Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Glad. Alright. We are live. Alright. Good afternoon, everyone. Shortly after 02:30PM on April 15, we are picking up work on s two ninety eight act relating to creating the Vermont Voting Rights Act. We are taking continued testimony this afternoon on a couple of different pieces, and we are going to start off on Zoom with our old friend, Ben Williams. Ben, how are you?

[Ben Williams (Senior Policy Counsel, FairVote Action)]: I'm doing well, Birong. How are you?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Just fine, sir. Thank you for asking. So, yeah. No. We wanna welcome you back. I know you had some, some feedback and thoughts about this particular piece of legislation. So just wanted to open the table up to to you and your thoughts.

[Ben Williams (Senior Policy Counsel, FairVote Action)]: Well, I appreciate it. Thank you, and thank you, Vice Chair Hango, ranking member of Waters Evans, members of the committee, for having me. For the record, my name is Ben Williams. I'm senior policy counsel at Fair Vote Action. We are a five zero one c four nonprofit that advocates for better elections around the country. Various policies that can fall into that are quite varied, but one of them is state voting rights acts and the various provisions therein. So really appreciate the time to talk to you today. This bill has changed a lot since it was first introduced in the senate. You all know that as well as anyone. And I reviewed some of the previous hearings that you've had in this committee on the bill thus far. So if it's okay, I'd like to keep my remarks tailored to just answering a few specific interest points and questions that I've heard in prior hearings and then leave the rest of my time for any questions that you might have. Hopefully, that is just a quicker way to get through this. So the the first point is one of the reasons why the bill was tailored so much in the Senate down to this level was the policy in Vermont that election bills are not passed in election years and trying to keep what was included in s two ninety eight to just mirror what is in federal law so that you're not actively changing any of the burdens on Vermont's clerks and you're not changing any of the burdens on any of the other agencies in the state. So when you see the versions that go from one point o, that was this many pages to 1.1, which was almost 50, down to the version before you today, that was the logic, was getting all of the ideas on the table and then cutting it down to the core components that were important to pass this year. There are other topics that were, I know were discussed in committee, and I know that you might have someone from SynergovOps come over, but just to give you an idea, disability access was something that I heard come up in a previous hearing. That's obviously something that we would be supportive of and we think is very important. And my understanding is that based on what Deputy Secretary Hibbert testified a couple weeks ago in this hearing, it sounds like there's going to be a process over the summer where some of those issues might be ironed out and the policy that's adopted is tailored to Vermont's specific circumstances. I would support any inclusion of Disability Rights Act as being a result of that deliberative process over the summer and potentially be included in 2027. I think that's a great idea. Next, there was a question about the protection section. I think this is two nine zero one seven a. It's at the bottom of page seven. This is about the campaign finance funds for personal security. This is not something that FairVote has researched extensively, so I don't have a recommendation for you on exactly what language should be included here. But I will say that we are broadly supportive of the idea that in an era of enhanced security threats and security risks to candidates and elected officials, we support states adding in flexibility into their constitutions or their statutes to allow for candidates to do appropriate steps to take care of their own personal safety. What exactly that is, whether or not you include things like firearms or weapons or not, I defer to your judgment and best wisdom, but the broad principle, I think we are supportive. Your safety and the safety of other candidates is a top priority in this time. Third, there was a discussion about a private right of action for vote dilution specifically. I know that there's a couple different sections that have vote dilution in this bill and others that don't. There was vote dilution, private right of action on the Senate side and it ultimately got pulled out. I think that was a drafting error. A private right of action for vote dilution already exists in federal law. So if you added that into this bill, that would not change anything meaningful for the rights of Vermonters if you added something simple back in. There's previous language that you can find in old drafts that might be appropriate, but if you were to do that, just note that it's not something that's gonna fundamentally alter any of the rights that Vermonters have or alter the burdens on clerks because they're they've been subject to that since 1965. The fourth, the vote dilution standard, I know this is something that the AG's office testified a lot about in the previous two hearings. I will just say, under the principle of keeping things tailored to not changing policy in an election year, we would be supportive of leaving the language as is and keeping it closely hewn to federal law. And then if there was some discussion about whether or not to expand that to be more specific or be broader or tailor it to Vermont circumstances in the future, we would certainly be open to that conversation. But for the moment, I think leaving it as is is perfectly appropriate. It mirrors the protections that have existed since the Voting Rights Act was passed more than half a century ago. And then lastly, deputy secretary Hooper testified about changing the name of the bill to the Voter Protection Act. Fair vote action is supportive of that change. This bill has some really good provisions in it that I think are really important for Vermont to pass this year, and I'll say more about that in a moment. But a Voting Rights Act typically has more sections than vote dilution and some protections for clerks and for voters against threats of intimidation or violence. And so changing the name to the Voter Protection Act, we think is appropriate and would fit the circumstances here. But lastly, I wanna end with why we're talking about this in 2026 and why we're doing this why we're supportive of this bill in the first place. And it's because you have a policy of not changing election rules in an election year, and we're actually at risk of the United States Supreme Court doing exactly that. For the past sixty years, Vermonters have enjoyed the rights in the Federal Voting Rights Act, and those rights are currently under threat in the Calais case pending before the United States Supreme Court. If those rights were to go away, you would have a change in election law in an election year. By passing s two ninety eight and incorporating the federal provisions into your own state code, you would have those protections for this year regardless of what the Supreme Court does later this spring or this summer. And then you could always come back next year and add on additional provisions that might go above and beyond in whatever this legislature thinks is its best judgment for what kind of protections a state voting rights act in Vermont could or could not include. But for 2026, this is really tailored to these very specific circumstances. It's meant to be continuous, and it's meant to avoid changes and disruptions in your existing structures, and that's why I would encourage you to pass S-two 98 with maybe some minor changes. But with that, I'm open to any questions. Thank you for the time.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Of course. Any questions for Ben? Yes, Robert Hooper. I'm curious to learn more about that Supreme Court case, its implications. How soon do we learn more about that?

[Ben Williams (Senior Policy Counsel, FairVote Action)]: Sure. Chairman. Yeah. Absolutely. Happy to help. So the case is out of Louisiana. It's called Calais, and it's about a Voting Rights Act lawsuit that was brought, I believe, in 2021 or 2022. I don't have the exact date in front of me. Challenging Louisiana's redistricting system as unduly diluting the votes of black voters in the state. The plaintiffs prevail. They drew the state drew a new district to allow the African American community an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice, which is standard practice and has been the case for the Voting Rights Act for well over thirty years at this point.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And

[Ben Williams (Senior Policy Counsel, FairVote Action)]: then different group of plaintiffs sued, claiming that that was a racial gerrymander, which is a different doctrine under federal law. The state of Louisiana is defending its maps, and so the the the state is officially in support of the districts as they are currently drawn in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. But there is some thinking that the Supreme Court might significantly alter the standard that is used to assess whether or not a claim of vote dilution exists. It's very unclear at this point, and I don't wanna get into too much speculation because with anything at the Supreme Court, there are many avenues that they could take. What we do know at this point is it's very likely that justice Samuel Ledo has the opinion in the court, and given his prior rulings on the Voting Rights Act, we have an idea of how he might rule writing a majority opinion on a case like this. So even though this bill is mirroring federal law, just because federal law would change doesn't mean that the way it would be interpreted in Vermont would necessarily change immediately either. That's not the way court cases work. You would typically have some time with your law on the books as it is before you might have to consider a change of your own. Does that answer your question?

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: I think so. I mean, I'd love more, but it sounds like you're not willing to predict, but we know how Are

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: you talking about prediction markets? No, that was yesterday.

[Ben Williams (Senior Policy Counsel, FairVote Action)]: I'll leave it to the wisdom of Polymarket.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for Ben? No. If you wanna stick around, feel free. If something pops up that you wanna chime in on, if you gotta go, we know where to find you, and you're the same.

[Ben Williams (Senior Policy Counsel, FairVote Action)]: I do have to go. Thank you. I will be, watching the livestream, though, so if there's anything that comes up, I'll I'm happy to respond.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you so much, Ben.

[Ben Williams (Senior Policy Counsel, FairVote Action)]: Thank you. Take care. Bye, everybody.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And our next guest via Zoom, Helen. Hi, how are you? Helen Brewer, Senior Policy Specialist, Elections and Redistricting for NCSL. How are you?

[Helen Brewer (Senior Policy Specialist, Elections & Redistricting, NCSL)]: Hello. Good. Thank you, Chair Birong. I hope you all are doing well as well. And it is good to see you again. I think we crossed paths at NCSL's election leaders meeting outside of Kansas City a few years ago, but it's been a while. So my name is Helen Brewer. I'm a senior policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures with the Elections and Redistricting Program, and I am here to give a lay of the land on state laws pertaining to the use of campaign funds for candidate security. I think also I hope there will be time for any questions that you all might have. And I do have some slides that I will put up while I tick through this information, but please feel free also to chime in with questions at any point. Will do. I did want to take just a second for any of you who may not be as familiar with NCSL to give a summary of who we are and what we do. NCSL is a bipartisan organization. Every state legislator and legislative staffer in the country is a member of NCSL. And we produce nonpartisan policy research on a whole variety of policy topics, pretty much anything you can think of when it comes to policy topics. Another thing we are happy to be able to provide for you all is tailored training, research and other services. And something we are glad to be able to say we can provide right now is resources from the NCSL Legislator Security Fund, which are funds we are able to allocate to legislatures for the security and protection of your institutions as well as yourselves as officeholders. Vermont has already applied and been approved for the NCSL Legislator Security Fund, so if any of you are interested in more details on that, you can contact your sergeant at arms. On that note, I will also say that while I am here to talk about laws pertaining to candidate security, officeholder security is also, of course, of the utmost importance to all of you and to all of us at NCSL as well. And our Center for Legislative Strengthening covers that topic here at NCSL, so I am always happy to refer you to them for information on the officeholder side of things as opposed to campaigns. Lastly, I would be remiss not to mention our annual legislative summit, which is our biggest convening of state legislators, legislative staff, and other folks in the policy world. We host this every year, and this year it will take place in Chicago in late July. With that, I will move on to what I have to cover for you all today. So on the topic of the use of campaign funds for candidate security, I will start out with a quick overview of what laws are currently on the books in states around the country, as well as what pieces of legislation have been introduced this year. This will also be an overview of the different legislative approaches we tend to see to this topic in these bills. Then I will go over common types of expenses we typically see either authorized or limited. And lastly, I hope to leave you with some details you might want to have in mind as you continue drafting and ultimately implementing possibly a law regarding candidate security spending, whether that is this year or, as Ben sort of mentioned in his testimony, if you're coming back to pieces of this bill in future years. Starting out with general legislative approaches to the use of campaign funds for candidate security. A lot of the time, I think perhaps most commonly, we see this expense being authorized as an exception to a prohibition on the personal use of campaign funds. Many states have a law saying that campaign funds cannot be used for personal uses, and a common way to allow security expenses is to exempt them from prohibited personal uses, meaning that they are allowed. However, there are also states that affirmatively authorize campaign security expenses. This is more similar to the approach that you all are looking at in your bill right now. Another way that we see campaign security expenses authorized and fleshed out is sometimes in advisory opinions or regulations from state ethics commissions or campaign finance regulators, depending on who has that authority in your state. And then I will note that campaign expenditures on security services are typically, if not always, subject to the usual disclosurefinancial disclosure requirements that apply to all other campaign contributions and expenditures. So the current landscape around the country, there are nine states that have laws pertaining to candidate security and campaign funds on the books. And there areI should say two of those laws, Alabama and Utah, were just enacted this year, and all the others are not too much older. Three of them were enacted in 2025, and the others, I believe, still within the last few years. This year, in 2026, in addition to Vermont, we have seen 15 states introduce legislation on this topic. So this is a huge jump in interest in this topic, as you all can probably imagine and understand. In 2025, 2024, and looking back from that in our databases, there would be maybe two to five bills or less or none on this topic. So before I move into some more details about what types of expenses are covered by these laws, I do want to point out that I'm going to cover only some specific examples. You can see there are 22 states that have engaged with this type of law in some way. And additionally, as I mentioned, campaign security authorizations are fairly broad or general authorizations of expenses, like what you all have drafted in Vermont at the moment. So as I'm going through slides and saying, oh, eight states allow this, nine states allow this, it's not necessarily the case that those are the only states that allow those expenditures. They are just the states that specifically mentioned them. Just because a state law does not specifically mention a certain type of expense doesn't necessarily mean the law wouldn't be interpreted to cover that expense. That is really kind of the name of the game with these laws, so I did want to make that clear. So with that, who is typically covered by these laws and bills that we see pending or on the books in other states? Of course, all of these laws cover security services for the candidate themselves. A consideration if you'rethat you may want to have in mind is part of the question with candidate security is how far exactly does that extend? Does this apply to the candidate's home, to the campaign office? If the candidate has a day job, if you will, does it also apply to security services at that other office, you know, if they run a small law firm or something like that? Almost all states also specifically mention that campaign funds can be used to cover security expenses for members of the candidate's family. And 10 states, either in legislation or laws that are on the list, specifically mention security services for staff. So turning from that to what type of expenses are covered. Again, I do just want to say one more time, there are some states with general authorizations that might encompass all or some of these. These are just the specific mentions that have been introduced or enacted so far. I will also pause here to say that the Federal Election Commission has issued regulations authorizing the spending of campaign funds for security services for federal candidates. So states are by no means out on a limb with this or anything. It's also an issue that has been at the attention of the federal government in the last few years. We have seen a lot of states, especially those introducing legislation this year, looking at specific types of security devices and monitoring services. As you can see, 14 states specifically authorize the use of campaign funds to purchase security hardware and for installation of that hardware. So this is something like some kind of an enhanced door lock or a security camera. Very similarly, 16 states specifically mention security monitoring systems being an acceptable use of campaign funds. This is something like a motion detector or an alarm system for a home or an office. And then seven states specifically authorize some type of a cybersecurity expense, so this might be what you typically think of as cybersecurity software. A couple of statesMinnesota is one of themalso allows candidates to spend campaign funds on identity and credit monitoring services. And a couple of states have also started to look at authorizing expenses for services that find places on the internet where your personally identifiable information might be and that you don't want it to be, and remove it from there. And then lastly, and I believe of some particular interest to you all at the moment, there are eight states that mention whether or not campaign funds can be used to purchase firearms. Seven states prohibit this use of campaign funds. They permit security expenses, but not firearms. You can see those states listed on the slide. Oklahoma's prohibition comes from an opinion from their ethics commission, not their statute, but I still wanted to include them here. And then Iowa has a bill I should have written that more carefully. They have a bill that would permit firearm expenses. That's not an active law that says permits on the screen. Statutes. But Iowa has a bill that would permit the spending of campaign funds on firearms and also firearms training.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: And

[Helen Brewer (Senior Policy Specialist, Elections & Redistricting, NCSL)]: with that, I mentioned I wanted to go through a few details that may be interesting or useful for you all to have in mind as you proceed. I do want to note that NCSL does not endorse any particular policy approach or another, just looking to give you the lay of the land and also a little bit of information about what we've sort of heard from regulators and campaign finance administrators and lawmakers as they have both written and implemented these laws on the ground. So one question that a lot of these or that some of these laws address, laws and bills, is when are security expenses necessary? This goes along with the language you all have drafted in Vermont authorizing campaign expenditures for necessary security services. Serviceswhat's going to be necessary, what's going to be approved. To determine this, California and Maryland Maryland had a bill, California is a lawwould require law enforcement verification of the threat that the candidate says necessitates security for them. On the flip side, Rhode Island specifically says that law enforcement verification will not be required. A couple of the sort of thoughts that go along with both of these approaches: requiring law enforcement threat verification, as a couple of states would be looking to do, of course, provides a verified and closely tracked way that money that's already the subject of a lot of attention, campaign money, is being spent. On the other hand, an approach like that doesn't involve law enforcement verification could allow a candidate to move quickly or move more flexibly or responsibly to some kind of a situation that arises suddenly. So a couple of thoughts on that front that we have heard. Another thing I want to touch on is some states have specific details about who candidates can procure services from. We see a few prohibitions on paying family members or some other close colleague for security services. And also, are a couple of states that require security personnel to be bona fide or registered with some certain security provider or agency in the state. There are eight states that have or whose bills would implement limits on how much of campaign funds can be spent on security expenses. A couple of notes here, will say Minnesota and California have current bills that would make some tweaks to their limits if passed, and California's cap, which is $10,000 would not go into effect until 2029. And then I did want to point out in Iowa, they do have limits on how much can be spent on candidate security, but they specify that any of a candidate's personal funds that they use on security will not count toward that limit. Lastly, the campaign is over. You have all won your seats in office. Now what? Now what about your security? There are several states that address what happens to funds or security services purchased with campaign funds once a successful candidate takes office. Eight states with either these laws or bills, their laws just already apply to both candidates and office holders, so that sort of takes care of itself in a clear way. And then as you all may know, a lot of states have laws telling campaigns what to do with surplus funds and how to liquidate the rest of their assets once the campaign is over. So Alabama, Oregon and Tennessee exempt security services that are purchased during the campaign from liquidation rules, and Tennessee additionally explicitly authorizes the use of surplus campaign funds for the office holders' security once they've won their election. And then California, Georgia, Maryland, and New Jersey do subject security services purchased during the campaign to their campaign liquidation laws. But for a successful candidate, that liquidation will not be required until the person leaves office. With that, I think the overall thing to note here is just there are states take a lot of different approaches and a lot of different levels of detail versus generality in their laws. Something we tend to hear from campaign finance and ethics administrators is that sometimes laws that are extremely specific and detailed in general, not necessarily on this topic can make it a little bit hard for them to regulate and adjust to unanticipated or newly developing situations. But on the other hand, detailed laws, of course, provide lots of guidance to, in this case, candidates and also to regulators. And also, some of that would depend on how much you all want to ensure that you have the primary say in what campaign funds can and cannot be spent on when it comes to security. So with that, thank you so much for having me today, and I am happy to answer any questions.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, I really appreciate all that information.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonnault (Member)]: So any questions for Alan, me, Daniel?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That's a lot of information. Yeah, that was a lot of really useful input. I guess maybe one question I have in there, this might be a better question for our elections division, but the difference, and I'm going into that firearm piece, the candidate versus the official, I mean, you have to be a candidate at some point to become the official perhaps, right? Or is there a differentiation there between appointed officials as well? I

[Helen Brewer (Senior Policy Specialist, Elections & Redistricting, NCSL)]: do think probably your folks you have from your Secretary of State's office might know exactly how your statutes are worded. In general, the definition of elected official or office holder or whatever different states are saying in these statutes this is not a satisfying answer but does vary by state to state. So I also don't know off the top of my head how many of the states that address firearms address office holders and candidates, and then even within that, whether an office holder also includes an appointed office holder is also a state by state question. I can at least follow-up with you on which states do mention office holders or only candidates or both in the firearm legislation.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, cool. I think that was the only curiosity nugget I had. Anything else Before we shift over to Ask All Brands, no.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: They answered every question I had.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, no, that was actually that gave a lot of clarity to this conversation.

[Helen Brewer (Senior Policy Specialist, Elections & Redistricting, NCSL)]: Okay, I'm very glad to hear that. As always, please be in touch with any questions you have, and I hope the rest of your hearing session goes well.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you so much. We really appreciate your resource as well. Okay. Moving over. Mister Chien, how are you, sir? Good. Thank you. Oh, yeah.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonnault (Member)]: That's awesome. Oh, no.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Faster.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Those blankets, you can get a little slouchy on those things. Circulation gets a little iffy. You know?

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Sean Cheahan, Elections Director, Secretary of State's Office. Thank you for inviting me to speak to this important legislation. I just want to make four points. First one, we'll make addressing the the issue of the firearms and the security issues. So I think first starting on that, just wanted to set the context, which we heard a little bit there as well. Just that Vermont's elections, local elections, state elections, federal elections, they're governed by local, state, and federal election law. And that includes the Federal Voting Rights Act and the importance of our rights protection that's provided for more than more than six decades, as I think was discussed by the first the first testimony from mister Williams. There is broad expectation, anticipation that the country that the supreme court could strike down key sections of the Voting Rights Act this spring or summer. And we've also discussed, and I think testimony also addressed, drum we've been beating, been the broken record of saying we don't change elections rules and procedures during election years. Since we've gotten through, we've heard it repeated a lot. And that was really limits test that we held to legislation here. We want Vermonters to be assured that existing election rules and procedures will remain as consistent as possible over the next six and a half months. We want clerks and election officials to proceed with confidence and minimal surprises. And so we support this concept, the eight page version was discussed, not the 24 or the 42 page version. For that reason, we feel it'll help Vermont maintain as much stability as possible regardless of what changes may come out of Washington. To those four topics, I believe will help with this bill, create greater clarity to existing rules and procedures. First was the questions around the safety protections. I thank Ms. Brewer. That testimony was excellent when we got the question about firearms. We went looking to see what other states did. As I and CSL had a terrific brief on the subject, but I think even all the late breaking news in other states that Ms. Brewer provided was very helpful.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I learned a lot

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: there. Here in Vermont, I think as Ms. Brewer discussed, there are some states that go into very great detail of what's prohibited, what's allowed. Vermont's statute is legislative council, which that one's spoken to much, has been much crafted to be more on the broader side, with the language being quote, necessary to allow a candidate to campaign, being kind of a litmus test for whether expenditures are allowed. And so in that sense, I think security expenditures that could be deemed necessary for a candidate to campaign would have been allowed in the past. They hadn't received as much attention in the past, I was going to say in the past here, but from as we just heard, sounds like in the past all across the country. I think sadly, our society has become more divisive, more threats to the candidates and officials have increased, Candidates are increasingly asking us about this topic as well. And so much as the case with dependent care a few years ago, which I think could have been seen as acceptable expense if it was necessary to allow the candidate to campaign. But, this body decided was was beneficial to make that explicit, to call it out in statute. We feel it would be helpful to explicitly call out security measures. To the question of whether security measures include the purchase of a firearm, I think both in looking at other states as we heard and from what I found out in my testimony when I saw Ms. Brewer say that Iowa allowed it, I was thinking I had to go back and edit my testimony before submitting the written because we said we didn't know of any states that had it and did qualify that Iowa hasn't passed that bill. So it is correct that no other bills, no other states specifically allow firearms. However, of those states that do make specific allowances, expenditures on things such as home security hardware are some of the more common specific measures that are called out. Then to those states that make specific prohibitions, the ones that are in current law, this is in the case of California, they do specifically exclude payments for a firearm. To that sense, I think, and staying broadly with our approach, I think, this whole Bill and Other Voter Protection Act, if it's renamed that with S-two 98, to really not be making changes to rules and procedures. Think for this year, not swinging wildly from having our broad approach to getting specific with a lot of details. We think a simple sentence, one sentence addition to section four of the bill 17 VSA 29,017, the definition where it currently is added, or for the provision of security for the candidate, if that was changed to or for the provision of security measures to the candidate, security expenditures do not include firearms or other dangerous weapons. We feel that would be consistent with other measures and more in line with the level at which dependent care was called out explicitly. Second, we understand that there's proposed amendments on remedies. We were supportive of those remedies. We know that it's standard practice for courts to look to case law when resolving issues with the Voting Rights Act being around for six decades. There's a long legacy. There's a robust trove of case law for the courts to draw upon if needed. The third area I wanted to touch on was personal data. Personal data, including voter data, been in the news a lot lately from the federal level and certainly concerns from Vermonters and privacy overall, and certainly making sure that there's also transparency in our elections. You feel that chapter 43 of title 17, which guides the Secretary of State's office and municipal clerks and how to safeguard this sensitive information, does well in the direction it provides to to my team, the elections division of the Secretary of State's office, but is is somewhat vague in the way it directs clerks. Specifically, section 17 BSA 2,154 covers who can access which portion of the voter checklist and how they can access it. It's very clear that people that want the checklist from the Secretary of State's office, the statewide checklist, must go to the Secretary of State's office and it requires the requester to swear or affirm that they'll use the data for legal purposes. And our office then uses an affidavit for that purpose, and the process works well. We've heard more questions from clerks because that same section, 2,154, forbids clerks from knowingly disclosing the checklist to prohibited uses, but not stipulating a process or an affidavit or an attestation for doing so. So we've received a lot of questions from clerks. We've told them that while statute doesn't require them to have requesters fill out an affidavit, There's no prohibition on doing so. A lot of the questions we've gotten in the last year to that effect, know as clerks have adopted affidavits and kind of followed that process. But we've also heard from others that they'd appreciate consistency and clear directive in statute. We have a simple change I can provide saying a couple sentences to 17 VSA 2,154 C, which would provide clerks and Vermonters with that consistency by, mirroring the language that, Secretary of State's office follows when there's a public records request for a checklist and bearing

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: that for clerks as well.

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: The fourth area to flag, I know there've been some question about the effective date. Our office supports the bill being effective on passage. That was one of the big reasons we supported the bill, the prior version of the bill, being narrowed down from that much longer bill that was introduced because we want that election year bill to focus on codifying current rules and procedures into state law. We felt that if pieces of the federal law that it could be codified in state law, there's no reason they can't be effective on passage. And if there's pieces of the bill that don't impact Vermont and or would be more ambitious than what's in federal law. We feel that those should be subject to a more robust discussion, which typically takes place in odd numbered years. And so as such, we feel this current bill hits that mark and we feel a sensible approach would be to make it effective on passage to provide stability for this year's elections.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Anybody have any questions, Reverend Cinnott?

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonnault (Member)]: Do you have any objections to having a limit that's put in here as to what can be spent on expenditures for the campaign security?

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: We don't have specific objections to it. Think our support for the reason of being the one simple sentence would just be, as I mentioned, staying consistent with the way our campaign finance law focuses heavily on the disclosures on the filing of the reports and the broad tie in to that, the language of being necessary to allow a candidate to campaign. Again, I think that would be, would certainly be open to that conversation with all of you and to the legislative council, but, and advocates, but we think in general, if we were to be getting more into the details of limits that can be spent on certain subcategories and other details like that, we feel that would be a bigger change, more appropriate for a different year, but we aren't categorically opposed to.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Question came up earlier about an appointed versus an elected official. Do you have any opinion on that?

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: I think with the campaign finance in Vermont law, really focused the candidate being on the campaign from the time that they announced in the there's three triggers and statute for when they become a candidate. And that's in campaign finance section. So this portion of really being the campaign finance part on being the candidate. We see that being the definition on there for expense. Now having said that, I think putting the language in, if somebody's allowed to make these purchases. And I think part of the way it's generally been determined is, as Ms. Brewer said as well, kind of when there's that personal benefit or that need beyond, you've read both other statutes and other states talk about an access to the campaigns. Think if that purchase is made for the campaign and somebody buys cameras for their home and so forth, and continue to use them when they're an office holder, we don't see that as something that would be prohibited in that sense.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonnault (Member)]: I'm going go back to the expenditures again. Sorry, if we were to make an amendment to that, would we do it at this time or will we do it after we? I like what the NCSL had, where they specified a dollar amount maximum, that it can't be used for funds, that it has to be used if it's used for a limitation on how much you can spend on home cameras, that kind stuff. Just think right now it's just too open ended. If we're going to pass a bill, let's pass it with

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Let's hone it in and make it

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So is that for committee discussion time rather than when we have a witness in front of us?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes, think that's a No, no, but I think we're all agreeable that we need to hone in that Yes, language and make it more absolutely.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Did you have a question?

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: I agree with it. I don't know. Maybe. I kinda want a history of this section. Like, what?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So which section again?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: The key numero.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: The security section?

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, this really If

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: you look back at all the drafts that the box had,

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonnault (Member)]: there's a lot.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: The thing about it is, like, to me, this adds to the issue of security and politics. To emphasize, I don't think Vermont candidates are in grave danger.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I think my wife would beg to differ. That's fair. I can play you some voice mails.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: I'm sure you can't. But

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I was just gonna say is that the mother lives in the country. Well, listen.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: I'm not gonna I'm not gonna I'm not gonna say, like, okay. All you guys with your concerns, those aren't legitimate. I'm just, like, I don't see it the way others do. I don't see that stuff as much.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: This is not I'm just

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: very happy for you that you don't have that.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: Maybe he's gonna do

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: a good job.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So, yes, we'll do this after our witness. Yeah. Oh,

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: yes. Well, okay. The question for the witness, if you don't mind. John, indications of going to using that case, do you have thoughts on that for us? I mean, your fourth flag, right, was the effective date. My understanding is you want us to not quite do this right now, but wait, is that true?

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: No, no, think my recommendation was that it would be effective on passage. Okay. Yeah, for that reason. Yeah, and that I think is why we were supportive of this bill coming at all during this year is because we felt this bill would provide greater assurance, greater stability in the case of potential risks coming out Of Washington. If we didn't feel those risks were there, if we thought things could wait till next year, we would have preferred for this whole debate to be happening next year and for a whole bill to be starting up. So really that was why with a lot of measures and pieces in the, I think some of the iterations on the Senate side talked about effective dates for next year for some components. Our thought on those was that if they can wait until next year, or if they're going to be adding new levels or be more ambitious, seek improvements in how we do our elections. We certainly recognize and agree that we can make improvements across the board, but we feel those improvements are made during odd numbered years, not in the run up to an election. So with, I think, the Supreme Court and Calais, I don't have a better probably have less of a progressive of a prognostication. Yeah, yeah. What happened then, the folks monitoring, you see at the daily level. But my understanding is Supreme Court does tend to come out with that they are likely to come out with a ruling. They tend to come out with their rulings in the early early summer, period. And and if they do, there's a good chance, as we heard, that, significant parts of the Voting Rights Act could be gutted. If they are gutted, that would mean changes in the weeks before our statewide primary in August, months before November. Whether or not that changes things, whether or not there's time or they wouldn't go into effect write off, there would be that sense of uncertainty on the part of clerks, on the part of of voters. So having a bill that can codify what's in federal law and the state state law would be telling ver telling vermont voters that we're seeking Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I got Hango, Coffin, Waters Evans.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: My question makes it seem like I've been listening.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Well, mine might as well. So that all being said, I understand about the potential rollback of the Federal Voting Rights Act, Section four of this specifically deals with safety protections for candidates. My understanding is this is an above and beyond provision. It's not in the Federal Voting Rights Act.

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: That's correct. Yeah, and it's not, but again, we don't see this as a change per se. I think much as the law a few years ago around dependent care was made explicit, we feel this would be making security measures explicit. We feel candidates in our read, really, that if candidates tie their expenditures to what is necessary to allow a candidate to campaign, that that would be allowable. Having said that, knowing that this is getting a lot more attention, that's something that we hadn't gotten a lot of questions about in the past. We always prefer, we certainly consult with the Attorney general's office when we get new questions for our read and interpretation, but because some of the details really and intent come out of the legislature, more often the legislature can make language explicit, we feel that's better for candidates, better all the way around for us not to be happy to making interpretations.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. And do you remember the dependence of candidates, that portion of the law clarifying that allowable expense? Do you remember what year that was done in?

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: I don't write off. I believe it was in the last decade.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Do you

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: want me

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It wasn't it wasn't very long ago No. As I remember it. I was just wondering if it was in an election year or not, because I'm feeling like we're gonna have to be I mean, we're already filing campaign finance reports for the twenty twenty six general election. So if this were to take effect on passage, I think it would take a little bit of education, bringing people up speed in an election year on what they could and could not be doing for their own personal security. So for that reason, I'm a little hesitant to have it included in this bill right now, but definitely open to conversation. And I will yield to the next person.

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Coffin, Evans, Nugent.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: So, with the Louisiana v. Cali, whichever way they say it, What parts typically would because I you're the second witness to say it's going it could significantly affect what could it dismantle in the Voting Rights Act. I I

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: don't know enough about the case. Yeah. Yeah. I will

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Besides the race based districting that they were talking about, what else could it tear apart based on the argument?

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Yeah. I think and that's an area, I think, also, I think the the witnesses you had this morning from the attorney general's office may have been more expert on that area to speak than me. But my understanding is that the whole voter dilution piece would be a significant component, but it could potentially be much, much broader of the entire sections around there, which there's pieces and as we discussed, a lot of the pieces that have to do with voter assistance. There's sections in the Voting Rights Act relating to people who are elderly or, or have a disability to to get assistance at the at the polls. That was a piece that was, in the bill before. That was a piece that we talked about take made more sense to come out because Vermont law was already stronger in that in that capacity that any voter can have it. But the those those sections around that, around vote dilution, voter voter assistance, around the the the language, assistance, which also also had been discussed in here with Vermont being at a threshold with our towns being smaller as we discussed wouldn't be impacted as well. Real and I think a lot of the remedies and potentially the piece around the threats and coercion were parts that are in the section that I understand are being looked at by the Supreme Court. So really, what's what's left of of in these in these eight pages, I think, are the pieces that were in the voting rights act that could be codified into Vermont statute, not making changes, for Vermont, but giving that additional security and and stability.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Okay. No. Yeah. I was just really curious, which I don't know enough about the law, and now we have a lot more reading to, but because a lot of it was based about around the race based redistricting, and that's why I wanted to know what else is going to be affected instead of just saying it could dismantle everything.

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Right.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: It could dismantle because it sounds like fear mongering that if we could get it on record, the specifics of what they're looking at.

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. There's I mean, so the pieces beyond and that's a good point too for the sides of a lot that has to do with the pre districting, and coming out of the initial drive, for it certainly was in the, the Jim Crow self and and districting at at that level. But a lot of the protections in the Voting Right Act for redistricting would apply everywhere, as well. There are pieces because Vermont well, because we're not like bunch of states doing redistricting mid decennial census as well. That was a piece that we felt even if it if that part changed, didn't need to be in this version of the Voter Protection Act because we'll have until 02/2032 to really be crossing the bridge of redistricting. And so that would give ample time in next year, even the next few years, to work in protections if we wanted to mirror those portions of the the Voter Rights Act into Vermont law. But the portions that were here were really much more around that voter assistance, voter dilution, having that the remedy and the private right of action.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. Grand Isle.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I feel like my question might have been answered already, but just to clarify, if we pass this bill and it is a seamless, maybe not seamless, but fairly seamless transition, the Federal Voting Rights Act to be dismantled, it would just kind of keep everything moving. There would be no extra new work on your part, right? Correct.

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: I think on our part, on the part of, I think, of the particularly the rules and procedures of, I think, our office, clerks, on voters, and people that influence, there would be no requirements, shifts. What's allowed would still be allowed, what wouldn't be, still wouldn't be. I think as the Attorney General's office spoke to, I think some of the shift that would potentially happen if there was a change at the federal level and the remedies being sought through the instead of being sought through the federal system, being sought through the state level. And so I think the language that as well provided this morning about that, I think really spoke to their investigative piece. So I think the piece that would potentially have that change would be to the general's office for how those plans are investigated and pursued. But as far as what's allowed, what's not allowed, and the protections that are in place for for clerks, for voters, for for others, those would be be consistent.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: My other, thank you. Ironic that passing a lot about elections and election, know, keep elections. Who would have thought?

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonnault (Member)]: And

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: then the other, I mean, do you think it's fair to say, and this is just maybe me secretly just giving my opinion, but asking if you agree, is I feel like when the, I know that we've said maybe your office said we should call voter protection, as opposed to voting rights, because it's kind of a whole different thing. But also, seems to me like the security part is more of a campaign finance issue and not really like a voting or voter issue. So, is there a generally accepted policy about campaign finance changes in election year? Is it something that would cause any extra work for your office? Or would it just be a new thing added on to things that already exist?

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: And we think it would just be really providing that clarity, I think, the question, as Representative Hango said, forgetting getting the word out. Certainly, we're taking these questions as it is right now. The way we're answering them right now is not specifically called out, but we're pointing to the expenses that are necessary to allow a candidate campaign, go ahead and report those, disclose those in the campaign finance filings. So I think to the extent that there was a passage of a bill, this case, that made it explicit, we would be able to get the word out and those responses we give individually, but also in communications to the parties, as well as in office hours and FAQs and so forth. This has been explicitly called out in this bill and now it's in statute. So it wouldn't be changing the answer that's given in the sense of guidance or anything. Would be making it explicit that statute says this as opposed to an interpretation based on that necessary to allow a candidate to campaign language.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Thank you.

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Yoo Jin?

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: I think my question's been answered somewhat, but I was wondering about how the Voting Rights Act applies to Vermont specifically. And I guess I'm not fully clear on because part of it applies to just certain states that have been found to be doing these things that they weren't supposed to do, and that enables the federal government to preview the election laws before they're implemented. Are they allowed to do that? Or do they do that with any other states? Or can they? Or I'm not sure how that applies.

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Yeah, that one I have to, I think, come back on a lot of the help. So I mean, I I can say broadly, a lot of the laws, the requirements, the cases of the assistance and pieces like that, certainly parts of the processes that are in place when it comes to redistricting and the measures, all those pieces that I mean, they're in federal law. They apply to those apply to all all states. I think when you get into some of the investigations, maybe at the federal level on certain pieces. Think as you talked about, don't know if it's necessarily they're not applying, but where those interventions are has been when there's been a case brought or as I mentioned with NAACP, for example, bringing case through that, have a right to action if that was looking at a particular state and particular processes. There's certainly some requirements that apply to larger jurisdictions don't apply in in Vermont because we don't have any big cities, other other things as well. But I think for specific, if you had other questions on that, we certainly could try to get another witness or gather more information. Happy to follow-up.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I see your hand, Rebecca.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, you did. I'm trying to find it on the campaign website, the campaign finance website, but I probably am not looking in the right place. There's a drop down menu when you go to fill in your campaign finance report. And it's very specific about what you're using your money for. So you'd have to alter that somewhat if we added in certain things to this bill that are allowable. Is that correct to assume?

[Shawn Chien (Elections Director, Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: To add a dropdown, I'd have to go back and review that to see if if it would be something we would have, give the the guidance for others that fall into existing category or whether we would would add a a drop down. I think it could be done either way, but we would certainly do whatever we felt would be clearest for candidates. Anything

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: else for the elections director? Oh, we got them. Oh, alright. I think this is, like, this is this is a good block of time today. It's helping us hone this in. I'm feeling, that's the end or end. Alright. Thank you very much, sir. This is not the end of the conversation on this, though. Alright. Good work, committee. We'll start refining this. We're gonna have a good now coming tomorrow and talk to us about that language with h five forty one that was suggested we include. So he is the reporter of the bill and the primary shipper of that vehicle. So he's gonna give us a run through. And then we're gonna dial in some more testimony. Hopefully, I I think I wanna focus on this bill with our gaps on Friday and maybe even sprinkle in some, like, merchant and other testimony in and around the Eastern Charter. So that's what I'm thinking for the wrap on the week. With that