Committee tables substitute to HB 288 after data‑privacy and outsourcing concerns

Representative Lee presented the first substitute to House Bill 288, describing two distinct components: (1) a provision that would allow the Division of Wildlife Resources and similar license‑issuing bodies to provide information and voter registration forms to people obtaining hunting and fishing licenses to boost turnout; and (2) a controversial provision inserted by substitute that would permit the lieutenant governor or the legislative auditor general to contract with an outside vendor to use public records (property tax, driver's license, other databases) as a tool to audit and maintain voter rolls.

Representative Lee described the hunting and fishing license change as a practical, low‑touch way to provide voter registration information and said the second provision would be an optional auditing tool some offices might use. "If it's not something they ever wanna use, don't use it," Lee said, adding he was open to removing the audit language if the committee preferred.

Multiple committee members voiced strong concerns about the substitute's auditing language. Senator Vickers questioned sharing voter information with third parties and framed the package as a reversal of prior privacy protections. Senator McKell said he would not support the bill because of the audit language and concerns that the substituted language was added on the House floor without broad buy‑in. Senator Blum described the change as a "trick" that altered a previously uncontroversial registration access bill.

Public testimony amplified those concerns. Helen Moser of the League of Women Voters said the substitute "adds a sweeping new provision" authorizing contractors to analyze sensitive records and raised specific worries about subcontracting, retention, secondary use, and erroneous flags from database matches. Cambria Cantrell from the Lieutenant Governor's office said the office had not been consulted on the substitute, called it "hugely problematic," and opposed the bill because of data‑sharing risks and uncertainty over whether the change would produce meaningful new registrations. Ricky Hatch, chair of the clerks' legislative committee, said county clerks opposed the substitute for similar reasons.

After public comment, Senator Blum moved to table HB 288. The motion to table carried by voice vote and the chair said the tabling gives the sponsor time to take feedback and possibly return with revised language. Representative Lee indicated he was willing to strip the audit portion if the committee wanted to preserve the registration outreach element.

The committee did not adopt the bill; it was tabled pending revision.