Prohibiting law enforcement from placing surveillance cameras on private property

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Darren Thorne

SB 838 tightens absentee voting by requiring both voter and witness signatures on return envelopes and verification of the voter's signature, with limited overseas exemptions.

To Judiciary

#crime #publicsafety

Main purpose

SB 838 requires additional signature controls on absentee (mail‑in) ballots: it prohibits local boards of elections from opening or counting a returned absentee ballot unless (1) the ballot envelope is signed by the voter and a witness (subject to limited exceptions) and (2) the voter’s signature on the return envelope is verified against the voter registration record under State Board of Elections (SBE) regulations. The bill is intended to strengthen signature verification and chain‑of‑custody safeguards for absentee voting.

Key provisions

Adds a new statutory section (9–310.1) that requires local boards to:

Not remove a ballot from its return envelope or count it unless the return envelope (or ballot/return envelope) is signed by:
the voter to whom the ballot was issued, and
a witness other than that voter (with a specific exception described below).
Verify the voter’s signature on the envelope by comparing it to the voter’s registration signature, in accordance with regulations adopted by the State Board of Elections.

Witness‑signature exception: the witness signature requirement does not apply to absentee ballots voted and returned by:

active‑duty members of the uniformed services serving overseas, or
spouses or dependents of such members who live overseas.

Modifies existing absentee voting guideline provisions (adds verification of envelopes/signatures to SBE guidances).

SBE must adopt implementing regulations governing the signature‑comparison process.

Who is affected

Voters using absentee ballots: they must ensure both they and a witness sign the ballot envelope (unless exempt).

Local boards of elections: new processing, verification, recordkeeping and potentially outreach/cure workloads.

State Board of Elections: rulemaking responsibility to define verification procedures and standards.

Overseas uniformed service members and qualifying family remain exempt from the witness requirement.

Fiscal and administrative impact

State finances: not expected to have a material fiscal impact.

Local governments: fiscal note estimates increased local costs of at least:

$710,000 in FY2026,
$640,000 in FY2027,
$615,000 in FY2028,
$680,000 in FY2029, and
$610,000 in FY2030. These costs reflect personnel and training, leasing mail‑sorting equipment with signature‑verification features, automated signature‑verification software for high‑volume jurisdictions, and modifications to the statewide voter registration system. Additional unquantified administrative costs could arise for voter notification/curing and IT staffing.

Procedural / timeline notes

The bill was introduced (first reading) in late January 2025 and is scheduled for a hearing Feb 26 at 1:00 p.m.

If enacted as drafted, the bill’s text specifies an effective date of October 1, 2025.

Implementation will require SBE regulation-writing and local operational changes prior to the effective date.

Practical considerations

The bill tightens absentee ballot controls but shifts administrative burden to local boards and may require voters to find an eligible witness; the cure process for missing or unverifiable signatures is not detailed in the new section and would need to be reconciled with existing absentee‑ballot cure procedures and SBE regulations.

Bill