HB 2064
In CommitteeHouse
Electronic ballot return
Authorizing the secretary of state to develop and test electronic methods of ballot return for service and overseas voters, disabled voters, and certain incarcerated voters.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill allows the Secretary of State to create and test a secure electronic system for certain voters to return their ballots online instead of by mail. It focuses on service/overseas voters, disabled voters, and incarcerated voters, with strict security and privacy safeguards.
- Authorizes the Secretary of State to develop and test a secure electronic ballot portal for certain voters who cannot return ballots by standard mail.
- Limits use of the portal to covered voters—specifically service/overseas voters, disabled voters, and incarcerated voters (excluding those with revoked voting rights).
- Requires the portal to be secure against electronic interference, preserve voter secrecy, and prevent duplicate voting.
- Allows the Secretary of State to set rules for portal use, including timing, storage, and access conditions.
- Requires counties to track and report all ballot return attempts via the portal, and the Secretary of State to publish a yearly statewide report.
- Bars use of any electronic portal without explicit legislative approval, and mandates progress reports to the legislature starting December 1, 2025, with a final report due December 1, 2028.
Who is affected
- Service and overseas voters — Voters living outside the U.S. or serving in the U.S. military abroad can use a secure electronic portal to return their ballots instead of relying on international mail.
- Disabled voters — Voters with disabilities who may have difficulty marking or returning paper ballots by mail can use an accessible electronic system to vote and return ballots independently.
- Incarcerated voters — People incarcerated in Washington state prisons (excluding those whose voting rights have been revoked and not yet restored) can use the portal to return ballots if they cannot use standard mail.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Enables disabled voters to independently and privately return ballots electronically, restoring equal access to the franchise and reducing reliance on others for ballot handling—addressing a documented barrier under the ADA and federal voting rights law.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (2), (4)(b)Service and overseas voters (e.g., military personnel, diplomats, expatriates) often face months-long mail delays or unreliable international postal systems; electronic return significantly improves ballot delivery reliability and timeliness, preserving their voting rights.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), (4)(a)Incarcerated voters (excluding those with revoked rights) currently face severe logistical barriers to returning ballots by mail; the portal could restore meaningful access to voting for a population otherwise disenfranchised by geography and supervision, aligning with Washington’s post-2018 restoration law.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), (4)(c)Mandates for security testing, voter secrecy, and duplicate prevention—along with county and statewide reporting—create transparency and accountability that, if rigorously implemented, can build public trust in the system despite its novelty.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(a), (d), (e)
Potential Concerns (3)
Introducing any electronic ballot return system—even for limited groups—creates new attack vectors for cyber interference, spoofing, or coercion, potentially undermining confidence in election integrity despite security safeguards.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (2), (3)(a)Counties must track and report all portal ballot attempts, adding administrative burden and potential technical integration costs without dedicated state funding, straining already limited county election resources.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(d), (e)The requirement that no portal may be deployed without *express* legislative approval creates a policy bottleneck—delaying implementation and potentially preventing even modest, tested pilots from scaling, even if security is demonstrated.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(f)
Who Is Most Affected
Disabled voters—especially those with mobility impairments, vision loss, or cognitive disabilities—gain direct, independent access to ballot return, reducing reliance on caregivers or family members and preserving ballot secrecy. This is a major expansion of equal access.
Service and overseas voters—particularly military personnel deployed overseas—often face mail delays that risk ballot expiration; electronic return mitigates this risk and ensures timely ballot delivery, directly supporting their constitutional right to participate in federal elections.
Incarcerated voters (with restored rights) currently face logistical hurdles to ballot return. The portal could significantly increase participation, but implementation success depends on prison administration cooperation and access to devices—risks that could limit real-world impact.
County election offices will bear operational costs (e.g., training, tech support, reporting), but since the bill does not allocate new funding, they may need to divert resources from other election functions—potentially straining staff and budgets.
Cybersecurity researchers and election integrity watchdogs gain a new, limited test case for electronic ballot return—but also face heightened scrutiny if any breach occurs, potentially fueling broader distrust in elections despite the bill’s safeguards.