Comments on this legislation    Post new comment    Text and Analysis    Add to Watch List 
  Previous   Next 

• Introduced by Rep. Kathy Angerer (D) on December 10, 2009, to revise the law that requires the Secretary of State to maintain separate branch offices in communities of a certain size, so as to repeal an exemption to this requirement for contiguous cities with a population of 10,000 or more. This would require more offices (and according to the House Fiscal Agency, would result in higher costs).
  • Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on December 10, 2009.
    • Reported in the House on December 16, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  • Substitute offered in the House on December 18, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises various details, but does not change its substance. This version was subsequently superseded by another substitute with more changes. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on December 18, 2009.
  • Substitute offered by Rep. Kathy Angerer (D) on December 18, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that requires the Secretary of State to maintain an office that was in existence on December 1, 2009, and located in a township with a population of 10,000 or more. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on December 18, 2009.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Goeff Hansen (R) on December 18, 2009, to also require that the Secretary of State maintain two offices in a county with 150,000 or more. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on December 18, 2009.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Tom McMillin (R) on December 18, 2009, to tie-bar the bill to House Bill 5673, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. HB 5673 would prohibit spending taxpayer dollars for the office and staff of the spouse of the governor. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on December 18, 2009.
• Passed 59 to 43 in the House on December 18, 2009.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on December 19, 2009.
  • Referred to the Senate Local, Urban, & State Affairs Committee on December 19, 2009.