Gray defends voter registration rule proposal in tense public hearing

Secretary of State Chuck Gray got the first and final word Friday during a tumultuous hearing intended to gather public comment on his proposed voter registration rules. 

“Our office is here to listen, and we want to avoid substantive back and forth,” Gray said about 20 minutes into opening remarks wherein he lashed out at the press for what he called “misleading” coverage of his proposal. 

“Of course, if there are any logistical questions or misunderstandings that the media has created in their inaccurate reporting about the rulemaking process, we’re happy to interject,” he added. 

The accusation set the tone for the hearing that spanned a little more than four hours. No attendee — including 150 participants on Zoom — who wanted to speak was turned away, though Gray asked that comments be kept to four minutes to avoid a late-night adjournment. 

The majority of those who spoke did so in favor of Gray’s plans to change voter registration requirements, which he plans to do using his executive-branch powers. Some lawmakers and several nonpartisan advocacy groups, however, say he lacks the legal authority to do so.

Under current regulations, residents are required to provide proof of identity when registering to vote in Wyoming. Gray is proposing that proof of residency also be required. More specifically, the proposed rules as written would require anyone registering to vote to provide proof of their residential address. 

Those sitting in the auditorium at the State Capitol cheered and applauded public testimony. Meanwhile, the chat in the Zoom call was distinct for its comment-section flavor. 

“Whiner, so Leftist.”

“GET RID OF THE VOTING MACHINES, PRONTO!!!”

“Cheryl…..I love you girl! You have the spirit to go where no girl has gone before!” 

“Marti is such a rock star. XXOOXX.” 

Late in the meeting, an online attendee on a hot mic dropped an F-bomb. 

All of this and more made its way onto the public record, all of which Gray’s office must now take into consideration, according to the Wyoming Administrative Rule Review Handbook. But before any testimony was given, Gray made clear that tossing out the proposed rules altogether was not something he would consider. 

“Ultimately, we will give careful consideration to all comments to ensure a rule is forwarded which strengthens election integrity in Wyoming and ensures only Wyoming residents are eligible to vote in Wyoming.”

Background and testimony 

There have been just three instances of voter fraud in Wyoming in the past 23 years, according to a database created by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. 

The proposed rules, Gray has maintained, are necessary to prevent fraudulent voting in the future. Many at the hearing echoed that belief, including several Freedom Caucus lawmakers and prominent members of the Wyoming Republican Party. 

“Why not be proactive?” Rep. Scott Smith (R-Lingle) said. “I support being proactive on preventing busloads of people coming in, whether it’s shown here now or not.” 

Reps. John Bear (R-Gillette), Mark Jennings (R-Sheridan), Tony Locke (R-Casper), Pepper Ottman (R-Riverton) and Tamara Trujillo (R-Cheyenne) also testified in favor of the rules. Sen. Cale Case (R-Lander) and Rep. Sandy Newsome (R-Cody) spoke against them. 

Wyoming doesn’t have an out-of-state, voter-fraud problem, the County Clerks’ Association of Wyoming wrote in a Jan. 8 memo. This was reiterated on Friday. 

“We cannot be clear enough — we, too, agree that only Wyoming citizens should be participating in Wyoming elections. To date, we’ve had no indication that this has not been the case,” Malcolm Ervin, Platte County clerk and president of the association, testified at the hearing. 

The association — which represents the local elected officials responsible for registering voters, administering elections and complying with any pertaining regulations — does not support the proposed rules as written. 

In August of last year, the association told lawmakers via testimony and in writing that clerks get the brunt of accusations when citizens believe other voters are misrepresenting themselves as residents. Part of the trouble, the association said, is that state law requires Wyoming voters to be “bona fide” residents, but does not define that status. 

That lack of clarity will need to be addressed through state law, the association wrote. Meanwhile, the documentation required to prove residency, the association wrote, “can, and should, continue to be established through administrative rules.” 

Gray’s proposed rules, however, miss the mark as written, according to the clerks. 

“We look forward to continuing this conversation and participating in the solution,” Ervin said. “But at this time, the rules as written will not deliver the desired outcome.”

Timing

One area of particular concern for the clerks is timing. 

About 86,000 voters were purged from Wyoming’s voter registration rolls since the 2022 primary election. These voters could re-register to vote in this year’s election, but the proposed rules would prevent some from using their Wyoming driver’s license to do so if it does not list their residential address.

“My grandma’s a perfect example where [her license] has her P.O. Box on there,” Ervin said at the hearing. “If she was going to register, she would present that driver’s license and we would have to tell her that it’s not sufficient proof of residence because it doesn’t list her primary address.”

Teton County Clerk Maureen Murphy also flagged that concern, testifying that the majority of voters in her county — widely considered the state’s most politically progressive community — have P.O. boxes on their licenses. 

“Another [concern] is housing insecurity, where people have to move numerous times during their tenure living in Teton County due to losing leases, increasing rental rates or homes being sold,” Murphy said, “I was one of those — I moved five times in my first three years [in Teton County].” 

In his opening remarks, Gray accused the press — singling out this reporter by name — of creating “confusion” and “false” statements. Gray took particular offense to a Dec. 19 WyoFile article. 

The mailing-address issue is also an area of the proposed rules Gray has expressed a willingness to adjust, as WyoFile reported earlier this month. This potential modification was a “key point” that Gray accused the press of not “accurately” reporting.

At the hearing, Gray blamed the Wyoming Department of Transportation for causing the problem by being out of compliance with state statute that requires the agency to include “principal residence address” on driver’s licenses. 

Nonetheless, Gray said his office is working to address the issue by considering a suggestion the clerks made in their memo earlier this month. 

More specifically, Gray said he would be “potentially modifying the rule to focus on proof of Wyoming residency rather than proof of residence at a particular Wyoming address.” 

Suspicion and authority 

The lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud in Wyoming was of little persuasion to many who testified, including Amy Smith of Goshen County, who shared her own anecdotes. 

Smith testified that she was personally aware of people voting in Wyoming elections who live in Wisconsin and Australia. She also said she’d read on Facebook about a Washington D.C. resident casting ballots in Goshen County. 

“I just wanted to bring that to your attention,” Smith said without clarifying whether she’d reported these potential crimes to her local county clerk. 

Immigrants entering the country illegally at the southern border was one reason to be “proactive” in preventing voter fraud, Paul Montoya of Laramie testified. 

Others, like Heidi Reed, a GOP precinct committeewoman in Albany County, compared voting to purchasing certain medications. 

“I strongly believe that if you have to sign up and give your phone number and your local address and show an ID to buy Sudafed that you should probably also be able to do the same for voting for local officials and the President of the United States,” Reed said. 

One of those things is enshrined in the Constitution and one is not, Marguerite Herman testified on behalf of the League of Women Voters. 

“Nothing is like voting,” Herman said. 

Her organization, which is a nonpartisan voter rights and education nonprofit, was one of several groups to formally request the public hearing in a December letter. In its letter, the league also challenged Gray’s legal authority to enact the rules as written. 

Sen. Case shared that concern in his testimony Friday and said that major changes to Wyoming’s election laws should take place through the Legislature, not executive-branch rule making. 

“The legislative process is superior to this process,” Case said. “It’s more in depth, it has more opportunity for people to comment, more give and take, more revision.” 

Case also pointed to a residency bill sponsored by the Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee, which he co-chairs. 

“Mr. Secretary, we’re working on a bill right now that you helped with in Corporations,” Case said. “It’s going to be in the Legislature. We have another interim coming up. You have the commitment of the Legislature to work with your office to try to work on these problems in a system, which I feel is a better process.”

In response to an idea pitched by Gray to lawmakers last May, the committee is seeking to impose a 30-day residency requirement to vote in Wyoming’s elections with House Bill 38 – Voter qualifications-durational residency requirement. 

Both efforts are intended to ensure Wyoming elections are decided by Wyoming residents, supporters say, but the two go about that in different ways, as WyoFile reported in December. 

What’s next?

Now that the public comment period has closed, Gray’s office is required to review and consider the input before making a decision. 

His office has several choices. If Gray wishes to make “substantive changes,” per the rulemaking process, he can withdraw the initial proposal, and then start over with redrafted rules. He can also make minor changes based on public comment and adopt the proposed rule. 

From there, there’s a 75-day period when it’s up to both the Legislature’s Management Council and the Attorney General’s Office to provide Gov. Mark Gordon with feedback. The attorney general must also make a recommendation to Gordon. 

Finally, it’s for the governor to decide to approve, disapprove, or partially veto the rule.