Panel approves moving election-date language to August after heated debate over voter turnout

The Joint Committee on Appropriations and Budget voted to adopt a committee substitute and pass House Bill 40 63, moving the contested election-date provision onto an August special election ballot. After a roll-call, the committee recorded 16 ayes and 6 nays and the chair declared the measure passed.

The committee first adopted a committee substitute by roll call after an objection; the clerk announced 17 ayes and 4 nays before the committee proceeded to debate and a final passage vote. The Pro Tem explained the substitute as a change that “moves the election date for those two bills over to August,” saying the August date will let voters focus on the ballot question without the length of a November ballot.

Opponents pressed the committee on the legality and fairness of the maneuver. The minority leader raised a single-subject concern; the Pro Tem said staff and attorneys had reviewed precedents and that the approach had been used in prior contentious measures. Senator Hicks said the committee was forcing the issue into a low-turnout election and argued it risked disenfranchising voters, adding that the approach “speaks volumes to the intent of what is trying to happen with voters, feeling like their voice doesn't matter.” Senator Goodwin also objected, saying the move “does seem as if we are circumventing a process that took place on the legislative floor.”

The Pro Tem defended the plan as lawful and procedural, saying it offers “another opportunity for people to vote on this” and that placing the question in August would keep the November ballot from becoming overloaded with candidates and measures. After closing debate the committee took a final roll-call vote and passed House Bill 40 63.

The committee did not record floor-level action in this meeting; the sponsor noted that a two‑thirds threshold applies on the chamber floor where relevant. The committee’s action sends the revised measure forward per the committee’s process, and members said staff and attorneys had reviewed constitutional and rule questions before the vote.