WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3311

Paper ballots

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Mike Burns and 3 co-sponsors

Mass. H.3311 directs state grant agencies to favor rural communities, promote shared services, and actively inform rural towns about grants, with annual implementation reports.

Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Edgerton
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3311

Summary — H 3311 and related materials

Note: The supplied document contains two distinct legislative texts. The primary docketed bill H.3311 (House Docket No. 875) is a Massachusetts bill titled “An Act advancing equity for rural communities receiving state grants.” A separate, unrelated draft from South Carolina (dated 12/05/2024) requiring hand‑marked, hand‑counted ballots was also appended. Below are clear, separate summaries of each, plus procedural notes and potential impacts.

A. Massachusetts — H.3311 (House Docket No. 875)

Title: An Act advancing equity for rural communities receiving state grants
Primary sponsor: Rep. Leigh Davis; cosponsors: Natalie M. Blais, Lindsay N. Sabadosa, Joanne M. Comerford, James B. Eldridge, Kelly W. Pease. Member(s) added as sponsors: Edgerton, Frank.

Purpose / Intent

To prioritize and improve access by rural municipalities to discretionary state grant programs, encourage regionalization or shared services, and require state grant‑administering agencies to proactively inform rural communities about applicable funding and preferences.

Key provisions

  • Adds Section 63 to Chapter 7 of the Massachusetts General Laws.
  • Defines “rural communities” as municipalities with:
    • population density < 500 persons per square mile, or
    • population < 7,000 persons,
      in each case per the most recent U.S. decennial census.
  • Directs the Secretary (of the Executive Office of Administration & Finance or the Secretary of the Commonwealth — text uses “the secretary”) to instruct all state departments, commissions, offices, boards, divisions, institutions, and agencies that administer grant programs to:
    • Give preference to rural communities — especially projects that will regionalize or share services — and to applicants that serve rural communities.
    • Identify discretionary grant programs that could benefit rural municipalities seeking to regionalize/share services, and actively inform those rural communities about such programs and any applicable preferences.
  • Requires an annual implementation report (on or before July 1 each year) to be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means, the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government, and members of the General Court who represent rural communities.

Who is affected

  • Rural municipalities meeting the statute’s census‑based definition.
  • State agencies and other entities that administer discretionary grant programs (these agencies must adopt preference practices and outreach).
  • Regional municipal collaborations and applicants proposing shared services.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Prefiled: 12/05/2024; introduced and read first time: 01/14/2025.
  • Referred to Committee on Judiciary (entries show Judiciary and State Administration & Regulatory Oversight — record appears to show multiple referrals/actions).
  • Hearing scheduled: 09/09/2025 (10:00 AM–1:00 PM, A‑1 and virtual).
  • Sponsors were added on 02/06/2025 (Frank) and 02/12/2025 (Edgerton).

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Positive: could improve rural access to state funding, accelerate regional service delivery, and reduce inequities in grant awards.
  • Administrative burden: agencies will need to adopt new preference rules, alter outreach and application guidance, and produce annual reports.
  • Fiscal impact: the bill directs process and preference but does not appropriate funds; impacts will depend on how agencies implement preferences and whether existing grant criteria are modified.
  • Legal/technical questions: implementation will require guidance on how “preference” operates relative to statutory grant criteria and whether technical changes to scoring/evaluation are needed.

B. (Unrelated) South Carolina draft — Hand‑marked, hand‑counted ballots (included in supplied text)

Source: Draft amending S.C. Code Title 7, Chapter 13 (dated 12/05/2024)

Purpose / Key provisions

  • Adds Section 7‑13‑1625 requiring any voting system purchased by the State (or state agencies) to:
    1. Allow a voter to mark a paper ballot by hand (hand‑marked paper ballot).
    2. Require that all paper ballots be counted by hand; tabulating equipment may not be used.
  • Contains a carve‑out permitting purchase of systems/components necessary to comply with federal and state law (e.g., at least one accessible voting system per polling place to comply with the Help America Vote Act, 52 U.S.C. §21081).

Effective date

  • The bill states it takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Major operational and cost implications for election administration (increased time for counts, staffing, chain‑of‑custody procedures, potential impacts on recounts and canvassing).
  • Accessibility: bill attempts to preserve compliance with HAVA by allowing accessible systems, but the prohibition on tabulating equipment could create practical conflicts with federal accessibility and security standards.
  • Legal and logistical challenges likely during implementation; election officials would need detailed rules for hand counting, audit procedures, and timelines.

If you want, I can:
- Draft a short memo on likely administrative steps Massachusetts agencies would need to implement H.3311; or
- Produce an estimated list of operational and cost impacts for the South Carolina hand‑count bill.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.