Meeting Public Comments

Subcommittee meeting and times are as follows:

Attendance at subcommittee meetings by lobbyists and the public is via zoom or in-person. See agenda for zoom details. Only authenticated users are permitted access.

HF 954

A bill for an act relating to the conduct of elections, and including effective date and retroactive applicability provisions. (Formerly HSB 281.) Effective date: 07/01/2025, 01/01/2026. Applicability date: 01/01/2024.

Agenda

Subcommittee members: Rozenboom-CH, Alons, Winckler

Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2025

Time: 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM

Location: Senate Lounge

Comments Submitted:

The purpose of comments is to provide information to members of the subcommittee.

Names and comments are public records. Remaining information is considered a confidential record.

03-28-2025

Rebekah Jacobs

HF 954 includes several initiatives that amount to voter suppression including changing the deadline for curing ballots and introducing a new "unconfirmed" voting status (where a "reliable source"that is not defined can claim a voter "is not qualified," forcing the voter to prove the eligibility again). These changes will only serve to make it harder for American citizens to vote. This bill also changes the process by which a candidate may choose their political party affiliationshouldn't that be determined by the party, not the government? It even changes the definition of a political party, making it more difficult to create new political parties in the future. This bill is made almost exclusively of government overreach. Please vote OPPOSED.

03-30-2025

Benjamin Larson [Nebraska Cardiac Care]

I'm against this bill in all forms thanks to it just being typical voter suppression, but the forcing of the Affidavit of Candidacy is pretty gross since it takes away that personal decision making from someone running for an office. Worse is the "Unconfirmed Status", which if I am reading this right could be used to effectively block anyone's vote who's full name you have access to so I could simply tear through people's facebook profiles and "report" them to a new status as "Unconfirmed" as a "reliable source", thus taking away their right to vote.

03-31-2025

Jonathan Koele

Jonathan Koele from Urbandale. I would like to encourage you to vote no on HF 954. Currently ranked choice voting is not a legal method for elections in Iowa. With that said we should actually be doing the opposite of this bill. Ranked Choice voting is actually good for letting people elect representative politicians. It allows people to make a choice for who they truly want and not against a candidate. It also is more efficient when there are runoff requirements. Instead everyone already said how they would vote in a runoff. Vote no on this bill and look to introduce a bill to legalize ranked choice voting.

03-31-2025

Michael Carman

Aside from the complete waste of time banning a form of voting that isn't allowed under current law, what's the rationale for banning ranked choice/instant runoff voting? WHY shouldn't it BE legal?No voting system is perfect, but if the goal is a better democracy which it should be RCV is a better system than the current one. It would produce a government which more accurately reflected the will of the people. RCV would give voters more choices and result in more civility and less partisanship. It's also more efficient, as a single election is all that is ever needed to produce a winner.I ask you to vote NO on HF 954.

03-31-2025

Ryan Zantingh

Please remove Division II from the bill. Ranked choice voting is one potential solution to the extreme partisanship that has developed from a system that rewards the extreme ends of each political party, and leaves the majoritymiddle feeling disillusioned. Let's not ban something that isn't even currently in use, and without any discussion of its merits.

03-31-2025

David Weaver

I am against HF 954. I support Ranked Choice Voting. Ranked Choice Voting is a better system that allows voters to express their opinion and allows for more candidates to participate in elections. RCV is very similar to runoff ballots as used in some primary elections when a voter doesnt get 35% of the vote. In 2002, Steve King won his GOP nomination to be a Congressional candidate at a GOP nominating convention. This is how elections should work! We know this! Ranked Choice Voting is not complicated, as many folks attempt to use this idea that RCV is too difficult for voters to comprehend. I have seen RCV work in several situations. It allows more candidates to participate. It allows for voters to vote their conscience. Please vote down HF 954. It is 1) not needed, and 2) bad for elections, and 3) bad for voters. Thank you,David WeaverConcerned Iowan

03-31-2025

Linda Jones

Please vote no to HF 954. Ranked Choice Voting is a sensible alternative to our current voting system because it evens the field for all candidates and voters. Definitely worth trying in light of the current divisive atmosphere in our state.

03-31-2025

Katherine Babb

Hi my name is Katherine and I live in Poweshiek county. Please remove Division II, which bans Ranked Choice Voting.We shouldnt spend legislative time on something that doesnt accomplish any actual goals and I want to continue the conversation about Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa. I believe that Ranked Choice Voting is one of the most financially responsible voting systems because it can be used to avoid costly runoff elections. Ranked Choice Voting also disincentivizes negative campaigning leading to healthier and more productive politics.There's no reason to oppose new ideas, especially since RCV isn't even legal. This bill is redundant with existing code and a waste of this legislature's time. RCV would save many cities money and reduce the complexity of runoffs. Plus voters across the spectrum who use it like it. Iowans expect the ability to have free and fair conversations without the heavy hand of the legislature.Please keep the conversation going. Thank you for your time!

03-31-2025

Rita Dudley [Life-long Iowan]

Please do NOT approve this bill with Division II banning Ranked Choice Voting. This bill removes freedom for voters to choose and elect any citizen to office and restricts choices to two main parties. We need to promote more voter participation and education of candidates and RCV will help do that. Arguments against it that it will open voting to more fraud and get weaker candidates elected have not been proven. These arguments are false and serve as weak scare tactics. Please get rid of Division II. Vote NO.

03-31-2025

Cheryl Tillman

Please vote FOR HF954, with the following amendment: Division III Voter Registration, Sec. 40, must be amended to clarify the requirement that anyone who declines Jury Service on the basis of noncitizenship shall have their name sent to the state registrar of elections.

03-31-2025

Jennifer Pohl

I am asking that you please remove division II from this bill. RCV is a solution for all Iowans. It would help encompass all of Iowa instead of the extreme at both ends of the political spectrum. Lets not ban a solution we do not even currently use, instead lets look at what good RCV could do for Iowans. Iowa is supposed to support its people, not make it more difficult. Thank you.

03-31-2025

Matthew Voss

I would like to encourage you to vote no on this bill. We should be trying to encourage communities and local governments to try innovative strategies and be laboratories of democracy. This bill does the opposite, and is antithetical to the strategy of local control that has led Iowa for so long.Please vote no on this bill, and instead consider proposals to legalize ranked choice voting at the local level.

03-31-2025

Thomas O'Donnell

Please OPPOSE HF954, a bill seemingly designed to make it harder for some Iowans to vote while making it easier to challenge a voter. Challenges inevitably mean some legitimate votes will be blocked as people don't have time or energy to cure their ballots. What's more, this bill bans ranked choice voting which already is illegal. We should preserve this equitable technique that gives voters a better voice in who's elected.

03-31-2025

Brent Bernard [Stanzel Ranch]

Vote NO to HF 954. Voters like me feel the partisanship that happens with our current voting framework. Makes the most sense to use a framework like RCV to develop candidates by showing their potential platforms merit. Thanks for your consideration

03-31-2025

Amy Brown

Hello, I am an Iowan from Crescent, and I am respectfully asking you to remove Division II. Implementing Ranked Choice Voting would be the most fiscally responsible thing to do in Iowa and gives communities more local control, not less. I have researched RCV extensively and its' results are PROVEN: more civil campaigns, more voter voice, more choices and more accountability all things we should be striving for to improve our democracy. Thank you for removing Division II and allowing this important conversation to continue.

03-31-2025

Dwayne Brown

Please remove Division II from this bill. As a resident of Crescent, Iowa, I am a proponent of Ranked Choice Voting for numerous reasons especially that it can save taxpayer dollars since voters vote once and runoff elections can be eliminated. Research has shown that voters like using it, it's EASY to use and our state shouldn't be afraid of new ideas and innovations that's what has made Iowa great. Please remove Division II and let this important topic be considered widely.

03-31-2025

Michael Bayer [Walnut Ridge Baptist Church]

I urge you to vote to advance HF954. I support Division II of this bill which bans Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Iowa at all levels federal, state and local. RCV is more complicated and would add to confusion for Iowa voters. This complexity and confusion would discourage some people from voting at all or on some of the races on a ballot. RCV also by its nature disenfranchises some voters as their votes are thrown out in subsequent rounds if they voted for a candidate that is eliminated. RCV takes longer to determine the results (more than 2 weeks in New York City). It would also require new programs to tabulate the votes. Furthermore, it would make it more difficult to do a recount or audit the results of a vote. Ranked choice voting is currently not legal in Iowa, but we need to make sure it is very clear that it is not permitted at any level. The claims in favor of RCV are unsubstantiated. There is no proof that it makes elections less partisan (or that even that is a good thing).

03-31-2025

Michael Bayer

I urge you to advance HF 954. In Section 28, I would like to see you add the following subparagraph: "j. The state registrar shall reach an agreement with the Iowa Judicial Branch and the United States District Courts in Iowa to transmit to the state registrar a list of each person seventeen years of age or older in the state who has submitted documentation indicating that the person is not a citizen of the United States."

03-31-2025

Aubrey Does

Ranked Choice Voting is the future of our democracy. Iowans deserve to explore this innovative idea that is used around the country. It will lead to better candidates, friendlier elections and a government that works for constituents. Please don't ban RCV and shut out election progress.

03-31-2025

Cheryl Tillman [Linn Co. voter]

Iowa must ban Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), a system whereby, if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round, some voters ballots are THROWN OUT to force a majority. This process continues until a candidate has 51% of the votes. RCV is complex, confusing, and will disenfranchise some voters.

03-31-2025

Sharon Santema

Please vote NO on HF 954 unless Sections 11 and 48 are removed. I'm opposed to Section 48 because it says any information that is requested by or in the possession of the state commissioner relating to an investigation of election misconduct remains a confidential record . . . I'm also opposed to Section 11 which gives the county commissioner permission to NOT have a paper poll book at the precinct. Paper pollbooks are a wise emergency preparedness tool to be used when the internet, the FirstNet Cellular network or electricity goes down during an election. The paper pollbooks are more secure since they are not online and unhackable.Banning Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is important because RCV is a very complicated way to count votes, confusing to the voter, nearly impossible to audit and requires the use of computerized voting systems. Banning RCV is in SF 459, which has passed the Senate and messaged to the House.

03-31-2025

Emily Brannon

I am writing to voice my opposition to HF 954. RCV is something g that should be explored here in Iowa, not banned. RCV would reduce polarization in our elections by forcing candidates of the two major parties to appeal to a wider range of voters.RCV would eliminate the "spoiler effect" of voting third party. Voters could choose their favorite candidate without running the risk of helping a candidate that they strongly oppose. If their first choice isn't viable, their vote would then go to their second choice.RCV is already being used successfully in several states, both red and blue, for everything from local, to state, to federal elections. Examples are Alaska, Utah, and Maine.A vote for this bill is a vote for the hyperpartisanship that has become commonplace in our politics. Do not advance this bill.

03-31-2025

Annette Busbee

Please remove Division II from your consideration of this bill and let Iowans continue with the discussion of Ranked Choice Voting. With all the focus on Government Efficiency, RCV actually is more efficient than single choice voting we use today. Voters vote once, not twice. Officials only need to put on one election, not two.

03-31-2025

Jimi Wirth

The last time a bill concerning outlawing Ranked Choice Voting was put up to a vote in the Senate, it passed without conversation and despite protests urging that there be legitimate conversation about it. This doesn't leave me hopeful for the outcome here, but i am holding out with a belief that we can do better and have better options. Please don't ban this outright! Please remove Divison II from this bill!

03-31-2025

Linda Goeldner

Please remove Division II of the bill. Rank Choice voting is a cost saving measure to not have to hold runoff elections. RCV would give voters more choices and result in more civility and less partisanship. It is baffling to understand the opposition to allowing people to rank who they want to vote for. Thank you.

03-31-2025

Pheng Yang

RCV will not cause voter confusion.1. We already use different voting methods in different jurisdictions and this has not caused confusion.2. Studies and realworld experience show voters quickly and easily adapt to RCV. For example, in Alaska, Maine, and cities like Minneapolis, voters overwhelmingly reported understanding and liking the system after its adoption.3. Data consistently shows voter comprehension exceeding 90% in places that adopted RCV, indicating it's straightforward even for firsttime users.RCV does not discard voters' ballots if their chosen candidates lose.1. No ballot is ever simply discarded. Those votes still get counted and are used to calculate which candidate (if needed) gets to move on to the next stage of voting.2. Traditional systems often waste votes on losing candidates outright. RCV actually gives voters more power by keeping their preferences in play longer, giving everyone more say, not less.RCV is secure.1. Ranked Choice Voting is just as secure as traditional voting methods, using the same paper ballots, voting machines, and election security protocols. Over 90% of Iowa's voting machines can easily upgrade to RCV.2. Election integrity groups, researchers, and cybersecurity experts agree that RCV elections don't introduce any additional vulnerabilities.

03-31-2025

Angie Ellerbroek

Please remove Division II, the ban on Ranked Choice Voting, from HF 945. I feel some legislators dont understand ranked voting. You are not required to rank all candidates, just ones you would like to see in office by your preference. For example, in Senator Sandy Salmons newsletter she stated ranked voting makes you rank candidates you dont want but that is not true. You do not need to include all candidates. Please do not vote for this bill because Ranked voting is a great option, and if folks fear it, likely its because they dont really understand it.

03-31-2025

Diane Holst

Do not move HF954 unless the following are addressed and amended. There are three references in this bill to the state registrar and commissioner adopting rules, guidance or directives. The legislators must not allow the state commissioner to pass off guidance as law. The county commissioners enforce these rules, guidance and directives as law in their administration of elections. Per the state commissioner's office last Fall when asked about guidance, "Our guidance is not law. Laws are passed by legislators, and administrative rules are drafted and adopted by our office after a public review process". Remove the state commissioner's authority to pass off guidance as law. Sec. 44, 2. Please add language that all voter status should be made available in voter roll requests; active, inactive, incomplete, pending, unconfirmed, or canceled. Voter roll verification relies on being able to verify the status as the registration is moved between statuses. A requester may simply filter by the status being researched. Sec 11, 1. Who is certifying the electronic poll books? EAC? Where have you modified additional law to state the standard that this bill is granting? Do not move this bill without amendment.

03-31-2025

Daniel Worrell

Please vote against HF 954, which bans ranked choice voting in Division II.I am a lifelong Iowan and have lived in Western, Central, and now Eastern Iowa (currently in Senate District 46 and House District 92). This bill is a waste of this legislature's time as RCV is already illegal in Iowa at the state level.That said, RCV / instantrunoff voting is already used in other states, municipalities, and as part of the internal party presidential selection process by both the Republican and Democrat parties.RCV is fiscally responsible by eliminating expensive runoff election processes, eliminates spoiler effect to more accurately represent voter wishes, and reduces dirty politics as candidates will still vie for higher ranking for nonprimary votes.Local communities should be empowered and given more latitude to govern in more representative and fiscally responsible ways, not less. The vast majority of people I have spoken with in Iowa about RCV were interested, if not fully supportive. Most arguments against RCV that I have seen and heard are fear mongering at best, and total misrepresentation or lies at worst. RCV has the potential to be more efficient, representative, and democratic.From my perspective, RCV is an improvement upon a government of, by, and for the people; a people that prize their liberties and work hard to maintain their rights.

03-31-2025

Benjamin Allen

I urge you to not advance this bill because Iowa should be encouraging ranked choice voting because it encourages and rewards positive campaigns about what could be done to promote the general welfare rather than pitting one politician against the other in a race to the negative campaign bottom of the barrel. And if we are interested in being more efficient in government we should embrace ranked choice voting since it saves money when there is a runoff. SAVES MONEY. Just to review, better campaigns, saves money. Dont we all want that?

03-31-2025

James Eliason

I read HF954 and it has several things I object to. I ask a "no" vote on this bill.Division I removes disqualification for office of felons. I think current law should be retained, and apply to people who represent us in Congress as well as in Des Moines.Division II bans ranked choice voting (RCV). This change to Iowa Code is totally pointless as current language already makes RCV illegal. RCV is a fine way to conduct elections. I, and much of the electorate, am currently fed up with polarization in politics. RCV is a way for people to register their frustration without wasting their vote. In elections with more than two strong candidates RCV prevents a candidate unacceptable to most people from winning with a plurality of the votes. The current system discourages people from running for fear of splitting the vote. I have helped run several elections using RCV and it works well.Division VI essentially outlaws all parties except Democratic and Republican. I think this is a terrible idea, and with division II tries to entrench polarization with only two choices in elections.Other parts of the bill seem to be ok but also ok if they are not enacted.Please vote no on HF954.

03-31-2025

Mary McDonald

I am an Iowa from Decorah, and I ask you strike Division II from this bill. Ranked choice voting is already not legal, so this legislation is redundant and purely performative. Furthermore, this legislation has not grown from the will of the people but from partisan political interests. Elections are meant to be controlled locally, by the people.

04-01-2025

Katy Hardy

Please vote OPPOSED to HF954. There should not be more obstacles to vote as a citizen of the United States than it is to get credit or a bank account. Please remove uncomfirmed voting status. We should be making it easier for tax paying citizens to vote in the elections that affect their everyday lives not harder. Also, election misconduct should be investigated by the Attorney General office. Local law enforcement have enough on their plate.

04-01-2025

Linda Avraamides

I agree with Rebekah Jacobs and others who oppose the bill in its entirety. Please vote OPPOSED on HF 954. But I must also call out the ridiculousness and complete waste of time of banning something that isn't even legal yet ranked choice voting (Division II). As this is not the first time in this session that the legislature has tried to pass this ban, and since there are plenty of comments explaining why the ban is not needed and just another form of voter suppression, I will simply state that I add my voice to their request that you oppose Division II.

04-01-2025

Garry Klein [Iowa resident/US citizen]

I am opposed to banning ranked choice voting from HF954 for several reasons:1) RCV streamlines the voting process, potentially saving time and money for voters who benefit from it and the county auditors offices that oversee them through simplifying primary and municipal elections.2) It increases voter participation in elections in places it has been implemented (Louisiana, Maine as examples).3) RCV further opens elections to more participation of candidates broadening the pool of candidates.See attached for more.

Attachment

04-01-2025

Cheryl Tillman [Linn Co. voter]

HF954 Division III must add new paragraphs to comply with President Trumps EXECUTIVE ORDER #14248 ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, which mandates that voter registration forms require documentary, governmentissued proof of U.S. citizenship to ensure only citizens are registered to vote.

04-01-2025

Peter Fecteau

Please vote no on HF 954 or remove Division II. I support ranked choice voting and would someday like the opportunity for the people of Iowa to use it as a way of electing a candidate that best represents a majority of voters.