Senators in the State Government & Elections Committee voted to approve a proposed substitute to Senate Bill 5,684 on Feb. 14, moving the measure forward for final action. The substitute clarifies that a parking lot adjacent to a building that contains a county division of elections or a county auditor’s office is covered only when the lot is county owned, operated, and routinely used for parking at that building.

The substitute matters because it narrows where the statute would prohibit influencing or interfering with voters, limiting the bill’s geographic reach to county-owned lots rather than broadly applying to all adjacent land. The committee’s action follows debate about how to balance voter access, free-speech protections, and enforceability of the law.

Committee staff briefed members that the original bill expands the locations where a person may not influence or interfere with a voter inside buildings that house county election divisions and in adjacent parking lots. Senator Wilson offered three amendments to the proposed substitute. Amendment A1 would have required permanent markings and signage to show regulated distances (including language about aerial distances and drone technology). Amendment A2 would have required issuing a warning for a person’s first violation, leaving subsequent violations as gross misdemeanors. Amendment A3 would have clarified that tattoos, clothing, or minor paraphernalia are not electioneering absent intent to influence.

Senator Wilson argued the measures were modest educational safeguards: "This protects everybody's rights and we know what side to be on," she said, urging adoption of the amendments. Other members objected that the amendments were either too broad or risked imposing obligations on county auditors to mark or paint property they do not own, and that providing a first-offense warning statewide would be difficult to track and could be seen as a de facto "free pass." After debate, each amendment was put to voice vote and failed.

After amendments were defeated, the vice chair moved that the proposed substitute receive a due-pass recommendation and be sent to the Rules Committee. The chair later ruled that the bill "has passed subject to signatures." The transcript does not record a roll-call tally for the final action.

Discussion and questions during debate focused on (1) whether the parking-lot limitation should require county ownership and routine use for parking, (2) enforcement mechanisms and who would record or track warnings, and (3) the longstanding treatment of clothing and tattoos as potential electioneering in state law. Committee members who spoke against parts of the bill cited concerns about scope, potential legal challenges, and whether the bill would cast too broad a net for an infrequent problem.

No statutory citations were presented on the record during the executive session briefing; committee staff summarized how the substitute would change current practice. The committee did not adopt any of Senator Wilson’s amendments and approved the substitute for passage.

Votes at a glance from the executive-session discussion were made by voice vote; no roll-call tallies were provided in the transcript. The committee will forward the substitute under the normal signature process.