WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

A 1734

Relates to the rejection by voting machines of ballots that contain a vote for a candidate who previously withdrew from an election

2025 Regular Session Introduced by David Weprin

Voting machines would reject ballots that vote for a withdrawn candidate, preventing those votes from counting and prompting voters to take corrective action.

REFERRED TO ELECTION LAW
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · A 1734

Summary of Bill A 1734 (New York)

Overview

Bill A 1734, introduced January 14, 2025 and currently REFERRED TO ELECTION LAW, would address how voting systems handle ballots that include a vote for a candidate who has previously withdrawn from an election. The primary sponsor is David Weprin.

What the bill would do

  • Central provision (as indicated by the title): The bill would require voting machines to reject ballots that contain a vote for a candidate who has withdrawn from the election.
  • By design, this aims to ensure that ballots do not count votes for candidates who are no longer active in the race.

Note: The provided information does not include the full text, so details such as how a withdrawn candidate is determined, what the rejection looks like on the ballot (e.g., whether voters are notified immediately, or whether a provisional step is required), and how such ballots would be processed in practice are not specified here.

Who/what would be affected

  • Voters casting ballots in contests where a candidate has withdrawn.
  • Election administration equipment and software providers responsible for running voting machines in New York.
  • Election officials who would implement and troubleshoot the rejection process for ballots containing votes for withdrawn candidates.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Status: Referred to the Assembly Committee on Election Law.
  • Timeline: Introduced and referred on January 14, 2025; no further actions listed in the provided record.
  • Related activity: The bill has several related/sister bills in prior sessions (S 6618, S 2112, A 6234) and companion bills (S 1195) noted in the record, indicating ongoing interest in this policy area across chambers or sessions.

Potential impact and considerations

  • voter experience: If ballots are rejected for votes for withdrawn candidates, voters may experience confusion or require guidance on how to proceed (e.g., whether they can re-vote for an active candidate or need to take other corrective actions).
  • election integrity: Proponents would likely argue the measure prevents counting votes for candidates who are no longer in the race, aligning results with the current slate of nominees.
  • implementation: Requires alignment of election equipment and software with the status of candidates in real time, plus clear procedures for reporting and handling rejected ballots.
  • legal and administrative clarity: Critical to specify definitions (e.g., what constitutes “withdrawn”) and to outline voter-facing notices and recount/provisional ballot rules.

Related legislation

  • Companion/related bills in prior sessions: S 6618, S 2112, A 6234, S 1195 (companion)
  • These connections suggest a broader interest in ensuring ballot integrity with respect to withdrawn candidates.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to emphasize any particular stakeholder perspective (voters, election administrators, or candidates) or compare how similar provisions have been drafted in related bills.

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

Sign in to ask a question.