen challenging the rolls. Perhaps we should offer a bounty if indeed it turns out that the voter should no longer be on the rolls. please Remove Section 4 from HF 356.