WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2845

REGULATION-TECH

104th Regular Session Introduced by Dan Ugaste

Arizona HB 2845 sets a 5% random sample of candidate petition signatures for verification within 20 days, with county recorders confirming disqualifications within 15 days.

0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2845

Summary — HB 2845

Note: The materials provided appear to contain two different bills labeled “HB 2845” from different jurisdictions. Below are concise, separate summaries of each so readers can identify which text is relevant to them.

A. Arizona — HB 2845 (Introduced Feb 14, 2025)

Title (as filed): candidate petitions; random sample verification
Introduced by: Rep. Diaz
Status: Referred to Rules Committee

Purpose / Intent

Establish a standardized random-sample verification procedure for candidate nomination-petition signatures to be performed by county recorders and coordinated by the filing officer. The goal is to provide a statistically based check on petition validity and a clear timetable and method for verification.

Key provisions

  • Random sample size: The filing officer must, within 20 days after the last day for filing candidate petition signatures, select at random 5% of the total signatures eligible for verification. The sample must give every eligible signature an equal chance of selection.
  • Identification and marking: Each selected signature must be identified by petition page and line number and clearly marked on the petition sheets.
  • Substitution rule for blank lines: If a selected line is blank, the filing officer uses a specified forward/backward substitution procedure to choose the next eligible signature not already selected.
  • Transmission to county recorders: After marking, the filing officer must transmit copies of the front of each petition sheet containing sampled signatures to the county recorder(s) for the county in which signers claim to be qualified electors. Transmission may be by personal delivery, certified mail, email or other electronic means.
  • County recorder verification timeline and duties: Within 15 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays) after receipt, the county recorder must determine which sampled signatures are disqualified for enumerated reasons and certify results back to the filing officer.
  • Enumerated disqualification reasons (high-level): missing residence address or date, illegible signature/address, signer not a qualified elector on date of signing, signer under 18, signature mismatch with registration affidavit, duplicate signer (retain only one), invalid after signature/handwriting comparison, or if petition circulator was a justice of the peace or county recorder at the time of circulation.
  • Certification content: County recorder must report names and page/line numbers of disqualified sampled signatures, total number sampled, and total disqualified. The filing officer prescribes the certification form.
  • Return and notice: County recorder returns the facsimile sheets to the filing officer and mails results to the candidate committee that submitted the petition.

Who is affected

  • Filing officers (state-level) — must select random samples, mark petitions, and transmit samples.
  • County recorders — must perform verifications and certify results within the 15‑day window.
  • Candidates and candidate committees — petition validity outcomes may affect ballot access.
  • Petition signers and circulators — signatures may be reviewed and potentially disqualified; circulators who are justices of the peace or county recorders are disallowed.

Timeline / Procedure highlights

  • Selection: within 20 days after the last filing day.
  • County recorder response: within 15 days (excluding weekends/holidays).
  • Transmission methods allowed include electronic delivery.

Potential impact

  • Introduces a uniform, time‑limited random-audit mechanism intended to increase confidence in petition integrity and speed preliminary screening.
  • Increases administrative workload for county recorders and filing officers within short timeframes.
  • Could reduce full-scale challenges by producing statistical verification results but may also prompt litigation over sampling procedures, substitution rules, or specific disqualifications.

B. Illinois — HB 2845 (Introduced Feb 6, 2025)

Introduced by: Rep. Dan Ugaste
Status / Actions shown: Filed 2/5–2/6/2025; Read 1st time 3/19/2025; Referred to Public Health (per supplied actions) — please confirm committee assignment with official legislative site.

Purpose / Intent

Technical amendment to the Illinois Banking Act; specifically, a minor correction to Section 1 (short title) to fix a typographical duplication.

Key provisions

  • Amends 205 ILCS 5/1 (Sec. 1) to correct the short title formatting (removes duplicated word “the” so the Act may be cited properly as the Illinois Banking Act).

Who is affected

  • No substantive regulatory or policy change — impacts only statutory text cleanliness. Banking institutions, regulators, and the public should experience no operational effect.

Potential impact

  • Minimal to none beyond correcting a typographical error in the statute.

Procedural note / Recommendation

Because the provided materials conflate two different HB 2845 bills (Arizona and Illinois), confirm which jurisdiction and which bill text you want summarized or tracked further. If you intend to follow the Arizona petition-verification measure, note the key deadlines (20 days for sampling; 15 days for recorder certification) and the 5% sample rate. If you need an expanded analysis (e.g., legal risks, administrative cost estimates, or likely legislative prospects), indicate which bill and what depth of analysis you want.

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

Sign in to ask a question.