Committee debates new rules for election judge lists, notice and training; staff, clerks and parties raise concerns
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Helena — The Senate State Administration Committee heard Senate Bill 470, a measure aimed at clarifying how election judges are selected, how central committees are notified, and what happens when a judge is removed.
Sponsor Senator Daniel Zolanko said the bill’s intent is straightforward: increase transparency and give party central committees more time to nominate judges. The bill would require election administrators to notify each county central committee at least 90 days before the 45‑day deadline (the current statutory deadline) and require parties to submit nomination lists at least 45 days before the primary. It would also require that, to the extent possible, each party that submitted nominees be represented on each election board and limit the share of members from any single party on a given board.
The bill would also require notice to the county central committee if an election judge is permanently removed from duties for cause, and it permits the county central committee to file an official complaint with the governing body (the county commissioners) if that notice is not provided. The legislation directs election administrators to prefer certified judges for emergency fills and adds a step to ask unaffiliated nominees whether they prefer to affiliate with a political party for the purpose of board balance.
County clerks and experienced chief judges who testified welcomed aspects of the bill — particularly the emphasis on training and early notification — but urged clarifications. Regina Plettenberg (association of clerks and recorders) said many counties already set early trainings (February/March) to accommodate school and other local elections, and asked the committee to ensure the bill’s deadlines matched actual election calendars. Several clerks warned that specialized training for certain boards (tabulation, adjudication) is separate from the general judge training and that substitution rules should not permit untrained people to fill specialist roles.
Opponents also warned that the “independent” or no‑party option could be used to circumvent party balance because many self‑described independent judges are partisan in practice. Lisa Bennett (Carbon County) urged restraint on expanding independent slots and said county commissioners sometimes lack the subject‑matter knowledge to adjudicate complaints without relying on election administrators.
Ending: The sponsor said he was open to committee changes and amendments and asked the committee to consider the bill as a step forward. Committee members discussed possible drafting clarifications (for example, distinguishing the primary calendar from other elections and specifying which governing body receives complaints). No final committee vote on the bill was recorded during this meeting.
Sponsor Senator Daniel Zolanko said the bill’s intent is straightforward: increase transparency and give party central committees more time to nominate judges. The bill would require election administrators to notify each county central committee at least 90 days before the 45‑day deadline (the current statutory deadline) and require parties to submit nomination lists at least 45 days before the primary. It would also require that, to the extent possible, each party that submitted nominees be represented on each election board and limit the share of members from any single party on a given board.
The bill would also require notice to the county central committee if an election judge is permanently removed from duties for cause, and it permits the county central committee to file an official complaint with the governing body (the county commissioners) if that notice is not provided. The legislation directs election administrators to prefer certified judges for emergency fills and adds a step to ask unaffiliated nominees whether they prefer to affiliate with a political party for the purpose of board balance.
County clerks and experienced chief judges who testified welcomed aspects of the bill — particularly the emphasis on training and early notification — but urged clarifications. Regina Plettenberg (association of clerks and recorders) said many counties already set early trainings (February/March) to accommodate school and other local elections, and asked the committee to ensure the bill’s deadlines matched actual election calendars. Several clerks warned that specialized training for certain boards (tabulation, adjudication) is separate from the general judge training and that substitution rules should not permit untrained people to fill specialist roles.
Opponents also warned that the “independent” or no‑party option could be used to circumvent party balance because many self‑described independent judges are partisan in practice. Lisa Bennett (Carbon County) urged restraint on expanding independent slots and said county commissioners sometimes lack the subject‑matter knowledge to adjudicate complaints without relying on election administrators.
Ending: The sponsor said he was open to committee changes and amendments and asked the committee to consider the bill as a step forward. Committee members discussed possible drafting clarifications (for example, distinguishing the primary calendar from other elections and specifying which governing body receives complaints). No final committee vote on the bill was recorded during this meeting.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting