Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Because of vote dilution through reapportionment. That's more context that saves. One would have to read into this and isn't necessarily read into what the words on the page as they currently are. But that totality of circumstances, again, we list one example circumstance or factor. The other ones that could be considered by, again, the enforcement agency really will be the AG's office to see if they believe it's worth bringing the claim, and then the courts ultimately saying, yes, that is the case or not. You know, so a, we have I'll say the statute is silent as to what some of the other possible factors could be here to show that a violation of subsection a has occurred, being one example listed in subdivision B, and then really the discretion, the prosecutorial discretion in C, and then the actual, I guess, determination the adjudicating by the courts.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So I felt like letter C kind of negated the need for that last sentence in letter B, because it seems like letter C has it covered. Nothing in this section shall be construed to establish a right to have members of a protected class selected in numbers equal to their proportion, so like quotas, for instance, population. I'm not really sure what we're doing with the last sentence of letter B, but you gave a good explanation, I know there are other questions. So I'm just going to leave that hanging there for a few minutes.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Okay. If I saw the hands in order, I have Rev. Orange Evans, then Rev. Scott.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So this language, can you remind us what this language is based on, like, where it originated from and, like, how closely it mirrors either Virginia or the federal?

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: It is pretty similar to Virginians. I have to take a closer look to see if find where it changes, but that was something that was based off of. And there was, if one is interested, they could look at the the prior versions that the senate was considering, which were much lengthier, much, there's additional processes, definitions, consultants, different mechanics, or how, see, different kind of violations would be considered, what were violations of that nature, which had stripped out. To give you a preview, the bill was introduced and it was 25 pages and then may have jumped to 50 pages and then it was reduced down to like six or something like that. So it's reduced, streamlined, I'm sure people would characterize it.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: And then those lines 12 to 14 in section B about the extent to which members of the protected class been elected to office in the state or municipality is one circumstance that may be considered. Doesn't including that language doesn't single it out is more important or significant or something to be considered more than any other factor, correct?

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: No, not necessarily. It does provide the only example of factors. But it wouldn't necessarily state that factors, other factors that should be greatly related to that necessarily.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: And like establishing one, giving one example or establishing one factor doesn't mean that any others might not be considered,

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: Going back to the totality of the Trump standard being tripping two bays, I was wondering if you could talk about the Supreme Court decision in Thornburg versus Peoples 1986. I just attended a webinar about the Virginia Voting Rights Act. And I know that this also the slang that is closely modeling the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. But they spoke about in the webinar that I attended that contralogy of circumstances language has any challenges to that. Identical federal language has consistently failed. I didn't know if you'd researched that case in particular, because that's what developed that concrete multifactored framework that courts use to apply exactly to the standard is what we heard. I was wondering if you could share a little bit about And then also if you could go over how Section C is a limiting clause, not a contradiction, and kind of take us through what limiting clause means.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, first, I'll start by saying, unfortunately, I won't be able to recite the holdings of the top of my head. I'd be happy to provide the committee with a pithy summary of the case and maybe what totality of circumstances spent in that and from its subsequent case law. Happy to provide that, not a problem. And some of the examples as applied. I think that'd probably be helpful for a community to know. Getting to your second part of the question about is subdivisions limiting or say innocence. So nothing in this section shall be construed to establish a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportionate born population. It limiting or not? Again, it gets to this circle idea of racial quotas not being permitted institutionally. And then that's a different context of voting. Sorry, let me just I'm thinking about this out loud. Apologies. Yeah, it would really reading the last the prior sentences on 12, and then kind of one subsection to the beginning of the fifteenth together, it's really, say, okay, with reapportionment or racial gerrymandering, which is literally what we mean by voter dilution here. We're talking about protecting classes of people. It says, okay, when you're looking to see if there's been illegal racial gerrymandering through cracking, packing, that kind of thing, really primarily considering race and how to disenfranchise people of that race, really, is what we're kind of getting at here. One of the factors can be considered is, okay, was this seat historically held or could it be historical examples of it being held by this candidate or a officer of the racial group? And then if it's lost or lost in significant numbers, there's multiple ones, they went down from 10 to two or something like that in a district with say 20, you know, that's pretty significant. But so that can be one example of, that plus numerous other factors to be considered in totality or circumstances that can be considered that historical, where they were not a seat holder. Now turning to c, we say, okay, well, you know, that's fine that they could have, held that seat or not, or at one point held it. But what we're not considering here is that x number of seats have to be held by this class of people or that class of people or this class of people here. So saying that it's it's, whether it's limiting or not, that's the way to put it, but it's rather a, okay, the purpose is not to establish or meet any sort of quota when it comes to, people or classes, in the reapportionment process. However, what is more considered disenfranchisement by again weakening the power of the vote of dilutions we're talking about here. That because of lines are drawn in such a way to that since this group has less voting power or this opposing group has more voting power relative to each other, that could be considered inappropriate. And, an instance or proof of that would be the disappearance of individuals that class in those seats. Long winded, I'm sure if that's helpful, hopefully.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: Yeah, yeah, I noticed. And again, this is federal language that has been in place and survived decades of constitutional challenge. This is not something that we as the Vermont legislature have cooked off.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Patent of circumstances appears in

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: And Part C as well.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: the Part C that we're talking about.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: That's all pulled from federal law that has held up for decades.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, those aren't really considered facially inappropriate or anything like that. Indeed, fatality circumstances, tests in this regard have been upheld for decades.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Right, there you go.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thanks. So Part C is not the part that I'm objecting to. It's Part B, the final sentence in Part B. And I just went back to the Senate version, I think it's 2.5, the second version they had. And I see this language of a violation of subject line is established, etcetera, based on the totality of circumstances. And then it goes on to list a whole bunch of criteria that are included in the totality of circumstances. So that version is much more expansive and descriptive than this one is. And I'm not seeing the extent to which members sentence that I'm just not finding that unless it's somewhere in here that I have skipped over. So, I'm not sure where that one sentence that I don't think is necessary is. Is that a question? Yeah, I guess. I mean, anybody else can find it, that would be great.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Is the question, where did subsection C come from in the bill? Yeah, fine.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I understand C because C is saying, we don't want this to say there have to be quotas or thresholds or anything like that. It's the last sentence in B. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the state or municipality is one circumstance that may be considered. But the Senate bill originally had a whole bunch of circumstances. Now we're just calling out one circumstance. And I'm not sure why just one if we're not gonna use all of the circumstances. Is that as clear as mine?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Well, what I was going to say is, don't mean, that's why I just asked Tim, including one, would exclude others, and it seems like it doesn't. I'm wondering if perhaps this one, and I couldn't speak for, I don't know what the sentence what their thought process was, but it seems to me like including this one particular sentence, it seems to me it could be because it's important or it's a great guiding principle. I can't presume to guess why they would want to leave it in. But my opinion is that it does no harm to leave it here. And it's a reminder and kind of a general guide of what our intent is with the legislation. And if it doesn't mean that other things aren't included, then it seems fine to me to leave it here. It doesn't seem like it's limiting us in any other way or making this more important than the rest of the things. Although I would be open to adding everything else back in. I was taking out all the

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: No. It's a lot

[Chair Matthew Birong]: of GSEs.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Well, I'm just saying, your concern is not having things in there, then we can just put them all in there. Otherwise, it seems to me like this might be kind of the overreaching principle of why we need to make sure that we're doing this. And I feel, I mean, I don't know. I guess it doesn't seem egregious or like it's going to cause complications in any way if it's left in. Okay. Yeah. Why are you fattering me?

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Nice. Hold on. Up next, repentance, then stone, then angle. I'm just wondering if you couldn't tweak that sentence so that it doesn't just make it one circumstance, I mean, it's really one circumstance that may be considered. Is it one example of a circumstance that may be considered? Or something so that you know there's other circumstances?

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Our go to language includes, so we say includes, and that's naturally how we interpret it through Title one is that includes but not limited to. So, if the committee does want to explore something like that, they could rephrase it

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: to where are we? This is elevating clothes.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, I lost my place here. It's on the effect of, okay, totality circumstances. You can explicitly say an example of or one of the circumstances may include, circumstances may include, and then say that example, and then courts would say, okay, we know what that means, it's just one instance, it's not exclusive, it's an open ended list of this, and it really wanted to of just be saying that those circumstances could be explored as wanted by the attorney general's office and then the appropriateness of what factors are considered would be weighed by the courts.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: So then, would that be in line, starting on line 12, the extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the state or municipality is what you said?

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: I would probably rephrase this, putting the first part of the second part of the sentence first. It would be circumstances that may be considered to include fact.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: Okay,

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: so I just want to point out again that the language that is in Section B is from federal law that has been litigated hundreds of times. And I would caution us from deviating from that because I think the way that it's written now is illustrative and not exhaustive. And I worry that if we made it an exhaustive list and something that is new, that has not been tested, litigated hundreds of, that it could actually weaken the bill and put Vermont on the book for things. So what I've heard from my research and reading and looking into these cases is there's a reason that they didn't list out specific things so that it was illustrated non exhaustive. And again, we'd be hearing federal law that has stood up litigation for decades. Is that last sentence in the vote in motion? It is. All of it's, it's like one big package deal, like A, B, C, E, C. So it's all from federal law. You can look it up on Google and you'll see it's literally the language.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: And again, to of anchor your point, representative, one of the intents within this bill is to put the existing framework that has been federal law for decades in state statute.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: That has stood up time and time again to litigation has won. So I just worry that if we start messing around with things.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: And that's one of the reasons that this bill itself was trimmed down so much. The Senate had already gone through this exercise of expansive language.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: And then decided that it was better to have a tight, concise and mirrored federal. Yeah. All right, Ben, are you all set?

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: I'm done. I'm just saying that's a point of information.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: No, no, I was just asking before I move on to her.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Representative May?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so I'm not relying on a Google search. I'm relying on our attorney here. And I thought I heard Tim say that there were other circumstances that are in either the Virginia Voting Act or federal law, and I may have misheard. I'm not

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: just relying on a Google search. I'm also relying on the fact that it's in statute. I'm sure that Tim can also point us to that.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: That's what I'm asking. Thank you.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: So I would have to pull up the Virginia statue to go side by side, exactly how they flesh out the idea of totality of circumstances. Pretty confident that it does look pretty similar to something that existed in one of the earlier versions of the Senate bill. I have draft 1.1 of their strikeout amendment in Senate gov ops. And on page six of that, we have in the evaluation of voter suppression of vote dilution, an evaluation of totality of circumstances determining if the violation has occurred, and then we have a series of factors, kind of enumerated, and I have to double check to see if this is exhaustive of what they're thinking, but, I can read some of them into the record if the, if you would find that useful or not. And I would have to look into, let's see if the have to probably think more about so Thornburg, the other side of that case is Thornburg v. Jingles, are jingles, depends on how you pronounce Various factors are used in that, and those are common law. They can be codified in various state laws, doesn't necessarily mean they have to appear in state law for them to be considered. The courts both Vermont and most district court here and all the federal levels would certainly employ the jingles factors. They're still very upheld very recently. I'll just throw some notes I have here. The Sorry, I'd have to kind of produce, Yeah, there it is. Ellen V. Milliken 2023, those most recent business webinar upheld. So anyways, I can produce some materials or just come back later this week and actually kind of go into that more detail about what those factors usually look like. Off the top of my head, they can be things like, well, maybe it'd be useful for me to read what the Senate considered first, or I'll just take the temperature of the room here if they find that useful to read into the record to see what's been removed in this part of the bill. Defer to members there. I've

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: been looking at draft 1.1 as well as 2.5, and that's what I'm trying to figure out of what the Senate considered is why they felt they had to remove what appear to be relevant pieces of this consideration of totality of circumstances, and not sure why they chose just to keep that one. And my question was, much as what Rep Stone was saying, is it because that's the only sentence that exists in federal law or in the Virginia Voting Rights Act? That's the gist of my question. I just want, I guess, affirmation of that. Because if that's the case, what we're trying to do is mirror federal law. But I'm not sure why the Senate was considering all this other language. So I guess what we see the words on the page here in draft 1.9, is that federal law and is there more to it or not?

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: I will say there's more to federal law than draft 1.9. The Voting Rights Act, as it's been amended over the decades, is much more involved than just the seven pages that we have here. But they also address broader topics as well. So there's things in the Voting Rights Act that don't necessarily appear here or they appear here in truncated manner, very much abbreviated, I would say. Whether that exact sentence appears in Virginia law, I'm pretty confident it does in federal. I'll have to double check. In regard to as to why senate took those out, you can see comparing draft 1.1 to 2.5, they removed it in 2.5. I would have to defer to the reporter from the executive ops committee. I can't remember who it was on the phone. But they would probably be able to give you an educated answer.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: That's okay. I know we're going to hear from a number of other folks, so maybe somebody else will be able to answer my question. Thank you. We should move on.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you have a handout for her? Yep.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Oh, I just looked up the federal law on The United States with the House website, and I can send a link to the committee if you'd like. And it says, it is very, it is almost identical. And it includes the, it says A, and then its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the state or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered. Provided that nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. And that's literally what it is. There's nothing more there in that section. So it seems like it's the same.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: So anything further on this, we're gonna have this bill in front of us all weeks. Shall we? Yes, represent.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: It may be helpful, and that'll be me, and when I Googled it, did go to the same shared government website that's information, amazing is that we've over lost, and just read them. But maybe it would be helpful to put that up as a document so that we can have that just as reference as we're looking through in the committee and not having to wait for the legislature council isn't here if you have a question just to see what's already in Yeah. That Yeah. Mean, it's public. As a reference. But just that, so yeah.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: As a reference. Perfect.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: 2803.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Amendment of voting rights with registrants. Go ahead and look here. I have to go to another committee. Okay.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Oh, we're out of clock with you, sir. Oh, that's great.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: We have

[Chair Matthew Birong]: a short We had forty five minutes.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Oh, I'm sorry.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm happy to return with more answers and information later on this week. And if, individual committee members have a question that they want to send me, that can be provided. Just make sure I have time to do satisfying answers, I'd be happy to.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Are you available at 09:30 tomorrow morning?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Doesn't look like it. Okay. Never mind.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Although, I've been blocked off for two hours for probably something to take twenty minutes. So it's for which one? In house wind space. It's $2.55, a pilot project for, Woodham County. Okay. Because I

[Chair Matthew Birong]: was gonna kick a vote on a charter

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: that you were free

[Chair Matthew Birong]: around 09:30.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And

[Chair Matthew Birong]: okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Alright. Alright, greetings. So I guess sort of the accents on this. We have good amount of testimony lined up on this tomorrow afternoon after the floor, looking at about six, seven witnesses. And so if folks wanna read through this a little bit more granularly and identify questions for counsel, fire them off via email or however you'd like to correspond to start sort of getting an understanding within this, and then we'll pick up the testimony tomorrow, I guess, was like a little bit of a scant walk through. So tomorrow will be a little

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: bit of a combo pack of

[Chair Matthew Birong]: a walk through and testimony. So maybe what we'll do is adjust our schedule after the floor. Nick, could you Could I ask

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: a question before you take this off here?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I will. Yep. I just wanna ask.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: I wasn't sure if he was there today. Nope. Yep. No.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: So we'll finish the walkthrough maybe before witness testimony tomorrow. So let's see if we can line up Tim for that as opposed

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: to 09:30. So I'm just trying to follow what's happened here because the last time we had the bill, did we refer back to the Senate? No. So, how did H541 get incorporated into that? It's a very question to judiciary committees, that's why we

[Chair Matthew Birong]: had to rep them out here last week.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Okay, so then it went to legal counsel and they did the work. So this is their language. Am I reading it wrong that the part of the capital campaign finance, finance monies. Page. I'm on page six of seven, way at the bottom. This is expenditure A, capital A. Expenditures Yep. May include those expenses that are necessary to allow a candidate to campaign, such as expenses for care of a dependent family member that are incurred as a direct result of campaign activity, or for provision of monitoring systems, protective detail, and cybersecurity related to the candidate's security. So once again, doesn't mention anything about DUNS, and it doesn't have a dollar amount maximum allowed to be spent. So if we are concerned about that, then when we get to that part, that's when we have to tweak it and send it back.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah, we did tweak it because now it's only allowable for monitoring systems, protective detail, and cybersecurity. So the acquisition of a firearm and other things is no longer allowable. But what do

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: you consider protective detail? That sounds like security. A body But the previous bill said that you couldn't have a family member being protected. This doesn't happen. Or was it one of the other states that said it couldn't be?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: That might have been one of the other states on the NCSL map. Because this language, the highlighted language, the or for and further, is the only thing that's changed because it was just spoke directly to security. And so honing it in was the agreeable decision coming out of

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Friday's testimony. Revoirs Evans, can you go?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I think I can help.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I was just going to say, I think that by, instead of going through all the things that you're not allowed to have, or kind of leaving it open to, like Tim was just saying with that with the other thing, if we just say this is what it's allowed to be used for, then it excludes everything else as opposed to saying you can't use

[Chair Matthew Birong]: the never ending list of hypotheses.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, if you can't use it for firearms, but then someone's like, well, a BB gun a firearm? That's what I'm going to buy. Or what did we say the other day? Ninja stars or Yeah, there are a zillion other things you could use it for. Instead of opening it up to all those other possibilities, we're just saying you can use it for X, Y,

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: and Z, and that's it. A protective detail is pretty open.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I think it means security detail, but I think that Tim could come up with some language that says something more specific about what protective details There

[Chair Matthew Birong]: could be like a definition of that that's existing that he's working from because I know that that was language that came from other states that had honed this. And rep Hango, did you still have a comment?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I do remember this this might help rep Pinsonault. So if you look at the bill as passed by the Senate, when it came to us on page seven at the very bottom, it says, or for the provision of security for the candidate. What we're doing with this new language is to actually, as Rep. Waters Evans said, hone in on the things that are allowed for the provision of security for a candidate. So the Senate sent it to us very open ended, And that's when Rep McCoy, when she testified, said, well, could you use this to buy a firearm? And we were like, oh, we didn't consider that. So by honing it in to those three monitoring systems, protective detail and cybersecurity, we're actually saying these are the only things that are allowed. Does that make more sense to you?

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: It does, but I still think

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: too broad. And when we get to that section with Tim, we can ask him for a definition of protected detail and offer a suggestion to change if it's still not palatable.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: That's why we're dedicating a lot of table time to this and see. Rep Coffin.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: Yeah, I just for a note, for the committee's note, I'll have to ask Tim about this, but with the for the section nineteen seventy five, interference with voters and election officials.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Are we

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: the side by Page,

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: well, no, on page four. Four, four, line 15.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Page four.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: This newest version here. Okay? Okay. What I'm worried about is because, you know, where we do a universal vote by by mail. Right? There's nothing in here that protects someone at home from any intimidation to vote, whether you have people going door to door to get people to make sure they fill out their ballots or whatever. There's nothing in this for people at home or say there's an abusive relationship, these people, for somebody to be intimidated. Okay? There's no protection there at all for them. There's no how do we if this is about the purity of election, how do we and as far as interference, we get when there's a mail in vote, how do you know that that person actually filled it out and not the abusive member of the

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: You don't.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: You don't. You don't.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: Well There's no protection there. So it's yeah. It's great in the and I'm all for it. Look. Voters shouldn't be intimidated in, you know, at the elections. But how do we if we're gonna mail everybody the ballot, how do we make sure that people are not being intimidated, that they aren't being coerced. This is, you know, and that's troublesome to me.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I wanted to address a couple of things. First, Rut Pinsonault. I did do a Google search, but I saw it on several government websites. So I feel like this is it's relevant. Not just the Google telling me it's like the US government, Department of State, etcetera, saying that security detail is a thing. It does use the term protected detail a lot, but I am also seeing here that it's used interchangeably with personal security detail. So I wonder if making that language change would be would make you feel more comfortable. Although security detail is like an actual thing, it's protective services detail, personal security detail or security detail for sure. And it's people who protect folks, particularly government officials. So it's an actual thing, which I didn't know. But now I know. But there are other words we can use if that is something that you would like to do. The other thing I wanted to say is, don't think that this bill in any way should be or is a vehicle for removing universal mail and voting options. And I also I don't think I think the point is to protect people from from obstructing others from voting at a polling place, and it's keeping it really tight to those places. Whatever happens at other people's homes and what happens at the Universal Mail in ballot, I don't think it's quite relevant to what we're talking about here in the denial or dilution section that's specifically meant to mirror federal law. And if we start adding other things about like, if a domestic partner is forcing someone to vote the way they want them to, I don't think it's the same thing. And I really would object to even including any different language in this bill regarding that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Welcome back, counsel. Rebecca.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I just wanted to thank Rob Coffin, because I hadn't really thought about that. I do feel that when we're talking about totality of circumstances, that just might be one of the things that an individual has to bring to law enforcement or whomever, and it will get investigated and it will get cured or whatever happens, remedied throughout the judicial process, because I don't think, as Rep. Waters Evans said, that this bill is meant to address situations in the privacy of one's home. But it's an interesting take, and I appreciate you bringing up that those circumstances definitely exist. And that's something to think about. And I don't think we're suggesting that we remove any part of this bill.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: No, I wasn't suggesting that at all. So thank you for understanding that. And I wasn't suggesting to use it as a vehicle to get rid of universal mail in ballots. What I was looking at it for was the actual making sure that people will speak out if there is a problem with that in a household. That's where I was going with it is, you know, are there protections? Because it it's, you know, not everyone has the courage to speak out.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And I think that's what the way back, 1965, the Federal Voting Rights Act was trying to empower people who didn't have voices to speak out. So

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: it's a

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: constant updating of that, that we have to make sure that everybody speaks out if they need to. And people are reluctant speak out in difficult situations. So this may be one of those situations that this bill cannot address. But it is a problem, and it is an issue. And I appreciate you bringing that up. This is something else to think about.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: Thank you.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: That's all.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: I have witnessed it in the polling place. I had a husband of mine that she was very timid and he insisted on helping her both. And I tried to tell him that he was allowed to, that if she needed assistance that one of the workers would help her. And he told me that it was none of my business, that he was going to help. And you could hear him telling her, Color that one right there, that one. So I asked him to leave. He was so mad. Yeah,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: no, I mean that's the right But

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: it does happen. So you know it probably happened at home too.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: So, was able to get himself released from his their obligation.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Section three of draft 1.9 on page three. So here we have a substitution from voters in the senate bill, are those four new criminal and civil violations for interfering with one's right to vote and interfering with election administration. This has been let's see. That language has been removed, and the singular offense that was in H five forty one has been installed in instead, and that is why we've all highlighted what should look somewhat familiar to this committee is because there was a live eye, or whatever you call it, when it was completed, came out of past judiciary and came over here at one point before going to House floor. And so just, walking through this language again to refresh our memories. Page four, we have a kind of cleanup and removal of confusing and to be redundant language in section seventeen, nineteen seventy two. Again, just to orient ourselves in law statutes annotated, we're entitled 17, so about election law. Chapter 35, which we have offenses against the purity of election. We have a lot of things about fifteen twenty statutes about, voter fraud and misconduct by election officials for auction. So we have, removal of the last part part of the sentence of subsection a of seventeen ninety two having to do with interference of voters, leaving it just being showing valid provision prohibition there. Then we have the to be added section, which would be 17 b s a 19. Total interference with voters and election officials. And this is where we have that no person shall intentionally recklessly intimidate a threaten or acquit us or attempt to do so and of any other person for the purpose of a, obstructing the right of the other person to vote or vote as the other person may choose, b, causing the other person to vote for or not vote for any candidate for public office or public question in the election, Or, again, we have the no person shall intentionally recklessly intimidating the entire course. Attempt to do so if a public servant and two here. A public servant, an election official, or a public employee for the purpose of obstructing administration of an election, with the penalties provision in subsection b saying that a violation of this amount in imprisonment of not more than two years or fine not more than $5,000 or both. Yes,

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: the ellipses?

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So I'm looking at as passed by the Senate, and they had a few subsections that are not listed that I'm assuming are in, that the ellipses take care of, but maybe not. Section nineteen thirty four.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: So all four of those in the Senate version have been removed.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Totally removed by this committee's direction?

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Through this amendment, it will remove all four of those. Okay,

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: so that's nineteen thirty four and twenty twenty two and twenty twenty three. Am I missing another one?

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Twenty twenty four. Nineteen thirty four, twenty twenty two twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four and this is where we have the, side by side, if the committee wants to

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. And then I have a question about the words. I know we talked about it when we very first heard this, though, recklessly. What does recklessly intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce truly mean? What is recklessly?

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a fantastic question. So when we're talking about criminal provisions here, we have various elements of criminal law. We have the mens rea, or the mental state of the perpetrator, and then we have the actus reus, which is the actual conduct of what you're doing. Then we have victim, and then other aspects like, okay, then we have personalities that are sorry, the penalties, right of actions, etcetera, etcetera. But really the main two ones are mens rea and actuators. So the mens rea here is these various mental states, which must be, we go up the ladder for increasing awareness. And usually the severity of the crime is somewhat correlated with how much intention was involved with that. So we have four different levels. Starting at the top, we have purpose, or intention, we call it here. And so that is when one consciously desires a result. Then we go down and have knowledge or knowingly doing something, and that is when an individual is aware that result is practically certain to follow. Then we get to recklessly, which is a conscious disregard. And when one consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the conduct will cause harm to another. And in the threats context, which is what we have here, it means that a speaker was aware that others could regard their statement as threatening violence and delivers it anyway. So you know when it's gonna happen, you just don't really care. And then below that, have negligence, which is you're not really aware of the risk, but you should have been aware of the risk. So here, we actually have two different constraints. We have intentionally and recklessly. So we give, prosecutors a choice. They can either show the top or the bottom. I will say constitutionally, when it comes to criminal threatening, and this is, counterman v Colorado, but I think it's 2023 or '24, where the US Supreme Court explored the necessary what is the minimum mens rea that's necessary for criminal threatening? And they chose recklessness. So as long as you're showing anything, recklessness or above being more intentful than that, then that satisfies constitutional requirements here. So by putting it in recklessly, we provide that floor. And so I'm not sure exactly under what circumstances the chief's officer or state's attorney prosecuting this would necessarily have had on a higher mens rate, but all they would have to show is the standard. But they could.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: That's great. Thank you very much. I recall some of that, but it really helped to have that reinforced. I appreciate it.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Robert Hooper.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I have just a general question that is, I believe, Rebecca. I'm confused. I keep getting a little lost, and I'm confused as to why we are looking at the Senate version of the bill that's been rejected in comparison to the one that we're looking at right now, because none of that language is any policy that's on the table for us right now. So talking about things that aren't in the bill are starting to confuse you a little bit. So I'm wondering if, I guess I'm wondering why we are looking at that if we're not considering voting on it at all.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Fair question. It's what came to us and I'm trying to understand how we got to version 1.9. And I'm trying to help my committee members understand how we got to version 1.9, because not everybody was part of the conversations that we had about getting there. So this morning, I flagged a few things that I wasn't sure where they went, like those four sections. I had no idea where they went. So I just got my answer, and that's why we're doing this exercise. Anything That's a good

[Chair Matthew Birong]: else? Go back to council? Okay.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: So, we move on, let's see, from, let's see, next part of the bill is, let's see, we're on page five, line eight, Leader Assistant Head states disclosures for candidates for state legislative and county office. So we have two real, of substance provisions here. We have first pay, addition to the current disclosure for candidates' laws, compelling the state ethics commission to provide informational resources to candidates. And then we have a suspension of penalties for those same disclosures, for one year, and as well as any enforcement efforts that go along with those. So looking at section four on line 10, we have an amendment to 17 BSA twenty four fourteen to retitle Candidates for State Legislative County Office Disclosure Form. The county office edition, that's just kind of correcting something. We never include the county officers, the title of it when it was last amended in 2024, I think.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: That was just a noble statistic. Clarifying. I think that came up in conversation as a murky unidentified.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: And so you all may have recall, and it's actually been one election cycle since this has been effective. So you all have through this exercise, most of you, when it comes to providing certain financial information and disclosures and filing a pre candidacy with these offices as well. It would have to be the same done by state officers as well as certain county officers, essentially those not in the judiciary. And so, let's see, 24.14 details all the information that needs to be provided the candidate, and then this will be adding a new subsection after that stating, State Ethics Commission shall provide informational resources to candidates and answer candidates questions regarding the requirements of this section, how to accurately complete and submit the disclosure form, and the consequences pursuant to section twenty four fifteen of this title for failing to properly file the disclosure form. Twenty four fifteen is the companion statute, which states that if a candidate does not provide the financial disclosure, they are dinged for $10 a day, will be capped at $1,000 total. And then there's kind of a mechanism in there where the Secretary of State's office alerts the ethics commission and the ethics commission pursues those fines. So, but those fines and that alert and pursuit mechanism will be suspended for one year by section five here, because of the suspension disclosure requirement and penalties for candidates for state legislative county office. Page six now that says, notwithstanding sections seventeen, twenty four, fourteen, twenty four, 15 06/01/2026 to 05/30/2027. One, candidates for state office, county office, state senate, senator, state representative shall not be required to file the disclosure form or related documents described in 17 Sorry, I'm just reviewing this. Sorry. Well, one second. I've just digested something. I think I wanna make sure I'm getting my version control correct here. Part of the file. So if you're following the question. So I'm down the opposite. I apologize, chair Byron. I think this should be somewhat corrected, because as written right here, it says that, the we'll not have to, file the disclosures, and that can be adjusted. I think I was going too fast. Okay. I trust your opinion on that, sir. So, I think what should appear in front of the committee is essentially the candidates will still have to file. However, any penalties will be suspended for a year, and then the enforcement that is usually required by the Secretary of State's office in hand with the state ethics commission would also be suspended for one year.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Okay, I understand where you're going with that, Rev. Hango?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I know what happened, version 1.8, had it correct, and it reappeared in 01/2009.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: So Deepfrogged the draft.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Well, that's why I read this, I thought, Oh, we don't have to file this year?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: That's why we do walkthroughs.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: So it shall be required to file, instead of not being required.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I think what we'll do is after after we finish this walkthrough before we get into tomorrow council will just redraft it with the correct language, and we'll have it in our inbox tomorrow morning. So we have the correct copy to work from that. Does that sound amenable? So smart.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Excuse me.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I'm not sure if you can do this, Tim, but as a background for folks who were not here in 2024, where this concept of having to file a financial disclosure form?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: can talk to all of that.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Defer to one of the other committee members there. As far as the intent behind the legislation. I can't really get into that.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: But it came from a particular act, is

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: what I'm getting at. Yes, yes. Act 171, I think it's 2024. That was the ethics bill for that year. Yes. That was a rather large bill that had municipal ethics giving the ethics commission some enforcement esque powers and then revisited some of the disclosure requirements for not only candidates, but also for in office office boards.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: And so this this disclosure of what we're talking about now and something that was put forward in that, and this

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: is more for the newer members who

[Chair Matthew Birong]: are not here, who don't remember the backstory, who didn't serve on the committee then. And so the charging duty on the ethics commission to move forward with this also with the ability to offer to be a re informational resource for compliance, for the candidates, etcetera. There was a disagreement about the language being clear that the charge of duty was on the ethics commission. So what we're doing now is clarifying that and also recognizing that they are a little skittish about being able to like work directly and how am I trying to set this up?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I can

[Chair Matthew Birong]: assist whenever you're ready. No, no, no, go for it.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I'm just

[Chair Matthew Birong]: going over my words right now.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Well, I don't know how far back you want me to go. So two years ago, right? Last biennium at three. Was it the first or second year of the biennium?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Was it second year? Three.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Oh, yeah. Okay. So this big ethics bill that we passed had some changes to the financial disclosures for candidates in it and added penalties if you weren't if you didn't complete those forms in time. Because often candidates, of course, no one in this room would ever dream of not turning their forms in on time, but there are others possibly in this building who do not. And so those people, there's a fine of $10 a day when you're late. There is a system, I believe, that we kept in the that's in the bill where you get a warning first. It's not like the day after you missed the filing disclosure. There's $10. But

[Chair Matthew Birong]: right there, there was like there was a notification that you were admitted.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, you get some warnings. And then if you still don't file your form, then you have to start paying these $10 a day penalties up to $1,000 and that is correct. So if it, in theory, I guess if it were worth it to you to spend $1,000 to not disclose your finances, then you could. It's mostly in the interest transparency and disclose any information.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: But you're

[Chair Matthew Birong]: not allowed to use campaign cash.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Nope. I do not use campaign. You can't use campaign donations for your lateness.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: For your lateness.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes. The intent behind it, and I know so much about this because I was the reporter of the bill when we did it, and it was like a big, huge, long thing. And so the intent behind it was just to make sure that people were incentivized to disclose that information, and the penalties were supposed to be as such. There's if you remember when we did the budget, the ethics commission, when we made our budget recommendations had asked for another or two other positions. And I believe the final recommendation out of appropriations budget, the one that we voted on and sent to the Senate was for one position. They're quite

[Chair Matthew Birong]: That was also municipal specific, not

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, that was municipal specific. They're overwhelmed and overloaded in all regards, apparently. So they, I believe the reason for the urgency is because there is a date coming up. And is it twenty seventh?

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Twenty seventh Monday is when candidates

[Chair Matthew Birong]: will start remitting their signatures at the station and distance

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, so the form has to be filled out and submitted on Monday. And that's why all of a sudden there's a big hurry to figure this out because there was some disagreement that came up really recently, like the last couple of weeks between the Secretary of State's office and the Ethics Commission about who exactly was in charge of the forum. The original language of the bill said that the Ethics Commission should create and maintain the forum. And their, I guess, opinion of what the word mandate, they're going to come in and talk to about it, right?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Oh, yeah, we got

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: them. Yes. They're going to come in and

[Chair Matthew Birong]: talk about this one.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: So I

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: won't say what they're going say. But anyway, this is the intent behind it was to make sure that people were just making the disclosures that they should. And because of for now, I think the idea was to postpone it for a year. So to just make sure the ethics commission could get a handle on it. And so that candidates were in compliance with the law. Is that what we were making?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: No, I think that was a better job framing my thought than I was capable of doing. So thank you. So

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: for candidates, disclosure form doesn't exist currently. So if you look on the campaign finance website the Secretary of State's office, the charge is financial disclosure forms required along with their consent of candidate. Each candidate for non federal statewide office, general assembly and county office must also file a financial disclosure form created and maintained by the State Ethics Commission. A link to the Ethics Commission's financial disclosure form will be posted here as soon as it's available. And then if you go to the FAQs, it says, each candidate for those offices must file a financial disclosure form created and maintained by the State Ethics Commission, along with their petition and consent of candidate. And that's all it says, because the form does not exist yet, and Monday is the start of the filing season. So Monday the twenty seventh through the twenty seventh or May 28, whatever the last Friday.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: So, had Waters Evans then

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I believe there is a form that we all filled out even a couple of years ago. The first time I ran for office, I filled out the form. It's just not the current iteration of the form that exists.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: There's a form, but it's nowhere near as involved.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, it doesn't reflect What the the body charged them? Yes, that's right. But there is a form. There's the original form from before we passed

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: this law. And that you can get right with your petitions. Correct. When you go to fill them out. Right. There it's not to the extent that F-one 170 was requiring.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Rutland, nope waived off. Okay. All right, folks. Any other questions for council? That's pretty much the run through on the word on pain.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: We have one more section, actually. Oh, crap. Don't worry. So now we move on to this. Safety. Safety protection of regandals. Yes. So, this is a sectional six was in the senate bill. However, just the language at the bottom of page six and seven has been updated. Committee members may recall that this is what in definitions where we have, what expenditure means, and then we put sample under separate pay, and it said something along the lines of, or for expenditures may include those expenses necessary to allow, candidate campaigns such as expenses for care of a dependent family member that occurred as a direct result of campaign activity or for protection of the candidate. That has been replaced with or for provision of monitoring systems, protective detail, and cybersecurity related to a candidate's security.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. We were having a little informal conversation before you came in about that too. And it was the instead of, like, enumerating all the things that you can't do, that this is saying speaking clearly to the things you can do, thereby making the hypotheticals less robust. That makes sense.

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: Andrew?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Any questions there? And

[Tim (Legislative Counsel)]: so, I corrected the error from this and this sent to Nick and his assistant, so that the having to file their disclosures but not have it penalized for doing so, the postman provision there that will appear as it should on section six on pages five and section.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Rebecca? Can

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: you remind me what happened to Section five, if anything? Is it in those ellipses again? Section five,

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I'm looking at 1.9. Section five is the suspension of the disclosure requirement.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Okay, got it. Thank you.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Spent a lot of time with

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: you today.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Alright. Anything else? Yeah. That's all. Going once? Going twice? Going twice? No?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank

[Chair Matthew Birong]: you, So, we're kicking things off tomorrow morning with the Burlington Charter at 09:30. We got some civil air patrol going on at 10AM, and then we go into some work work on the, early childhood and licensure. So that's how the morning shapes up, and then we're gonna get back to this bill in the afternoon with a big slug of witnesses. So alright. That was dense. We needed to do that. Thank you very much. That was a lot of text to go over. I appreciate you guys. Alright. Anything else?