I've reviewed the proposed Senate Joint Resolution 71 and Senator Pell's letter. As I read the proposed Resolution, Senators Pell and Mathias want to advance the date for assuming federal elective offices, thereby eliminating the so-called "lame duck" period. They apparently regard a "lame duck" President and, perhaps, a "lame duck" Congress a source of real mischief. Although the Senators may have a legitimate concern, I can't endorse their proposed Amendment as the best way, or even a good way, to address the problem.

I see two difficulties with their proposal. First, Montana statutes provide twenty days to complete county and state-wide vote canvassing. This proposal would reduce the canvassing period to eight days in the extreme case. Shortening the canvass period could work a real hardship on the many Montana counties that continue to use paper ballots and manual counting systems. Montana might not have even commissioned its Congressional Members by the contemplated November 15 commencement of term.

In addition to this mechanical difficulty, this Amendment would force a newly-elected President and Congressional Members to constitute a new government in two weeks, give or take a few days. The transition between Presidential administrations is always a tremendously complex situation. I can't see how the public interest benefits in any way by reducing the grace period between election and inauguration from three months to two weeks.

While I do not object to N.A.S.S participation in the upcoming Judiciary Committee hearings, this proposed Amendment seems too far off target to warrant serious consideration. Since it would have an impact on state and local election administration, perhaps we have an obligation to note as much for the Senate record.

In answer to your memorandum of March 15, 1984, concerning proposed U.S. Senate Joint Resolution 71, we

to offer the following comments.

are pleased

1. NASS ought to participate in hearings on this proposal.

2.

the President November

We oppose S.J. RES. 71 for these reasons.
Advancing the date for inauguration of
and Vice-President from January 20th, to
and providing that terms of members of Congress
on November 15th, creates several timing conflicts.

20th, begin

a. The President would take office prior to the meeting of the presidential electors. The meeting of the Wyoming Presidential Electors is held on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December (December 17, 1984).

b. The newly-elected members of Congress would take office under the proposal prior to receipt of the official certification of the election results by Congress.

In Wyoming the State Canvassing Board meets to officially certify the general election results on the second Wednesday following the election (Nov. 14, 1984).

c. Advancing these dates would not allow time for recounts. By law, a statewide candidate can request a recount within two days after the State Canvassing Board meets.

We trust the above comments are helpful.

Looking forward to the Annapolis Conference.

Sincerely yours,

THYRA THOMSON
Secretary of State

Farida

LINDA NORMAN
Deputy

orman

I am writing in response to your memorandum concerning
S.J. Res 71.

With all due respect to Senator Claiborne Pell and his
position on this issue, I simply do not support the idea of
N.A.S.S. participating in the hearings. I firmly believe
that the existing system is quite adequate and therefore
feel N.A.S.S. should take the stance of opposing this
joint resolution.

Looking forward to seeing you in the Annapolis Conference.

Best wishes and warmest regards.

Sincerely,

TUFELE F LIA
Lieutenant Governor

Reference is made to memorandum of March 15, 1984, and the Senate Joint Resolution from Senator Claiborne Pell. I believe strongly, that 1) N.A.S.S. ought to participate in the hearings on April 24, 1984, and further, 2) I am unalterably opposed to this Constitutional Amendment. This would literally destroy our election time table and election code, and further, would "mess-up" our election timetable and would require a change in our entire Canvass procedure and meetings of the State Canvass Board. I suspect this will be true in most

states.

Finally, I believe, you and members of the election committee should be at the hearing.

AJB:mrh

Respectfully submitted,

Allen Beumann

ALLEN J. BEERMANN

SECRETARY OF STATE

"Political Society Exists for the Sake of Noble Living"-Aristotle

In response to your inquiry about the United States Senate Resolution S.J. #71 I have the following comments.

As far as Arizona law goes we would need to change our laws on canvassing of the vote. Currently it is November 23 for the earliest date. Adding a reasonable time for challenge it would appear that the November 20th and November 15th dates seem quite early.

Would this also require a change in U.S. Code, Title 3, Chapter 1? Should you have any questions or would like to discuss the matter in more detail, please contact Jim Shumway our Elections Director at 267-VOTE.

With personal regards, I am

Sincerely

rpm.

ROSE MOFFORD
Secretary of State