Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Bill. Oh, okay. We're last. Alright. Good morning, everyone. Apologies for starting a little bit late. It is about 10:45 on Friday, April 24. We are, continuing our work on s two ninety eight act relating to creating the Vermont Voting Rights Act, and we are gonna go over a draft 5.1, that was sent out and it should be posted, a bullet changes in there that council's going to review. We have the AG's office coming in later today, and in anticipation of the conversation that we have had with them about adding a little bit of clarity to some of those sections, Council has drafted some language that we feel addresses what they were looking for. So with that, mister Devlin, the

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: table is yours. Very much, chair Birong. Thank you very much for having me in this morning, committee members. For the record, my name is Tim Devlin, legislative council. You do indeed have draft 5.1 of the strike all amendment to two ninety eight, an accolade to the Ukraine voting rights act, which this will actually rename the Voter Protections Act. There are two groups of changes. All changes from the last, versions of the committee considered have been highlighted in blue for use of reference. First bucket of changes on page three actually, nope. Sorry. I'm gonna do them in reverse order. But, first bucket of changes will introduce some hyper specific requirements for, which entities posting a lot of those candidate disclosure forms that were discussed yesterday. That is, between secretary of state's office, providing hyperlinks to materials to be posted on the website of state ethics commission by the committee. The second group of changes are gonna be less apparent looking through this, and it's because they're reorganizational, but will have a significant legal effect of taking the voter dilution language and instead of creating its own chapter, new chapter in title 17 where we house the rest of the election law, it will, slot it in as a sub chapter of 17 v s a chapter 55, where we have those offenses against the purity of elections. The effect of that being that the attorney general's office through the s 23 that was enacted earlier this investigatory authority, to look into all, offenses against the period of election, basically anything in that chapter. So by putting the vote dilution and into that chapter, the investigatory authority will encompass that as well. Turning to the first instance of blue here, what we have okay. So just quickly, to orient us on the first page chapter or section two, we have the modification two seventeen chapter 35 offenses against those period elections. We have subchapter two, penalties upon voters. And so where we have, this committee substitute the language of the House Judiciary Bill five, 41 into here, and replacing those four instances of voter

[Unidentified committee member (brief interjections)]: I know.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: And election interference. And let's see. Then we have the impairment of voting rights of registered voters, to be renumbered or to be added and numbered in this version as section nineteen seventy six. This is just something that was kind of a tag along piece to the vote dilution thing, but kind of, reviewing it, figured it'd make a little bit more sense just kind of in this different sub chapter. Again, no real material difference. I've just a little bit more drafting sense, I thought. So then we turn to page three, and we have the inclusion of some of the other subchapters which are not being modified. We're just there for reference to see remind the community of what's in this chapter. So subchapter four uses synthetic media and elections. That's from s 23. We have sub chapter five, enforcement investigations. That is the AG's authority and is again applicable to every chapter in here. And then we have the to be added sub chapter six, voter protections. This appears almost verbatim as what was considered by the committee already. We have just basically some renumbering. So, vote denial or dilution will be numbered the new section 17 VSA 2,045. We have that we're having a disability language that was added there and just for conformity across when that term disability is used in this context for predicted classes. Below it appears as defined by the statute of reference, so I figured it would be right for continuity sake just to include that here as well. Again, not really of substance. So then we go down to page four, and as a subdivision of this section, we have those two definitions which were a standalone statutory section there. They're just going to be tucked under this. Again, no real substantive change. Just figured to be better organizationally. So then we go to the to be renumbered 2046, civil actions by attorney general. Just one change here from chapter to subchapter. And that's it for those, reorganization. Any questions about that? Okay. So now we turn to, see, page six of the bill, and particular disclosures for candidates for state legislative and county office. This is the section four of the bill, which will modify 17 BSA twenty four fourteen to be retitled candidates for state legislative and county office semicolon disclosure form. So a new, just to refresh your memory, new subdivision f will be added here, tasking the state ethics commission, providing informational resources to candidates, answering questions regarding the requirements of the disclosure, section, as well as, how to accurately complete the disclosure form and the penalties for not doing so properly. The new language is very much in line with that, but just introduces some hyper specificity as to who and what is to be posted on websites and how questions are to be answered. The new language will read beginning on line 16. The

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Rutland Waters Evans?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, I just It's just a bummer that there was no other way to resolve it. It's bummer, an official legal word. I wish that we had been able to move forward at least a little bit in a way that made people feel comfortable about the way. And the process is going to work, and I just really hope that we can. Resolve it in the future. I hope make things right with the ethics commission too, and just make sure they have the resources to do what we ask them to do. But I mean, other than that, yes, I think this is the only or the best solution I think

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: to your problem. Appreciate that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Anything else from members right now before we shift over?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Nope. Yep. Okay. Thank you. And just want to quickly note, I'll be here for most of the testimony. I just have to run to the Senate floor around 11:30, and I'll

[Chair Matthew Birong]: be back after that as well. Thank you. All right. Mr. Chea Waters.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Hello again, Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director, Secretary of State's office. Didn't remember in a while. Can be I can be short on on this side. I think taking the same order, as as mister Dublin did on the ethics, form. We're fine with the, with the language. I think as, we stand ready to make that link and post as soon as it's available. In addition, and I

[Chair Matthew Birong]: think you don't need to put this in

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: law unless you wanted to, but for all of your time, we reached out the Ethics Commission again yesterday afternoon after that testimony and directive to the Post saying if they could get it up ASAP, we would make sure that happened before the weekend. We assume a lot of candidates will be working on wanting to work on that this weekend. And also, in addition to putting it on our website, knowing that we're at the twenty third hour here, or past that, we'll also send a proactive email out to all candidates who are registered in our campaign finance system, just with that direct link, rather than making them come to our website. We will obviously have it on our website, but we'll also proactively push it out so that candidates can all know as soon or very close to as soon as we know ourselves.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: No, and I know the respective party bosses are all keeping an eye on this as well.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Yes, we'll include all of them as well. Yeah, And we do have meetings in the work. This is the time of year we meet with all three party chairs and leadership sides just to go over the calendar for the next several months to make it as smooth as possible. Everything from the filing period through the canvas after the after the elections. And so certainly we will be communicating with all of them as well. As far as the restructuring of of the language and around the attorney general's investigative authority. We're glad you're having attorney general's office in this afternoon. We we defer to them on all things related to their investigative authority. We defer to legislative counsel on the on the way the law and title 17 should be should be structured. If if they're happy with those sections, we're happy as well. As far as the election interference bringing over melding the H541 language into this bill, we're supportive of that as well. We appreciate bringing in the language to bring that consistency around the checklist language that we testified about the other day and that the Clerks Association also testified and supportive. We know they appreciate that clear direction and consistency, and we do as well. Finally, on the issue of bringing in, adding Vermonters with disabilities to the protected class side, I just wanted to speak to that for a little bit for a moment. We're completely supportive, very forcefully supportive of doing all we can to help all Vermonters to vote in the elections and to making a special effort to reach out to Vermonters with disabilities. I guess as we discussed when we look at past general elections, Vermonters with disabilities vote in just about the same, right about on average, the national average, right on par with the national average within the margin of error statistically. Whereas Vermonters without disability, great gains were far above the national average. That's a concern if we're going to get we're proud that we exceeded 70% voter participation in the last two presidential elections for the first time on record. And we want to do better. We need to do better, and we need to particularly pay attention to those groups of Vermonters who face more challenges. That's why the secretary launched a voter accessibility task force last last fall, and we have have four working groups focusing and one of the working groups focuses on Vermonters with disabilities. Thank you, representative Sutstone for serving on that committee doing great work. Thank you to help reach Vermonters with disabilities, making sure that all the investments that Vermont has made into accessible voting machines and so forth can really be maximized as we come up on the primary and the general election. So we're fully supportive of all of that. I think for the reason or the question of why voters with disabilities weren't previously in that section, I think when it was largely that the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which had been the kind of the impetus to having this Vermont Voting Rights Act, now the Vermont, the Voter Protection Act, to make sure that if federal law is struck down, that we we don't have changes to to law the Vermont's election rules and procedures, which really has been our litmus test and the drum we've been we've been beating. In the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1952, US code 10,301 outlines the protected classes. It doesn't include Americans with disabilities. That's not we're not supportive of that. We're not endorsing that. That's just the way that law was written. In federal law, are protections for voters with disabilities, And those those laws, allow any voter with disability or inability to read or write to be assisted, by a person of of their choice. That's in 52 US code 10,508. And that was actually in one of those previous versions. I don't know if it was the 25 page version or the 42 page version. But when when we reviewed it, and I believe the attorney general's office as well, our concern was that current Vermont law actually goes a lot further, than that than that federal law. We have in 17 VSA twenty eight twelve b says that any qualified voter who requires assistance may designate an election officer or other person to assist them in the voting booth. Similarly, the the federal law says that that assistant must follow the voter's instructions. They can't influence the voter's choice. Similarly, 17 b s a twenty eight twelve before says that the the assistant must act in accordance with the voter's instruction. They can't solicit the voter's vote. They can't attempt to influence it. It actually takes a step beyond the the federal law to say that they must not divulge how the how the voter voted. So from that standpoint, because Vermont law went further saying that anybody can get this right to this assistance, our concern was if you put in to law the federal language, you're actually going to be backtracking and removing rights that Vermonters have right now. And so that was the concern with having the language in there as it was. Having said that, I think whether the addition of providers with disabilities to the protected class piece, while that would differ from the federal voting rights act, if it's part of, as we discussed, and I think it has been discussed, really this multiple step process of number one this year in the election year, making sure we're not changing election rules and processes, making sure we have that backstop if federal law is struck down, that federal law is codified in in Vermont law, And at the same time, also looking to tee up for next year, where we can always improve. We all recognize, as we've all spoken to, that there is room for improvement, particularly in this area of Vermonters with disabilities. We want to tee that up. We want to strong effort next year. If you can be building the scaffolding this year to tee that up for next year and it won't change rules and processes, great. We're supportive of it. And so I think to that piece as well, I certainly would love when you have the Attorney General's office in this afternoon, just to confirm with them that the latest version will be clear as far as what their direction is, what their enforcement is, the current rights that are already in Vermont law won't be impacted, and beyond that, we're fully supportive. I

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: have a few questions. Thank you again for being back. I really appreciate it. First of all, I appreciate the tutorial on the language groups and how you all were approaching that. So that's really helpful. And with the addition of the disabilities, I just want to really make sure that this is not an additional burden on clerks to have to provide disability services of any kind, but that the individual who is requesting accommodation is responsible for finding their own assistance with disabilities?

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Yeah, again, I think I'd say that the assistance with the dose disabilities, that isn't a change. That's been in Vermont law. And so that's no change to process or procedures. And it's not just somebody with disabilities in Vermont law. Federal law suggested that there been people with disabilities or inability to read or write. The Vermont law had said any qualified voter who requires assistance, may designate, any person to assist them in the voting process.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay, I must have misunderstood. You said something earlier that I misunderstood. The other question I have is if clerks have concerns or questions during the election season process and they reach out to your office, do you have an individual who is dedicated to answering those types of questions so that the burden doesn't fall on the clerk because the individual asking may not be aware of what resources are available to them, or it may be a new disability of some kind that they just got, that just happened to them. So they have no idea where to turn. So how does your office plan to support that?

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Sure. Absolutely. I think as far as support for clerks, I mean, clerks are our top, you know, top priority. We do have a small team, I mean, five five people on my, on my team, and and but we do, we make sure every clerk knows our main contact information direct direct to our emails, all of our phone numbers as well. On top of that, we do election procedures training. We've updated the election procedures guide for this year. We provide that to every clerk, assistant clerk, BCA. We have we just conducted a long week. Monday of twentieth was just this

[Unidentified committee member (brief interjections)]: week. Yeah.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: I was gonna say last actually, this week. This Monday, we provided training to to county to county clerks because they interact with elections less frequently than than than municipal clerks, but they're very important at this this time of year, taking the the filings for for county office and for for senate office, and they'll have the role with the canvas as well. So we went through a training this past Monday with all of them. We also have regular office hours that we provide for municipal clerks throughout the throughout the year. And they're in the off seasons, they're they're once once a month. As we get closer to the election, they're they're weekly. On top of that, we do have, in person and virtual election procedures, trainings, which will be at day all day better better part of a day that we do in the South, Northwest, North, Northeast, and, and online. So the boards of civil authority are are welcome to come to those as well, as well as clerks. We go through all of the procedures with a particular, focus on things that would have, changed since, you know, in last year's session, in Act 70 and so forth. But all through that, any questions they have, new clerks, we focus on that. On top of that, we do an elections dry run that we we did in 2024, for some having all clerks come in. And this is really to kind of pressure test the system, as well as helping clerks be familiar with entering system into the election night reporting and so forth, making sure all our security measures are in place as well. That's going to be in July and again in October. Ahead of the primary and the general election, and of course office hours all throughout. For clerks that have immediate questions that come up or can't make the office hours, we take their calls and emails every day as it stands. Absolutely. I think to the question, I'm not sure if your question was going to for the on disabilities and in particular, I think with disabilities in particular, comes into really the with the ADA and federal law. It's tough for us to give a lot of guidance on that, particularly because the reasonable accommodations laws that come in really are a test of requiring public entities, businesses, so forth to make reasonable accommodations to allow citizens or anybody at present with a disability, the ability to partake in the same programs and services as everybody else without providing an undue burden on the part of the business, the entity, the public, or fundamentally changing the program or service that's provided. And so really at those questions where they come in, it's very much often down to what a particular municipality's resources are, what their building looks like. So we know disability rights. Vermont goes around and does audits of building, voting places and things. We certainly work closely with them and others or advocates as part of the working group that I mentioned as part of the accessibility task force. So we try to make those connections wherever they can. But as far as giving specific directions to a specific municipality about their location and their and their resources, those are things that we have to defer to the municipal council to really weigh in on and for the municipality to assess what would be an undue burden and to make sure that the programs and services aren't fundamentally changed. But we always try to make that connection between advocates and resources and guides that have been produced by Disability Rights Vermont and others and clerks. And we work that into our trainings as well for clerks and MDCA and our trainings of how to use the accessible learning machines.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. I have a comment and then another question that should be short answer. I have heard anecdotally, and this is not just in my district, but all over the state, that And I experienced it as well a couple of years ago, I think before you were appointed elections director, that calls to the Secretary of State's office go through a menu, and you need to basically leave a message. And the message, I believe, at the time said, we'll return your call within twenty four or forty eight hours. And that was not happening on a routine basis. I don't know if there's anything that can be done about that, but I've heard that recently as well, not my own experience and not anybody's in my district. So I can't speak to specifics on it. But if you all could talk about that in your office, that would be really helpful. Because I have been hearing that clerks are trying to get an answer during a crunch time and can't. And understanding that you all are during crunch time too, but that's when the clerks need you the most, especially the part time clerks who are not doing this on a full time basis. It's really hard for them to know to be up on every single thing that we've required them to be up on. So that was my comment. And then my question was, earlier in your testimony, you said that an agreement had been reached between the SOS and the Ethics Commission. And I wasn't sure if that was specifically after we had our committee hearing yesterday or during the committee hearing or before.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: The agreement, don't think I said the agreement. Thought what I testified or meant to testify. What my understanding was that this committee had given yesterday a directive to the Ethics Commission to post, the form and the FAQ on their website, given a directive to the secretary of state's office to to link to that form and FAQ as soon as possible after it is posted. And I I just said that it's our understanding. We stand ready to do that. We've reached out to the ethics commission to make it clear. Please tell us as soon as it's posted the link that we will post it on our website. And in addition to that, I noted that we'll be sending it out directly to people who are registered as

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: well. Great. Thank you. It might have been my misunderstanding, but I thought I heard you say agreement. But what you mean to say is that the SOS office is supportive of the directive that this committee has put into this bill.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: That's correct. We stand ready to act. I

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: appreciate that.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: And just to your other point, Representative Hango, I'd certainly make sure that every clerk has my cell phone as well. I'll put that back out as well. Certainly in crunch time, I mean, they were all right now when I'm here, not going to answer when I'm here, but certainly to get back as closely as possible, will be our

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And when you stepped into the role, I know that you answered me personally and gave me your cell phone number. So it may be something that's now a little more phased out than it was, but I did hear several comments. Yeah.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Very

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: much for your availability.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. Thank you. Alright. Anything else for the elections director? Nope. Alright. You all. Until the next time we call you up. Thank you so much for being so available, Sean. Alright. Up next, we have some testimony coming in from, REV UP Vermont, and we're gonna start off with Kate LaRose. Kate, how are you?

[Kate LaRose (REV UP Vermont; Vermont Center for Independent Living)]: Thank you so much. Actually, is it possible we can start with Maria?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Certainly. Maria,

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: It's how are been a while.

[Maria Rinaldi (REV UP Vermont)]: Hello, hello. Glad to see everyone here today. Good morning. And glad to see some new faces and some old familiar faces. So thank you for having me here today. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Maria Rinaldi. I am a lifelong Vermonter, a dedicated employee of St. Michael's College, a founding member of the Town Of Jericho's DEI committee, and the musical director of Vermont's Freedom and Unity Chorus. I am also paralyzed from the chest down and navigate the world from a power chair. I am here today with my fellow members of the leadership team from REV UP Vermont. We are a nonpartisan campaign from the American Association of People with Disabilities, which stands for Register, Educate, Vote, Use Your Power. We are one of 21 chapters across the nation with a shared mission to build the power of the disability vote through increasing civic engagement in the disability community and improving the accessibility of elections. My worldview was shaped by the Ammonite priests at St. Mike's who teach a simple but radical truth: Dignity is not something you earn, it is something you are born with. I am here today because our current voting system fails to reflect that inherent dignity for all Vermonters. We are currently operating in a national climate that is increasingly hostile toward the disabled community. We have witnessed the sitting president mock a reporter's disability and claim that disabled Americans are not smart enough to handle complex roles such as air traffic controllers. We have even heard the baseless claim that the disabled are being used as pawns for voter fraud. This isn't just hurtful rhetoric. It is a policy road map. There is a concerted effort at the federal level to dismantle mail in balloting, the very tool that allows me and thousands of other disabled Vermonters to exercise our fundamental right to vote. If the federal S. V. Act passes, the national floor for voting rights will drop. S. Two ninety eight must be Vermont's firewall. By explicitly adding people with disabilities as a protected class, you ensure that our dignity is not subject to the whims of federal interference. I don't just advocate for change, I help build it. As a founding member of the Jericho DEI Committee, we address the exclusionary nature of our town meeting head on. We preserved the dialogue of town meeting, allowing people to have their say, but moved the final budget vote to an Australian ballot. The results were undeniable. Our voter participation increased significantly. However, Jericho is the exception. Currently, 68% of Vermont towns still require in person floor votes. We are here with three specific asks for the committee regarding S299. We urge you to restore the provisions to restore the private of action. We urge you to restore the provisions that allow for a private right of action. Sorry. This is a foundational pillar of the Federal Voting Rights Act. Restoring this ensures that Vermonters have the legal standing to defend their own constitutional rights when they are infringed upon. Codify universal mail in ballots. We must protect the mail in system from federal interference. By codifying this in S-two 98, you ensure that no matter what happens in Washington, D. C, a disabled Vermonter's kitchen table remains a valid and protected polling place. Finally, we'd like to ask you to expand the definitions of Section 2,801 by formally adding disability as a protected class, as you have recently added. However, I just heard testimony from the Secretary of State's office, and it leads me to a difficult question. Why are people with disabilities being asked to wait again? I'm sure Vermont law provides stronger, more explicit protections for race and language minorities, But people of color, people of minority languages also suffer from disabilities. We must address why the Secretary of State's office continues to delay full compliance with the ADA and existing federal laws. I want to remind this committee that you represent all of your constituents. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for the same legal standing already afforded to others. We look to you to vote with the dignity and civil rights of the disability community in mind. In closing, we aren't here to burn the system down. We are here to fulfill its promise. The Federal SAVE Act is a storm on the horizon, but the barriers in 68% of our towns are a storm that is already here. I urge this committee to pass S two ninety eight as a shield for all Vermonters. Let our actions reflect our belief that the right to vote is as inherent as the dignity we are born with. Thank you very much.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah, thank you, Maria. Any questions for this guest?

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: No? All

[Chair Matthew Birong]: right, well, thank you for the time. And I don't know if you have to go to another meeting or something, please, we're grateful for the time. But if you want to stick around and you have the capacity, please do.

[Maria Rinaldi (REV UP Vermont)]: Yeah, I'll remain here. And if any questions come up too after, I'm happy to answer them.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Okay, I really appreciate that. Up next, have Alicia Weiss. You're muted.

[Alicia Weiss (REV UP Vermont; Plainfield Accessibility Advisory Committee)]: Thank you. I'm gonna apologize in advance. I'm on a medication that dries my mouth out, so I will be hitting water frequently. That's really good. For you. Wow, it's been about a decade, over a decade since I've done this. I previously served as the Executive Director for the Vermont Coalition of Disability Rights and used to be in the State House quite often. I feel a bit rusty, so please bear with me. Good morning. For the record, my name is Alicia Weiss, and I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify on Bill S. Two ninety eight. Having followed this bill, I appreciate the time and really careful consideration you've given it. For context, I'm a resident of the town of Plainfield. I'm the chair of the Plainfield Accessibility Advisory Committee, and a member of the REV UP Vermont leadership team. My testimony is shaped by over two decades of work with individuals with a very wide range of disabilities in higher education, and as a disability rights advocate. I'm also a person with disabilities. Although they don't currently impact my ability to vote, that wasn't the case in the past, and it may not always be the case in the future. First and foremost, I want to commend the committee for adding disability to the list of protected classes in Section 2,801, and share why it's essential that it remains included to ensure that voting in Vermont is not only compliant with the letter of federal and state civil rights statutes, but to embrace the spirit of our great state's commitment to inclusive democratic processes. As Ledge Council has stated, the term protected class has no single comprehensive definition in either state or federal law, although its protections are enforced by federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as state civil rights statutes. Therefore, membership in protected class needs to be enumerated in each and every bill or other application. The inclusion of disability in S two ninety eight is consistent with Vermont's state practice. For example, disability is explicitly mentioned among the protected groups named in Title 21, Section four ninety five, Fair Employment Practices, Title IX, Section 4,503, Unfair Housing Practice, and Title IX, Section 4,502, public accommodations. I want to assure people that including disability in the protected classes of this bill will not in any way compromise protections granted in other state or federal statutes. I think there was a little lack of clarity of that from the Director of Elections. I'm not sure what he intended, but I want to be clear about that. Those protections will stand. We're just making it very clear that disability, people with disabilities are also a protected class and deserving of that consideration. I'm also requesting that you restore the language from the Senate version of the bill that grants private right of action to provide remedy for taxpaying Vermonters in the event their fundamental right to vote is violated or compromised, whether inadvertently or not. If the only recourse is to appeal to the Attorney General's office, which already has so much on its plate, individual rights may not be protected. My third and no less passionate point is that protection of mail in voting is critical to ensuring your constituents have the equitable participation in political life mandated by law. Often when considering challenges to accessible voting, people think first about visible disabilities, such as mobility impairments or visual impairments signaled by a white cane or a guide dog. Certainly, our long winters, uneven terrain, historic town halls with deferred maintenance can present considerable barriers to those populations. But many, many other Vermonters with less obvious conditions depend upon mail in voting for access. This includes, but is not limited to, individuals who are neurodiverse, immunocompromised, undergoing medical treatment, and those with brain injuries or certain mental health conditions. Reflecting on my experience with college and university students who ranged in ages from 17 to 80, I'm reminded of the significant number of veterans with post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and acquired traumatic brain injuries, TBIs. Frequently, these men and women who had served our country were the most reticent of all to request accommodations or other support. They were tough and sometimes did not think they deserved support, because they had come home when some of their comrades in arms had not. Many times these folks did not appear in my office until they had failed a semester or a trusted faculty member had escorted them to disability services. Crowded, brightly lit, noisy environments were difficult, and in some cases absolutely unbearable for these wounded warriors to inhabit for more than a few minutes, let alone to learn in. I'll never know just how many just gave up on the dream of higher education. In person voting is similarly exclusionary for many persons with PTSD, TBIs, and other invisible disabilities. The COVID pandemic provided a lifeline to these folks in higher education, along with the subsequent expansion of online degree programs. In the civic realm, hybrid participation, in town meeting, and mail in ballots expand accessibility. Therefore, I'm asking this committee to consider additional language that will guarantee ongoing access to mail in ballots, the future of which is threatened. Mail in voting benefits not only persons with disabilities, but round the clock family caretakers, people with unreliable transportation, and those working several jobs just to feed their families. I understand you've been working long and hard on this bill and hope to conclude that work today. But I urge you to take a little more time to finish the job of safeguarding Vermont's democratic processes. To remain true to the ideals of America, we have an obligation to ensure that all residents can vote independently with dignity and without undue hardship. I thank you.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you very much. Any questions from the table for this guest? Before we move on to Kate? Right. No, thank you so much. Yes. Hi, Kate. Table is yours.

[Kate LaRose (REV UP Vermont; Vermont Center for Independent Living)]: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Kate Larose. Before I begin, I just wanna share my gratitude that your committee has made it possible for us to testify today by offering hybrid participation. As a person with a disability who cannot tolerate lights, movement, sounds, and sitting upright for extended periods of time, I would not be able to be here today without Zoom participation. Often thought of as a mere convenience for many disabled people, it's our only access to civic participation. Thank you, chair Birong, making your committee accessible so that our voices can be heard too. I know that your committee has already received hours of testimony about s two ninety eight from lobbyists, government workers, political parties, and lawyers. And I know that you're hoping to pass this bill out of committee later today. Thank you for making time this morning before you do to hear directly from those who have been deterred and denied the right to vote. I am here today as a member of REV UP Vermont, a volunteer led coalition we started because disabled people around the state are being shut out of democracy. I am here today as a staff member with the Vermont Center for Independent Living, who has organized passport events for our community as they are scared about what will happen to them in the years ahead if they don't have a federal ID. I am here today as the former Vermont Human Rights Commission designee on the Act one thirty three working group, where half the members made clear recommendations for increasing voter access, which failed to make the overall report. And I am here today as someone who has been denied the right to vote in my municipal elections for four years running. But perhaps most importantly, I'm here today as someone who believes through and through in the power of democracy and civic engagement. At a time when federal protections are vanishing or worse, being weaponized to harm those who have already been hurt, We need our communities. And our communities need us. This includes access to voting and local government. I want to share a piece of my story today as well as the stories of others. Sharing these stories can be exhausting and painful, but we do it anyways because those of us without power need you, our elected officials, to hear us, to see us, To care about us enough to fix things for us. We can't walk through the halls of power. We don't have a team of lawyers on staff, and you won't see us hosting legislative dinner parties. All we have is right now this moment with you to not be made invisible. We invite you to honor this by listening deeply with curiosity and gentleness to what we have to share about the truth of our lived experience. Vermont likes to tell the story that we have voter turnout and meeting and public engagement levels to be proud of. You heard that again this morning, and that's true, but only for a certain demographic. What's top in the nation rankings for white nondisabled people looks very different for other demographics. Vermont is forty ninth nationally for disability access and voting, and we are dead last in the nation when it comes to the turnout gap between disabled and nondisabled voters. Sadly, we are not much better when it comes to the turnout gap for black, Asian, and Hispanic voters with some of the worst rates in the country, all significantly lower than the national averages, most especially for black Vermonters. These are not disparities to be proud of. As a state, we like to pretend that voter education and outreach is the answer. As if somehow these abysmal data points are an indictment of individuals' actions and not the sum of decades and lifetimes of systemic barriers and discrimination. And we also like to pretend that when systemic problems exist, that the systems themselves will solve them. It's a comforting diversion while the stories of those fighting for their rights around our state goes untold. Stories like Dawn, who's active on a town committee, but has only been able to vote once in nine years. And Josh, who was raised to cherish the right to vote, but who has been denied that right since becoming mostly bed confined. And Alison in Plainfield, who strongly believes in doing her civic duty, but left town meeting in tears after having to navigate an inaccessible building and parking lot. And Andrea and Cheaps Barry, who is the chair of the state of Vermont Disability Council, but was told she could only watch her neighbors vote on town meeting day because current state law lacks the specificity needed for hybrid participation. And perhaps worst of all, a decorated World War two vet in Northfield who spent years begging to vote on his town budget to no avail, leaving him wondering what he had fought for, if not for these most basic of freedoms. As disabled people, we are often told that we simply can just ask for accommodations. But if you've never had to repeatedly ask for permission in order to have access to a basic freedom, you need to understand what that process is like. Here are just a few of my experiences from the past several years. Each time I ask for an accommodation for civic participation, it's discussed in an open public session and recorded in meeting minutes for all to reach. One time when I requested access to a select board meeting, I was told that I had to submit a medical provider's letter. I did, but it cost me $100 hours off of work and delayed my meeting access by three months. Every time I asked for access, no matter how politely, I started to be treated as an outcast more and more by my community. I became painted as a problem and an annoyance for my elected officials to have to deal with as it required yet another agenda item, another letter to write, another special meeting for them. And no one ever bothered asking me, an exhausted disabled person, just trying to get by how I felt about any of this extra workload just

[Chair Matthew Birong]: You just muted, Kate. There we go.

[Kate LaRose (REV UP Vermont; Vermont Center for Independent Living)]: Okay. And no one ever bothered asking me an exhausted disabled person just trying to get by how I felt about any of this extra workload just to try and vote, get an accessible copy of a town meeting report or meeting minutes, or participate in public comments. And this even happens in cases where state and federal law is very clear, like curbside voting access. Though I cannot vote for municipal matters, I can vote for my school budget. Last year, I emailed my clerk to ask for a curbside ballot. I was told that wasn't possible on the day of elections. They were too busy. So I showed up and stood outside and asked everyone who walked past me if they could have the clerk bring me my ballot. At one point, the door opened and someone screamed at me, you don't look too disabled to me, and then slammed the door back shut again. It was my select board member who I couldn't vote for. Eventually, after standing outside in the cold and snow for over an hour, I was able to vote thanks to the help of the secretary of state's office and disability rights Vermont. But after they collected my ballot, I was chided by the clerk and the justice of the peace for not planning better because they told me they were quote very busy with elections. You've heard a lot from us over the last thirty minutes and we know that now in the eleventh hour of this biennium there's only so much that can be done. Protecting universal mail in ballots, further expanding, not limiting, the classes of voters who are protected, and ensuring hybrid access to town meetings and Australian ballot for local elections are all equally important. And if you take nothing else from what we shared today, please let it be this. One, disabled Vermonters must be included as a protected class in this bill in order to meet the spirit and intent of the Federal Voting Rights Act and the four federal voting rights acts that followed. Disabled people are not one demographic. We are present and a large part of all demographics. Thank you for including us. Two, because systems cannot fix themselves, even if they had the infinite time and resources to do so, private right of action must be reinstated into this bill. This was a cornerstone of the Federal Voting Rights Act. Without it, voters are powerless and have no recourse, and no recourse means no protections. I have so much hope for a future in which every member of the community is embraced and allowed to participate. I truly believe that this is the way forward to protecting and honoring everyone in all that comes next. These two small but mighty actions in this bill will help to make that possible. Thank you for your time.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you very much, Kate. Questions for the committee? Yeah. I think I wanna invite the elections director back up just to Sure. Follow-up on the testimony here. If you don't mind, sir.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Yeah. I'm happy to to join. Again, Sean Chan, elections director, secretary of state, and even more recent. Like I said, couldn't

[Chair Matthew Birong]: hear for you this week.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: I wanna I wanna thank, Ria and Ovation, Kate, I think, sharing their their experiences. Think in hearing those personal stories really are a reminder for how all of us in the state have that room for continued improvement in how we need to do better. We need every Vermonter to be able to participate in civic participation and in elections as well. I want to thank Maria brought up actually, I think they may have all about the universal vote by mail, a is lot of the research we've seen and look to for helping make voting more accessible for all really comes down to making ballots, accessible to have no excuse, absentee voting, which which Vermont has. You know, some states you have to say that you're going to be out of state and, you know, during an election in order to get an absentee ballot. In Vermont, there's no excuse. You can just ask, the clerk for for the absentee ballot for for for primary. So for the August election, any of any of Vermonter can avail themselves of that. And for the general election, the step beyond that having the universal vote by mail. So that I think is widely seen as the number one policy from what I've read for making elections more available to more people. And so, as I noted, I think that the same that we shared was really that gap that Vermont has between Vermonters with disabilities, which is right at the national average, and Vermonters without disabilities, which is way better than the national average. It's a little puzzling in that sense that we have what's seen as the best policy practice that many states don't have yet or at that average. So we certainly, I think, have flagged a scenario we the priority for us to improve on, we think, legislatively in future sessions as well. And also though, I think for the opportunity for that outreach, I know our Vermont clerks talk to have the accessible voting machines. That's a big investment that we collectively as a state have made with our Help America Vote Act funds to invest in those machines so that all the two forty seven cities and towns have those available. They aren't used many, many towns. They're not used a single time in elections. And so when the secretary launched the accessibility, voter accessibility task force and the working group on disabilities, calling greater attention to the existence of those machines and making sure that people don't have to feel. We've heard that there's very different types of disabilities and people may think, oh, I have a disability or I don't have a disability. Anybody can use the accessible voting machines. And some clerks were trying to some towns play up the machines and have what they call a voter concierge. Rosie O'Katherine, who's the clerk in East Montpelier, has told us about this voter concierge role that that she has, one of the members of their Board of Civil Authority welcoming people when they come in the in the door, seeing if they need assistance with voting, making sure they're aware, aware of the accessible voting machines. And actually just today, the members of that working group, which includes our office, Disability Rights Vermont, folks from End Homelessness Vermont, the Agency of Human Services, Representative Stone from this committee, although she's going to miss the video shared in any small bill because she'll be here voting on this bill, but also the ACLU and Vermont legal aid all working together on a script to be able to play up and put out a video that we can get out to Vermonters and have all of these groups, all the members of this working group, help underscore the availability of resources for those who want to come vote in person. And again, at the same time, getting out the word as has been discussed, for both the August election and the November election, people who don't want to or can't vote in person have the ability to vote by mail. They also have the ability, if you're elderly or have a disability, to have two justices of the peace come deliver a ballot to your house or if you're ill. These are all resources that are in Vermont law, that Vermont has the right policies in place, and we feel that making sure that they're they're better known, to Vermonters will will, will help us, improve and and do better at this year's elections, while at the same time, always looking out to policies that we can wrestle with next year with this committee and legislature to get into law. If there's any other questions, I'll take them. If not, I appreciate your time today. Anything, Sean?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Nope, thank you very much, sir.

[Kate LaRose (REV UP Vermont; Vermont Center for Independent Living)]: Thank you.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Your time is greatly appreciated. Awesome. Yeah, we're taking up another piece on this at the AG's office after lunch. Yeah. Thank you very much.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Yeah,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: no, thank you.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I may be able to make it.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I'm sorry?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I may be able to make a video shoot.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: There's a video shoot?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: He just alluded to it.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Sorry. Oh, the working group video shoot. Okay. Okay. I had a Tom Stevens email about video stuck in my head.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, different steps. Understood.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yes. Thank you for that verification members. Okay, before

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: we hit

[Chair Matthew Birong]: the lunch hour, we received an email from Paul from the ethics commission, and he requested an opportunity to join us. He is joining us. Paul, how are you?

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I'm very good. Can you hear me okay? Mhmm. Alright. Good. Good. And I know you're probably all anxious for lunch, I'll try not to take too much of your time. I did, seeing that there was a misunderstanding from Sean. I'm sorry Sean left, because I just received an email from Sean, apparently a misunderstanding of what happened yesterday. So I'd like to just briefly review that. During, our exec ethics commission or ethics commission's executive director, Chris Sivra, testified yesterday, and, she, you know, was very clear that, the Ethics Commission has never before done anything with a candidate disclosure form other than give it to the secretary of state's office to distribute. And now the secretary of state's office is quite all of a sudden asking us to do something new, but and it's created this kind of kerfuffle, this deadlock. And so Chris made a proposal to break the deadlock saying, okay. You know, we we don't wanna be identified with the forum as answering questions, but you know what? We we will post it as long as you also post it, and we'll take questions that might come our way. You know, let let's just get this done and put it out there for the public candidate's good. I did not and tell me if I'm wrong, I did not hear any agreement nor disagreement to that. And then at the end of the day, and I understand that, after after Chris Siverid came, Sarah Copeland, who disagreed with that, but such as life, but still no agreement or disagreement on that proposal. And then after the recording ended and as I was packing up, chair Birong, you can correct me, but I I thought I heard you say that that you thought that there was an agreement that, we would post that form and that the secretary of state's office would post a link to that form. And I just want so I just sent an email to all of you, and Nick as well, just saying, I think there's a misunderstanding. Our proposal still stands. By the way, after I said goodbye to you folks yesterday, I learned that the, the one new staff member, that house appropriations had included for the ethics commission, got stripped out by the senate appropriations committee. So we we are back to square one with virtually no staff, with assignments getting getting put upon us. So I I just wanted to be clear that that that was not something we agreed to, and I'm sorry again that Sean left because I sent him a link or rather a copy of the email I sent to all of you folks kind of explaining that. That's pretty much it. I can explain why we don't want it on our website exclusively if you

[Kate LaRose (REV UP Vermont; Vermont Center for Independent Living)]: want.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I'm sorry?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: It yes. So, I mean, towards the end of that meeting. Yes. I read a it's I read a punch list of four items, and I believe it was posted on ethics commission site. FAQs posted with it. They answer questions via phone and email, SOS link sem for continuity. And thank you very much, counsel. So, yes, this is the direct one. Form posted on Ethics Commission website. FAQs posted on Ethics website. Ethics answers questions by email and phone. SOS has hyperlinks to all of the above on their site. I read this sheet that is in my hand aloud to the committee and counsel for broad understanding. You were sitting in the room as was the secretary of state. Nobody disagreed.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Forgive me, chair Birong, but the meeting had ended. I everybody's moving. I I wasn't figured that

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I mean, the meeting was not over, Paul. It was still live. We were still meeting.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Yeah. I just checked the recording. It's it that part was cut off. So, my understanding for you know, this is getting into the weeds. Don't need to. For whatever reasons, I thought it would be better to just hold off at that moment. But here I am now saying there's a misunderstanding. We made a proposal. I think it's really quite a reasonable proposal that Chris made. And and, again, I'd be glad to explain why we would prefer not to post it on our website website

[Chair Matthew Birong]: exclusively. I think what we would rather do actually is review that tape ourselves during lunch hour, but at this point in time, we are still planning to vote this bill out. If you have issues with what we are voting out, you can take it up and sit.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Totally understood. I I mean, I I I saw the the the new s two ninety eight. And, yes, of course, we take issue with it. It's it's stuff that we don't have staff to do, basically. And it our our jurisdiction, our bailiwick has been state public servants, employees, members of all three branches, not candidates. That's a whole new something for us. You It seems like the beginning of mission creep and putting more and more stuff on the ethics commission with less and less staff. I don't mean to be a complainer. Get us more staff. We'll do whatever you say.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: So, I mean, this committee did put forward a budget recommend recommendation with all of your requests. So if we we did what we could within that vein,

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: you know,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: so as this bill continues to move, I think the pressure should be applied for your request with the appropriations committees.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: And, yeah, moving on to the senate at this point, I guess, with with s two ninety eight, etcetera. We'll we'll do what we can, on our end, but, yes, we we actively disagree with this with these new ethics commission assignments with the current staffing. And you can you can always underline that you think that the ethics commission should get some more staff. You can always emphasize it with your colleagues.

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: Doctor. Waters Evans.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Yesterday, you and I actually had just a conversation in the hallway Yeah. With with a senator about the fact that that I was hoping that that the Senate could be convinced to put that money back into the the budget. And, you know, I don't wanna speak speak for that senator at the moment and hold them to anything they said. But they did say that it was important to them as well, and that they were going to speak to the appropriate people about it. Yes. So I think right now we're sort of in This strange sort of nowhere zone as far as the funding is concerned, because the money goes in, it comes out. We recommended the whole thing that the House of Appropriations said, Okay, half Senate said nothing. But the budget isn't final until the budget's final. And the budget isn't usually final until the last day of the session. So we are, unfortunately, in this gray area of making these decisions about what we think is the best policy with every attempt not to have these unfunded mandates or to ask people to do things that they're not capable of doing because they don't have the funds. But we are also in this position where, particularly in regards to this issue, it's very pressing time wise that we resolve it as soon as we can. So I feel bad. I wish we could give you all the money you wanted and more. And we're going to do what we can on our part when we're discussing the importance of it with our colleagues, I think to be able to fund it. But also, we need to make sure that the people who are being served by this mode, which is the people who are voting, right? The people who are voting, who have access to these campaign finance disclosures, that they're getting the information that they need and that we are adhering to these policies and these goals that we've set for ourselves so that we can get this information out to the public and make sure that these things that have been important to pass legislatures when these laws were made, we continue that work. So I'm sorry that you are also waiting in this gray area, but hopefully we can do what we can to convince the Senate to fund your office appropriately. I think it's really important we all agreed when we had our budget discussion that it was a priority for our committee. And I think at this point, just given the nature of the deadline, far as the campaign finance disclosure forms are concerned that that we need to we need to move forward with it, at least on our end.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I I don't wanna interrupt, but if you're ready for me to respond Sure. I'll be glad. We we think we've put through quite a reasonable proposal. I I don't see any reason why the secretary of state's office would not want to post. I know there was a concern expressed about duplicate places for documents. That can be dealt with easily, and that's not a problem. We'll take care of that. But I don't understand their intransigence. Frankly, candidates generally go to a secretary the secretary of state's office elections division when they want information, when they want forms, etcetera. Why would they not post it for the public good to get the word out there to the candidates, especially when there's a crunch time now? We have, I think, a legitimate reason why we'd rather not post it at all, but we're saying, sure. We'll post it. But we want this we don't want it to be the exclusive place to secure the document.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes. We completely understand your your your argument. We understand your rationale. We understand that there's a big divide between your position and the Secretary of State. As a committee, we're just trying to do the best we can in this circumstance with the information that we have. Unfortunately, not everyone is going to be happy about everything. We're just trying to find a compromise that works for the people who are going to be viewing this information and the candidates who are going to be filling it out to make sure that that's an easy and clear process for them. We don't want to create barriers for people running for office. But at this point, I think we have a discussion and a possible vote scheduled for one hundred thirty this afternoon, a committee discussion. And I think that's one we're hoping to, have one more witness coming in to discuss it after lunch, which is very soon. And I am just hoping that we can hear from that one more witness and then have our discussion. If it just turns out that that it's not exactly what you hope for, I hope can make your concerns known to the senate and that moving forward in as time goes by that that we can find some ways to resolve this. But we're gonna discuss it. We haven't decided we haven't voted on it yet. So we're not quite there yet, but we will be this afternoon.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I I I'll be glad to engage with the senate or with whomever. But just for the immediate future, I'm I'm hoping that the secretary of state's office will agree to our, I think, reasonable proposal so that we can get that form out there to candidates pronto.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Rep hang up.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I'm sorry. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this because I've been doing a lot of reading on it lately. And so this came about because of act one seventy one, if I'm correct. Yes?

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Are are you asking me? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I I thought you were addressing another rep. I'm sorry.

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

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: I

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I you know, it all wraps around the word maintain that was put in in act one seventy one. The ethics commission requested a change of language that said that the ethics commission will prepare the disclosure form. We volunteered.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: And maintain. Yes.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: And No. No. It used to just say prepare, and it got changed to create and maintain. And and people got confused and thought that we were gonna help them prepare their form. It's like, no. No. No. We're just creating the form. And Oh. In discussion with, senate gov ops, Chris Sievert, our executive director, said, could you please change the language so that people don't think that we're gonna help them prepare the form? That's not our job. We don't do that. Okay. There

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: was another

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: if I could just finish just to say and the word maintained was explained at that time in the creation of the language to mean when the statute was changed, was updated, that we, the ethics commission, would update the form. I wrote to Ruth Hardy, was chair of the commission. She confirmed my understanding of what was meant at the time.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So what I was getting at is so this is 2024, June 10, it came into law. And now we're at time for another set of elections. So my question is, for almost two years, there was not time to at least make this form and get it out there.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Oh, we we created That's

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: what I'm trying to

[Chair Matthew Birong]: get to.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: We of course, no. We created the form weeks months ago. And No. We gave it to them months ago, and they're saying, no. It's yours to take care of. You know, you post it, and you answer questions. Like, hold up. We've never done that. We always give it to you. We've done that for eight years straight. Why are changing the rules on us? That that's all.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Because yesterday when I was trying to find a current form, I still could not find one.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: No. It's not posted anywhere because So for two years.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Right. Well, you know, I don't you know,

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I haven't kept track of it because when last it was needed, you know, we we figured it well in in well in well in advance of election season twenty twenty six, we will provide this to you. I think it was January when we sent the form. As we always have, it's virtually identical to the form for executive officers. So we send them that form. In years past, they just changed the heading to say candidates form, and that's been that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: We're not gonna live in the past. We're gonna live in the now.

[Paul (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I'm saying that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I'm if you're done, I Rebecca has a question.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Thank you. I don't have a question. I have a statement. I'm not sure if you missed this part of the secretary, deputy secretary of state, sorry, elections director Sean Cheams testimony a few minutes ago earlier this morning. But I specifically asked him what he agreed to, and he said that the Secretary of State's office approves the language that is in this version, which is version 5.1, I believe, now of this bill. So that's where we stand right now. And I'm not certain that continuing this dialogue is going to be helpful in this setting. But there's certainly more of an opportunity as the bill moves along to continue to make your points, and for us to try to help you, as as Rep. Waters Evans indicated, we recommended from this committee, out of this committee, to the corporations committee, both positions that were asked for. And it went along in the appropriations process, which we have no more influence other than writing a letter about. Understood. So, we appreciate your advocacy, and we'll just keep going on

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: this. Okay.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: So, where we stand right now, committee, is we are breaking for lunch. We will be back at 1PM with the attorney general's office to hear about possibly including some nuance to a section that we've taken a lot of testimony from them on, and we are still holding strong

[Sean Chea Waters, Elections Director (Vermont Secretary of State’s Office)]: with our goal for a one

[Chair Matthew Birong]: party vote. So with that, any questions from the table? Nick, thank you very much.