Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: The host judiciary committee this Wednesday afternoon, January fourteenth, and we're gonna now turn our attention to another bill, h five four one, related to interference with voters and election officials. We'll have to walk through and then have some witnesses as well. So over to you, Tim. Thanks for being here.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Well, thank you very much for having me, committee members. For the record, my name is Tim Devlin, legislative counsel. Before you, you indeed have draft 1.1 h four sorry. Five forty one will be due with a proposal to impose criminal and civil penalties on any person who interferes with voters' rights to vote or election officials or the purpose of disrupting the preparation or operation of an election. So I figured I'd start off today by just kind of situating the committee as far as powers and current law and then explore the particulars of this bill. But Sounds good.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Sounds

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: great. So I'm not sure exactly how often this committee gets into election law, but just as a starting point, The US constitution through the elections clause and article one, section four, clause one, gives primary authority over election administration to the states. Of course, the federal government is entitled to legislate areas having to do with federal elections and civil rights, and so we see kind of a blending of authorities here of who can regulate what. Current law, when it comes to elections interfacing with the disruption of interference or intimidation of, we do have some limited laws on the Vermont statutes annotated. I can just give you some brief citations. We have a criminal threatening law, which is 13 BSA 17 o two, and there are essentially augmentations under subsections d and f for voters or if it occurs at a polling place or if it occurs against a candidate or election officials. We also have entire chapter under title 17, which is 17 VSA chapter 35, named the offenses against the purity of elections. And here we have numerous offenses having to do with really, for the most part, inappropriate behavior by either the election officials themselves or the voters themselves. What you don't see there is really third parties trying to interfere with the right to vote. There is to a certain extent we have in 17 BSA nineteen seventy two a, which is actually in section one. I'll get to that. We're ending today. Let's get into the interference with voters, or there's a limitation on the proximity, having to be a polling place, and surely couch in terms of trying to influence or induce a voter to vote this way or that versus something more broader, such as just interfering with the vote to write right to vote at all. We also have 17 BSA twenty seventeen, which is an undue influence statute. Again, that's really more about the inducing a voter to vote this way or that. So turning now to the particulars of the bill, essentially, have three sections. The first is amending existing law, which will be kinda made redundant in that sense by section two. Section two has that new language regarding interference, and then the third grants, explicitly, enforcement and investigation powers to the, in the civil context of this, to the state's attorneys and the attorney general's office. And that would apply to all of the offenses against the purity of elections. Right now, we have parallel language in the campaign finance chapter of title 17, not really anywhere else. I'll return to that in a little bit later. So section one will amend 17 b s a nineteen seventy two, which was titled showing ballot and interference with voters. The subsection a is kinda cleaning up some gender language, but really maintains the essence of the law of which the first part of the form of semi formative, but showing ballots and combat is still prohibitively prohibited. And for those curious, this has to do usually with the idea of bribery replying ballots or buying a vote and showing the ballot is different how you would prove to the person trying to influence that person that they've actually gone through with it. So that's remaining on the block. Interference with voters, and you'll see this at the top of page two. This language is being stricken with the exception of the fine, which is now only going to apply to to show him ballot language. And, again, this is has two qualities I'd point out. Again, it has to do with the inducing a voter result one way or another, and it's also limited kind of geographically to the polling place. Section two is where we get into we will meet behind the purpose of this partner, and this will create a new section to be titled 17 BSA nineteen seventy three interference with voters and election officials. As you just know, that it may look somewhat familiar with those really versed in election interference law. Some of this language is borrowed from 18 US code section five ninety four, also called intimidation of voters. So first, we have the kind of a penalty section up fronted, and this matches 17 VSA 17 o two in the criminal threatening statutes. That that should be 13. That's what it matches. And so it reads starting on line eight. A person shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $2,000 or both If that person intimidates, threatens, hoarses, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, horse, essentially, we have two categories to do. Number one has to do with voters, and number two has to do with 28 efficient, particularly one of grooming any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such person other I'm sorry. Right of such other person to vote or to vote as the voter may choose or of causing the other person to vote for or not to vote for any candidate for public office in any election. So we obtain that inducing language and then add to it, augmenting it to the idea of further protection for the interfering against the right of some of the public. Two, as a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or a public employee for the purpose of interfering with the preparation or operation of election. And here, I'll note that this is part of the current law, not only because of I noticed there's not necessarily a location aspect to this. It applies to broader points overall. It keeps engaging. And then also gets to the preparation operations in general, rather than the undue influence law already on the books in '17, has to do with influencing a specific choice being made by somebody. So this was broader to all operations. So this would cover anything from destroying a Dropbox for ballots or something that's not necessarily limited to the proper having to do with stopping somebody from voting remotely, much broader category of conduct can fit into this language as stated here.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's the I see. Go ahead.

[Unidentified committee member]: I just missed it. Where you said this was language that was already somewhere else or it's similar to language somewhere else?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Based on federal statute. Yes. Federal statute.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified committee member]: So we are just putting in state statute to clarify. So it's already law at the federal level?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: It's already law at the federal level, but federal law will only apply to federal elections.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Great. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That federal law. Thank you.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So moving on to section three, and this is where we have the added authority for enforcement and civil investigation to be granted to the AG's office, as well as state's attorneys. And, again, this will because we're supposed be positioned in subchapter four of chapter 35, it will apply to all offenses against the 30 of elections. About 10 or so statutes that are already on the books. This language may look familiar to some who are following the synthetic media bill that was in the Senate, those s 23, actually, yeah, certainly passed between House and back, at the end of last year. And I believe this is an ask from the AG's office to have these powers that were provided for in the campaign finance chapter duplicated here. The nature and peace, proper fact, collection and clearance esque violations. And so if it's alright with the chair, I figured I'd just wanna go through and summarize them versus kinda do read out verbatim of that. So first, we have a 20 force sorry. Twenty forty one enforcement, and this provides essays and AGs essentially with the ability to injunctive relief provided. Next section at twenty forty two has to do with the civil investigation authority. A one will provide them the power to examine records. Two will provide the power to issues penance and depositions. Three, it is a notice provision that will accompany those or records. Four, has to do with the disclosure of records. Really, essentially saying that they're confidential unless needed to be disclosed as a result of investigation by the AGs or the SAs. Moving on to six, and but these will not be applicable to criminal investigation. So b sorry. Going on to subdivision b. One, here we have a compliance provision that will have to be complied with by anybody subject to. We have penalty provisions in two, and here we have let's see. Essentially, for falsities are refusal to comply. Fine, not more than $5,000. C, subdivision c one, noncompliance, and filing of four orders. Seek two, we have for see, grants court's jurisdiction and gets into some contempt of court powers. And then finally, subdivision d, we have the rights for the investigators that was being investigated. That is the right to seek relief in court, and then also provides a priority for such cases. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Think you probably you did say this already, but before I'm sure that it's clear. This is language that is elsewhere in statute. We just need to have it in with this new provision.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Is that it? Yes. The way FELD 17 is currently composed, chapter I believe it's 61 or 63, had to look that up for where the campaign finance regulation is. There are similar provisions in there, but they apply only to those campaign finance investigations and campaign finance violations. In this other chapter, 35, it's silent there. So I believe there was just a wanting of clarity that they had fixed powers in TMO situations. Many questions, Brian. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: So it's not removing it in the other section. It's just replicating it here.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: In the civil investigations A6, the subsection shall not be proposed in criminal or prosecution brought under the laws of this or any

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: other statement. Page five, line one. So you're doing a civil investigation. You depose somebody. You would not use that deposition as grounds for a criminal charge under the new voter interference crime that you could potentially charge them against?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: That's a great question. And I will admit that the interface between criminal and civil matters in this regard. I'm not too familiar with that. I'd be more than happy to check with somebody on our judiciary team and get back to

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. Okay. I guess I would be pretty curious about that. Sure.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Here. I don't know if this is perfect.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's more just a curiosity. I get curious how legislation is all put together sometimes. Because I know sometimes when we have new statutes, it'll say something like in this case, it might be, and enforcement and investigation shall proceed as directed in blah blah blah, this other statute, which you're saying is in campaign finance. Right? So I feel like we see that sometimes. So why is The cross reference. Yeah. So why is it just duplicated here rather than having a cross reference? Sure.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Let's see. The reserves, I think the language existing in the campaign finance chapter has just various numerous references to campaign finance kind of woven in and surround. So a simple kind of like bootstrapping it via cross reference would be just a little awkward. So we made a drafting decision. An alternative could be to put it somewhere else, in a new chapter in title 17 that applies to everything in the title or just certain chapters here or there.

[Unidentified committee member]: Was just curious because I feel like, why do pick one or the other? Sure.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Just to say, if there's a want for that to change, we can accommodate that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Where is legislative council the one place versus in the other places? I mean, don't know

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: how much of a policy we've implemented versus just how we construct our statutes. I guess it would depend on how many chapters would be affected to it. Or, I mean, in drafting perspective, we would just have to strike everything, existing one, and then create a new one. I would say we're close to indifferent on how it's done as long as the case out and we make

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: sure everything. Right, and people are used to using that provision in the case finance ones like, why take the money and mess with the case. Okay, Other questions, Tim? Alright, appreciate it. Thank you, and I was hoping for the walk through, and we'll start with Secretary of State, Sarah Copeland Hansen.

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: Standards are

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: you for meeting.

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Sarah Copeland Hansis, Vermont Secretary of State. And I want to say thank you to you all for taking up this important issue today. I will be fairly brief. And if you find that you're diving into this further later on this week or early next week, we're happy to come back and dive into things with you. I think that given the moment that we're in the heightened tensions that we see in political context around the world, around the country, I think it's really helpful to have this put into Vermont statute. There is nothing that's more important and more central to our office than ensuring every Vermonter's right to vote and ensuring the safety and security of the people who are helping to conduct those elections. I think it's important to note that within our state as well as across the country, there have been numerous instances of people who have been threatened and indeed property damage and an individual threatening not only in polling places, but in people's offices and people's homes. And I think it's important for us to be very clear about what the consequences will be in the event that violence is used as a way of interfering with elections and the conduct of elections or with interfering with somebody's right to vote. We at the Secretary of State's office have a front row seat to stories that we hear from other parts of the country. But we are not immune to threats of violence within the state of Vermont. And indeed, after the twenty twenty election, the threats became so egregious that it caused psychological harm to members of our staff. And I have made it my goal from day one to make sure that nobody who is working in the elections realm to help us conduct our democracy is put in harm's way like that again. And I think this is a really important step. It's an important tool to be given to law enforcement in Vermont to be able to protect these people. It also dovetails very nicely with the work that the legislature did in forbidding carrying the firearms in polling places. We know that there is no place for that kind of threat or intimidation. This really just ties a bow on it and makes it very clear. So I want to thank you all for taking up the bill. Thank the sponsors for for crafting it, and we are happy to take questions. I have my deputy secretary, Lauren Hibert, here with me. I have my elections director, Sean Sheehan, with me. So if you have any questions for us, we're happy to take them.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Question. Thank you for being here. So

[Unidentified committee member]: I guess I got a little bit this from Ledge Council. So there's federal language on this, and we're kind of taking that and putting it here to make it so it's applicable to our state and municipal. So are there

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: no protections right now? What if this happens right now? Is it what what would happen? Well, we don't have explicit protections. And I think the fact that those protections exist in federal law would require a federal law enforcement agency to care enough about what happens in Belvedere to come and investigate something. Sorry, Belvedere. Did not mean to hit on you. It's the first name that popped into my head. But you understand the point that what happens in one place in Vermont might not mean a lot to a federal law enforcement agency, but it does mean a lot to us in Vermont. And we know that the threat of violence can be an intimidating factor to make people who are vulnerable in other ways feel uncomfortable exercising their right to vote. So I think it's important that we have these protections in state law.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. No. I I it just is interesting for me to learn that it's a gap that's there. So thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Representative Oliver? And then representative Thank you, chairman.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I'm just curious. What's the most common type of interference or something you see

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: that occurs about.

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: Well, I can talk a little bit about the specific things that we have seen in Vermont. There was a swatting incident that attempted to call law enforcement to my home before one of our twenty twenty four elections. If that had been successful in deploying law enforcement in the backwoods of Orange County at seven in the morning. I might have been interfered with on my way to the office on the day of an election. We do hear stories from town clerks all the time about angry people coming into their office. People who may hear a news report from another state, or they may hear a conflated story that is an amalgam of things that may or may not have happened in other places, and they direct that anger at their local town or city clerk. In fact, we've had a number of town clerk's offices in recent years who have closed to walk in traffic so that there isn't the opportunity for that on a daily basis. And I think what is important about this is that it will ensure that not only in the preparation days before an election, but on election day, there are some specific protections for the people who are conducting these elections. Some of our small towns I forget where you're from.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Sheldon, Swan.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Okay. Swan. Yeah. You're from Swan?

[Tom Abdelnour, VSEA Legislative Coordinator]: No. I live in Sheldon. Okay.

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: I love Swan. I love Sheldon too, but I haven't spent as much time there. But some of our very small towns, as you know, may only have one or two people working in the office and they may only be open ten or twenty hours a week. And that can be a very scary and lonely place. In fact, I was approached by an assistant town clerk in a very small town in Vermont who carries a firearm with her to work for her own safety. And she was really worried about the barring of firearms and polling places because she said, this is what I use to protect myself. And so clearly, if there are people in town offices who feel that threatened, that they feel like they need to carry protection, they must be having some incidents that I haven't heard about.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Not necessarily related to voting, but

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: there can be a lot

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: of things going on in town.

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: Sure. Yes. For sure. Yes. But I I'm in charge of elections in Vermont, and as such, I I feel like it's my duty to to stand up for the protection of all of the election workers across the state. And if people are grumbling about having to pay their property taxes, I I feel for them. But I can't help with that one.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: For the feds to get involved, would it have

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: to be a federal election? Yes. So the larger portion of the elections, they

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: pay any attention to it anyway.

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: Right. Even even if it was a a high enough profile incident that that it garnered federal attention. If it was something that happened at a at a school election or a municipal election,

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: it wouldn't be their jurisdiction.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Other questions? So I have a question.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'm not sure if it's for you or for Tim or Sean but I'll ask you anyway. So the issue that is on the other side of wanting to protect voters is First Amendment protections. We haven't really talked about that. And I guess this may be more a question for Tim than anybody, that we modeled this under 18 USC section five ninety four of intimidation of voters, it very much matches that, very close to that. I think in part because that law has been out there. And I'm not sure if it has been challenged, or stated by norms if it's been challenged. I have to look. Yeah, so we need to double check. The question does this this is a little bit different than a normal criminal threat, where you have to have a true threat, as it's called, where somebody actually threaten that they're going to have serious bodily harm or death. And this doesn't do that. This doesn't quite go to that level, I don't think. And I'm just putting out there, is there a constitutional question? Mean, there is a constant question. Has it been answered with the federal law already so that you don't have to worry too much about that? Although it's certainly something we have to look at. I don't know if anybody has more input on that.

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: We'll look to the attorneys.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Well, That is a

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: great question to explore, I think.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, we'll be able to double check that. Any other questions? We could have Lauren as well, or is it she was just

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: here because Sorry, she's just the wing woman.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay, well, that's it. She

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: actually printed me a copy of the bill, so pretty essential.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Tom, did you want to weigh in on this at all on behalf of your

[Tom Abdelnour, VSEA Legislative Coordinator]: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I guess I'll just say for the record very quickly, Tom Adelnour, legislative coordinator of VSEA. But I would very much want to echo the Secretary of State's comments about this and thank her for her sensitivity to and dedication to addressing these issues as she alluded to in her testimony. Our members at the Secretary of State's office have been subjects in the current climate, even in even before the secretary assumed her role, to a very concerning and very harmful amount of threatening harassment and other issues that have had led to people in that office feeling deeply concerned for their personal safety. And although the important questions about whether or not our democracy can properly function if we're in a climate where these threats are commonplace and not sufficiently addressed is an important one. From our perspective, it's a substantive and really important labor rights issue. People should not have to be afraid on their job. And unfortunately, given the current climate, it's an increasing occurrence around the country. So we're very, very supportive of this legislation and hope that it will pass. Thank

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: you very much, Sarah. Guess that's One other thing that you all haven't asked, but I want to offer this as my opinion. There was a question about this enforcement language and the fact that there is enforcement language in other parts of Title 17. There are aspects of this enforcement language that close some loopholes that exist or some make slight improvements to the language that exists with respect to enforcement of our campaign finance laws. And so if the committee had the time to give it the attention of extracting and putting all of the enforcement language in one place, our office would support that. And we'd be happy to work with you on how to put another draft in front of the committee if that is the committee's wish.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So the preference is to put this all in workplace?

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: I think it makes sense, yes, because there are aspects of this language that think were drafted in collaboration with the attorney general's office that help to ensure a bit more transparency into the process of how investigation and enforcement happens. Okay.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. Well, doctor Finken's talk about I'll pick you up on that. Mean Yes. Well, let's we have time. We have more witnesses between now and 03:00. So somehow, some of our witnesses dropped out. So I I could ask you to work with the attorney general's office and and our

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Happy to do that. To put this into one.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: By Windham and Associates.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So we're gonna pull the other enforcement language from wherever else it is, switch it all into this one so it's all in

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the place. Right. Right. Here. And I'm guessing that we

[Unidentified committee member]: would need is that under DevOps? In In Burditt. Thank you. So we'd need to do maybe a drive by with them.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Think they're gonna they're gonna have to do a drive by.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Lauren. I could just say for the record,

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: Lauren Cooper, Deputy Secretary of State, there's really four different types of investigations under Title 17. There's, well, if this law passes, voter intimidation, civil investigations. There's lobbying investigations done by the AGO. There's campaign finance investigations done by the AGO, and there's election fraud investigations done by the AGO. Right now, the language that is substantially in the bill, although improved upon in this bill, is only in the campaign finance section. And it does create some issues when the attorney general's office is investigating lobbying and election fraud. So if we could have one section that is commonly referred to, it would be a cleaner from a statutory perspective, it would unify the process, and it would cover all four types of investigations. So I would love to be able to work

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: with the attorney general's office. We only have, I don't know, one week? No, eight weeks. I dreamed Wednesday, then I have one week left. Is

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: that like waking up and thinking that today's the day of your final exam, and you haven't gone to class,

[Unidentified committee member]: and you haven't read the books? I have

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: those anxiety dreams

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: from time to time

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: as well. But the funny thing was that my initial reaction in that green scape was a little anxiety. I said, well, what the heck? We did what we could. But we do have, I don't know, eight, nine weeks, something like that. If you can certainly move that along.

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: I think we can help you beat eight to nine weeks and months.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, we will completely pause it because we have some additional tests we are gonna be taking.

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: Yes, it should be a fairly straightforward fix and we're happy to collaborate.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You didn't say simple, so you didn't Can you curse it when you say straightforward?

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: No, that has multiple, many syllables. We don't know.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: If you learn not to say simple,

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: and don't ever say simple and little in the same sentence or No, for sure.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Destroys it. Okay, thank you very much. And we'll this on pause except for the additional testimony that have scheduled for tomorrow. Wonderful. And that might give us a little better chance of getting the right clerk in because we might not have a clerk to testify.

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: Well, if push comes to shove, I do have a meeting of a handful of clerks coming to my office next Tuesday. So we can always arm twist them to come and join you if you haven't found anybody before then.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay, great. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: I have one question. Yes,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we have an hour and fifteen minutes. The

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: penalty,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: the two year misdemeanor and $2,000 fine potential, is that just sort of mimicking the criminal threatening? It is. Okay. So federal language that we're borrowing is a one year misdemeanor.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think they only have anything over a year. So

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I just think we could consider a felony if we wanted to. I don't think it has to mimic the criminal threatening statute as far as the penalties go. True. Is

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: this because you've become a deputy? No. I don't know. I guess

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I don't know if it should or not, but we just put it in here borrowing the criminal threatening language as far as the penalty goes. I just wanted to at least

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Is it the appropriate penalty? Is it the appropriate penalty? Probably. Are you going to say six, seven just now? Maybe you could look like it. No. Seven years.

[Unidentified committee member]: I got to tell my kid

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, know. If I called out, it's done. I didn't do it. Just was wondering if he was as a youngster who was going

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: to do that. As the junior member.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: The JV. So yeah, we do have to look into make sure that H and UFC five ninety four has a thing that we're unconstitutional. I think that's what the thing is. We could spend some time talking about what we want to do with animal cruelty, or do we want to wait until we have additional couple of witnesses to do that?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I would love to have a little compare notes session.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We could do, I mean, have some time. I think that wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: To move it to move it along. I mean, it's

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: go into people too.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: We could find it for you to ask if they would like to be informed. Yes.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: If they prefer making informed decisions or not.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Right. Right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So let's walk through and kind of see where we are and see where the questions are, and we could even start having somebody working with Eric on drafting the next version. So let me just walk through. So I'm on page two, and I have that we need to add the without a bonafide veterinary or animal repurposed to teeth. That's not controversial. I thought everybody sounded like it. Thank you very much. Right?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yes. The idea here is that insemination in artificial intelligence could totally fall within that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: The next thing I had at least is on page five. Does anybody have something at once?

[Unidentified committee member]: Something that I marked on page one.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, wow. Okay.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: It's a

[Unidentified committee member]: general question, that's why. And I think it was my statement here that said, would this be a skillable offense, if there was any cross reference or anything we needed to do with that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I think it will. It's already would or would not be sealable. Based on what it is already Because if we move it to the felony, the aggravated is a felony, and then it's not sealable.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Not feelable. Right?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean, because if I'm remembering that law

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I don't remember you either.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: A list of felonies that can be sealed, right? Correct. Yes. So, and we don't have that one on the list, I don't believe.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Perfect. Should answer. Alright,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: so I'm on page five, I had a couple of, well, I had one change and one thing that I don't think is a question out there. And well, had a couple of questions actually. Should we put G also in the aggravated, in other words, that there's this possessions, films, distributes, visual images of a person engaging in sexual conduct in the presence of a lion or something like I know that came up yesterday. Yeah. Say that again. So essentially taking G and also adding it to the aggravated component, but it would be with the minor as well. Because we essentially have all of these aggravated for the sexual conduct with an animal. It's just that it involves a minor in some manner, except we don't have G as aggravated.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Which seems like an oversight.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, the language would have to be a little bit different than to make it clear that it's still involved in the minor.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Just thinking about it, could it be aggravated if a child is type of material? Right. Can

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I add one piece to Are you in the middle of a thought, Tom, that you'd rather me not?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, just real quick. So, G would include filming somebody having sex with an animal. I believe so. Yeah, so we're gonna add, this is Lance, you weren't in that Judge Goslant said it should say a person engaging in sexual conduct. Oh okay. So that clarifies Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, because I was just worried about, I mean, because when we did sexual abuse of kids, that type of thing, with pictures and whatever, and I was just kind of putting them together and just thinking if it's just a picture of an animal and somebody suggesting they're doing something, you'd find it. But I'm good with anything. Yeah, saying engaging in sexual conduct, that covers what they're engaging. I guess the other issue is AI, whether this cup is a hit.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Right, which, I mean He said, add visual representation.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Think that's a complete important piece of

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: He said we could add visual

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: says that, visual images. He said we could consider adding something about digital or digitally created or whatever.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We don't need to? I mean, I'm looking to you as my expert on

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Well, I was gonna I mean, think visual images captures it. We're not

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: excluding digitally enhanced or created. We're just saying all visual images.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You'd want to clarify? Oh, no.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I just don't think an AI generated image is the image of. Right.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: It's a visual image.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Is it a visual image of a person engaging in the inside of an animal?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Do you want to say visual image or depiction?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I should look if I draw a picture

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: That's a visual image.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So that would be a baloney.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: If a kid was

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: If you're you

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: if a

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: kid was pricier.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Are you

[Unidentified committee member]: gonna charge it that way?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I'm not actually trying to say anything. I'm trying

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: to clarify.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying. Why don't we look at the ICAC law that we did this last biennium, we talked about AI created, I think. Am I remembering, misremembering that? I don't remember if we did AI. I remember we did something around somebody not necessarily engaging in sex with a child, but and the thing that I remember talking about is is the picture looking at a child from the back with somebody in front of them. Yeah. It looks like they're touching them, but might not be. So we did something around making that unlawful, but I don't remember the AI. Well, should let's double check. I don't think we can do AI just because it's considered art. Mean, even for

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: In AI, well, we have, you know, like, notification. A notification that uses artificial intelligence to take a picture of someone who is clothed and take the clothes off of them. But we can say that that's not legal. But that would be a visual image of a naked person without their consent. And I want to say, in general, that I almost want to avoid the term AI or artificial intelligence when we're trying to make this clear. Because AI is a marketing term. You can use the tools that make AI possible to do lots of things and not call it AI. So I'd wanna just be using very broad terms. That's why I like visual image.

[Unidentified committee member]: I want to make sure it's encompassing the Yeah, right yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: What are you thinking of?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I think it's real messy. I think it's really messy.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah, it probably is one of those things that will have to get sorted out through case law.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah, I would almost be like, let's just not touch it. In a sense, let's just make it leave it where it's at. Visual image. A visual image. And I would argue that an artificially constructed image is not a visual image because it's not of the thing. It's not a picture of the again

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: What's your defense attorney? Yeah, think that's why image is, I think, a better word than photograph.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Because of the work we've done in the past, I agree.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: If we

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's not that I like it.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: No, well If we specify it in here, and we don't in other laws, I'm also worried that's going to backfire, that that means that we don't, that it's okay in the other losses. Don't have anything. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: Can we just put that more we need to look at things

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: down on that list? Part of your revisions. We're gonna do a dive onto We

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: should look at what we did last year with updating the revenge upon the statute, too.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And what are the things you could bring up with your opinion on?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I think that EG's office is they've spearheaded the digitally created image. And your point is

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: pretty well taken, but I just think it's weighing two things. Because I think taking an image of someone and using some sort of process to change it and then using it in some way. Very different than, in my opinion, a totally artificially constructed image of a made up person, not a real person, having sexual conduct with an animal, a made up animal, all of it's fabricated. That, to me, is a very different question as to whether that's an image of this than your example of taking a real life photo of someone and then artificially changing

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: it.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Because you can do the same thing with humans and make an AI generated form with an image of someone not engaged in a sexual act and make it so that they're engaged in a sexual act. You can manipulate things. As long as you have one piece of visually available, a visual image of it, you can do anything to it now.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, I

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: hear you. So But I have a question about

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Before we finish that really quickly, I think we probably just need to maybe try to get some consistency on how we're dealing with images. Because I'm looking at possession of child sex abuse material, and they use different kind of language there. So I think we want to have well, says knowingly access with intent to view any photograph, film, or visual depiction. Looking at any depiction that is stored. What's that? Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's task force could look at all legislation.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, no. Should be to the extent that we can push forward consistently. It's what we are.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: And the intent is, I think, really important. Having intent, language, and influence makes a

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: lot of sense. Yeah. Right now, possesses, builds, or distributes.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I like visual depiction, but that's broader than

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: visual

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: image. Right, yeah. So we will sort that one out. What else did you have? Something else to add?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So in that same section, a witness mentioned yesterday that 5A and B, page three 5A and B, the Page three? Yep. Line seven through 14, these two having to do with fighting, animals who are engaged in fighting or training to fight, the witness offered that those should also be included in the aggravated if it's in the presence

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: of or involving a minor. And I just wanted to throw that out to the committee. Where are people with that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Can you repeat that?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yes. On page three, there's this so page this section is the misdemeanor cruelty to animals. Then we have the aggravated cruelty, which to construct the aggravated, we've basically taken almost all of the same examples or circumstances from the misdemeanor and pulled them over a bit, aggravated by adding in the presence of a minor. It's not the exact language. Yeah. Or in which a minor is a participant. So the suggestion by one of the witnesses yesterday was five A and B should also be brought over to the aggravated section when done in the presence of or involving minor. Do you have

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: other problems? Because again, I'm just worried about consistency. Like, if this is going be one of the few laws that we don't, that we added, like, why?

[Unidentified committee member]: Because all the other ones are related to sexual conduct that

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: involve a minor, and

[Unidentified committee member]: this one doesn't have any sexual conduct involved in it.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. And there are a couple other things in existing law for the aggravated that don't have to do with sex.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: That have to do with in front of a minor?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: No, that are just you kill a service animal.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Okay, I was thinking about just the adding with a minor.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Like, if you rob a bag of That's mine different question, right?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Oh, oh, I see.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Sometimes when we come up with myth, I just Well,

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: we deal can we I just wanna hear if anyone I think that's important. And I'm wondering if we can just deal with just five AMB first and see if there's any interest or I don't know how you rule of majority interest. I don't know what it is. I just bring it up because one of the witnesses flagged it that doing those things in the presence of or involving a minor is also

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: If you read B and you stick in the presence of a minor at the end of it

[Unidentified committee member]: don't feel strongly on that one.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Mean, they're they're very different.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: It transports an animal with

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the accent. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: That's the least binary on it. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I agree.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Feels like a sense consensus is reached. So back to your question.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So are we done with page five? It depends on who You were just talking about B,

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: right? A and B.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about A too. A is a little harder, but I think that they kind of both I feel the same way about it. That it kind of does feel quite right. I don't recommend people do it in front of them. No. Know if it's I'm gonna say that you should. All right, So I have the next thing on page seven. And this is what Lisa actually raised, give perspective subdividend 4B, that a person can repeatedly get tickets. This is a new thing. I don't know if this is the time to consider it. But I'm guessing she meant that if somebody keeps on getting these tickets, then it should be elevated to actually a criminal charge. I think that gets awfully tricky, but we can Why don't we see what language she gives us from that one, if she gives us any language, If you

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: follow something like we do with traffic laws, civil violations. You can start with civil violations in the realm of DLS, for instance. Yep. And after x number of convictions

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Exactly. You

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: can go become criminal. You can make that whatever you want. Mhmm. And you can you can increase fines for the offenders.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: She was worried

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: about And that's a way to track it too, mean, industry or

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: because she was saying if people are getting tickets in lieu of criminal charges, it doesn't prevent them from owning animals.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, there's that as well.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Right, but you could also suspend their ability to have an animal.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: With a civil ticket?

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Well, you can take away people's well it's absolutely So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: wouldn't wouldn't law enforcement, they would look on the system and see that this person's been ticketed four times already and they might think, well, I think I'm gonna charge them this time? I mean, isn't there some discretion to exercise? There could be discretion,

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I suppose. Well, it'll if it's a third offense, then it would be a third offense in the statute. You know what I mean? Whatever you

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: How would you see so for the BLS, you see the two civils in the last five years. You see that in their

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: We calculate. We make a determination ourselves.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: You pull that from their driving record. Correct. How would you find this civil ticket?

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: They did it in the civil system. It could still show up in the driving record just like in with alcohol

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So we would so you pull their driving record to see whether they have an animal cruelty. Well, it'd be a ticket. Civil ticket. A civil ticket. Oh, there's just like a civil ticket you pull, like a record. Okay.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I don't know how long you're ever in the traffic bureau feel.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Do you do you wanna can you

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: talk about it for a second? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'd be interested to see the language, but I fall more on the line of not because sometimes this is basically someone who just doesn't have the money to pay a ticket.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I don't think that's

[Unidentified committee member]: Why don't they get another ticket?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Pay as a ticket. That's not where the issue is. Well, if

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: you followed what we used to do before, where if you don't pay a would definitely go under suspension. So if you're not paying the fine on this, you would lose your ability to have a dog? Well, I know. I misunderstood.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I also think the last sentence is the saving clause for this, that the state's attorney can say, no, no, we're charging this guy under

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Oh, yeah. These

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: are done in a traffic hearing with the the officer and the person's judge, so it would be pretty you know, the judge could do whatever they feel necessary if they fought it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think we leave that alone.

[Unidentified committee member]: Taking taking discretion away?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Not necessary. Well, yeah, some.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So this is it's interesting, though. I don't understand how that actually how would that function, though. Although that said, a state's attorney may withdraw the complaint filed with the judicial bureau. So somehow, it's brought to the state's attorney's attention that there is this pending civil ticket, and they're like, oh, no, no, no, no. We we want this charge. Like Aren't

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you looking at all the tickets on your own? Every end. But I I guess that's how it

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: would happen, Right? It would be pending and

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right, or if somebody raises the fuss that, what? This guy has a cricket? You can put

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: that, if someone raises a fuss.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, fuss fuss. I definitely want that in there.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's implicit. It's implicit in the language, I think. So, okay. I don't know. I think he's I I think we have enough on this to figure out without figuring that out. Yeah. I would be

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: curious to know.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: To have a lower level violation.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, it's not. Yeah. That's what they have now for yeah.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. I like to know if is happening. If there are people who if you look back at the big cases, know, would you say, oh, wow, they actually had four tickets.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Do you want to ask CRG if that's a possible thing to find, is this happening? Because I assume you're going to ask CRG about the other question you had, that Judge Tory said go to CRG.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Sentencing info?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: I I think think she was referring to

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: a different state she was talking about.

[Unidentified committee member]: How I heard it is that for people who were getting multiple tickets, that it would like

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: So to be like how do we have for

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: It's Every year it is. Existing vault.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah. What ticket do we put that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. I don't even know. That's that's upsetting. I I Yeah. This is illegal. People are not doing

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: their jobs.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Because there's criminal there's criminal tickets,

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: which are from Vermont Fish and Wildlife, and there's pool tickets, which are what we handle Yep. On standard whatever normal onboarding. But fish and wildlife doesn't necessarily handle these type of cases because it's not wildlife.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. It's usually a source that you can give a civil citation. Right. What title and section?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I'll look it up and see if it's in the Schedule of Fines. I don't

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: 13 BSA three fifty three.

[Unidentified committee member]: Chapter 80.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: What is

[Unidentified committee member]: it? Chapter eight. Who introduced this?

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: No, what title?

[Unidentified committee member]: Chapter

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: 13. Eight. Section three fifty three.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'm looking at three fifty two at first, but it's the 353A, 34, or 9, to be precise. Okay, shall we move on? Then we'll backtrack to that one if we got to Terrence? This is the trickiest one, I think. Well, besides having to completely rewrite the other sort of formative piece. This is actually for some decisions that people may have different viewpoints.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Because we don't have different viewpoints.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: For instance, I definitely don't like the shell, at least the way it's set up now.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I could do

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a may for B1 and B3, but not B2, B4, or B5. Oh, we

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: are on page eight? Page

[Unidentified committee member]: Page nine.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So can you just repeat So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I could see doing a shell for b one and b three, but b one and b three also have to be worked on a little bit. And not for b two, b four, b five. It would be a shell. I mean, a May for those three. You still don't like getting rid. But let me put the next thing on here as well. Here's my next suggestion is that a misdemeanor, first misdemeanor would be one year, a second misdemeanor, second and subsequent to be five years. And for a felony, you could do a five and ten, first, second. What she suggested and which I think makes a lot of sense.

[Unidentified committee member]: So with a may?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, it could be a shell. I mean, so others I started looking at some of the other states of the lead, the animal defense fund. Haven't I figured that you were doing all that work, that I did that. But it's a really good, an excellent actually website that shows the whole country and then you can click on, you can see if you're one of the mediocre or one of the good states for animal cruelty laws, real mediocre.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But you can click on

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the states and then it will give you all of their animal, their laws. So I looked up a few. Looked up Oregon, Louisiana, and one more, Virginia. And they all completely have different ways of doing it. Some are saying the ban will be up to five years or up to ten years rather than a minimum. Others actually have a minimum, but they have different minimums depending on if it's a misdemeanor or a felony. I could be okay, but I don't know where other folks are as far as having shell for B1 and B3, but with the graduated penalty, depending on whether it's a repeat offense.

[Unidentified committee member]: That would be my I wanted to roll it back, so I probably I feel like I'm on the end of maybe rolling it back the most. So I'm happy to move where we can

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: get the committee to go. And we kind of need a four, which she raised afterwards to me, because I was talking to her about people who are in business dealing with animals. This doesn't stop them from being in business, and that's been one of the big problems in Vermont, is people who are pet groomers or do pet boarding, but they are abusers. So we need to also forfeit any

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: that's on cheering, number three, Okay, yeah. Right, so we

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: need a four, like two, half I think she said operate a business that or operate or work in a business that interacts with animals. Would that be caring, Brian? I don't know. I mean, you're a pet groomer, are you caring for the animal? And those are times that people have the animal to themselves, so it gives people opportunity. Like the child abuse laws, if you get convicted, you're not going to work at a child abuse center.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right, so what would the language be? I mean, are any of these words work with? I

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: do

[Unidentified committee member]: feel like there should be chances, that you can learn from things, that you can build from it, and it's on the severity of it. That is where I tend to be So Let

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: me add the additional thing that I hadn't gotten to yet that I was gonna suggest that we do. Actually, there's two additional things. One is an opportunity, not for the one year thing, but if somebody is banned for five years or more, that they can move after a certain time to lift that ban. And essentially, of the other laws had, well, here's what you have to show to be able to lift the ban. It could be successfully completing one of these things. So that kind of gives you, that makes me be able to deal with, have the shell for a five year or even ten year if a second felony. If there's a way out that the person can go after. But Ian Goodnow.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I'm like, Totally needs to go back to May. Seriously, I really think that taking the options away from the court to make individual rulings on these individual cases is really problematic. And I think the result will be these cases will all have to go to trial. You're not going

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to get

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: a resolution that is agreed upon between the parties because they're going to have to have these really extreme elements to the plea agreement, no matter what. And so there's not going to be any room for negotiations. And when you protract out these cases to go to trial, that means the dogs are held in the weird forfeiture limbo for longer because it takes a long time to take the case to trial.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's a good point too, but is it different if we're talking of just those two?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I would say those are the two most extreme ones. So one is that they have to lose the animal and all of their animals, and they're not going to be able to possess any animals for five years.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, I'm saying one year if it's a first misdemeanor. Is it still not, and you're not gonna?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: What I don't understand is why

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: not let the Because apparently they're not doing their job according We to some of the animal rights

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: heard that yeah, I don't know.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean, like, I'd like I just think, like,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: kind of like why we don't have sentencing, like mandatory sentencing in Vermont is because we believe case by case, we

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: have to sort of assess the facts. All right. Well, let me throw this out there. I'm fine to go to May as well. I'm just throwing a way to go to Shell. And so I was asking Zone A, and I don't know if I was articulating it, probably wasn't articulating it very well, just like I'm not now probably, is that our courts, when they're doing a sentence, they say there's a probation of six months, they say, well, I'm gonna have a banned possession for six months. Should I make it clear? Should we make it clear? And he says that it's clear because he's saying period that the court deems appropriate, but make it even clearer, you know, like that a one time misdemeanor, you know, up to five years, up to five years for repeat misdemeanor up to ten years. So like have like the way we normally do sentences. But also making it clear that yeah, your probation, it's maybe a misdemeanor of up to two years or what to up to two years, but you can keep the pet away from for up to five years. Makes a lot of sense to me. So you're kind of signaling that and we're doing something more here.

[Unidentified committee member]: Can I just point out that I agree with this and I feel like we are missing a lot of folks in here? So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: it's

[Unidentified committee member]: probably we're going to circle back with that when I don't know if others have other opinions on it. I just want to make sure we're not going all in on something that we're going to have to retract.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: No. And I guess I can see the argument in other direction. I guess the one thing I would put to the committee here is, and we even heard from witnesses that there were situations where with proper programming and stuff, animals were returned to owners. What need to ask yourself is, do you think that there's ever a time when someone is convicted of animal cruelty charge that it would be appropriate for them to get their animal back? And if you can think of any example where that would be the case, then you can't do the shall. You can't do the shall because then you're taking away that option for

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the court to not take the handle For

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: the job with other people's pets, I think it could be a shell because

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I don't know. That's one of the reasons why you don't mandate, because there are a thousand different potential fact patterns about how an illegal cruelty charge comes through.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But if I found out that somebody had been convicted of this, and I brought my dog to be groomed and they abused my dog, I would be like it feels there's no registry you can look at, like, is this person a safe place to leave my dog for the week?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, we could create a register too, but that Yeah. Let's throw that in here. Come on, let's say, still have registers. Oh, Do the other states

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: have, shall, have Some. Some do? Yep. Alright.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: mean can share that website.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Yeah. Show that website. It's good.

[Unidentified committee member]: I I don't know

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you can I mean, that's, like,

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I decide how I feel

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: about it, but I No?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I let so so we're gonna hear from the defendant general's office. No. We're gonna get written testimony. I won't be surprised if they suggest that on this particular part, We want to take it as individual defendants. That's the way we should be doing our criminal law. We should certainly have some penalties and some maximums, but you've got to take them as individuals and their individual situation. And I agree with that. So this one we're going to have further discussion before we do anything with it. How about that? Because you're right, more people need to weigh in. But I do want to just throw out there the fact that if we're going to have something where somebody could be barred from having, if it's gonna be a shell, I would wanna have a motion practice set up where they can get rid of it. But if it's gonna stay in May, I don't know that we need that so much. Maybe we do. If the judge does sentence the person to banning them having an animal for ten years, do we allow them to I don't know that I would bother unless it's a shell.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Oh, if it's not a shell, then it's just a May.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's a may. I don't know that I would. So the other thing is that there I mean, so we talked about checks during possession, you know, the number five. Right. This is one of the things that she brought up. What I find that's missing here is what if the person's banned from having an animal and they have the animal, don't there be a separate penalty for that? And they should be checked. Oh, you have violated that ban. That should be to the fence.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So it's kind of like they're on probations? Well, don't know

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: if it's yeah. It's a violation of their ban on possession, whatever you want to it's a VP. What would so that what would that what would be? In contempt? What would be the consequence if, well, no, I'm going to have my dog? I guess

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: you could add a subsection into animal quilty, one of them being possessed animals when you are off

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: about rightfully elastic. That's what I'm suggesting.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Maybe we just add that to animal cruelty, do we add it to the penalties that we're talking about?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Well, think it would be pretty easy to add it into the actual animal cruelty. One of them could just be owning, possessing animals when you are not lawfully I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: think so. How

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: do we do it with firearms?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: There's a separate defense that Okay. Yeah. You're a prohibited person.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. Do you want to make it aggravated if you unlawful animals in the presence of the minors?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And we are we are live here, just in case you have any Alright, so we're going to have more discussion on that because we need to I know there's going to be people who have other folks Are in

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: we in agreement that we would add brief in on the bottom of page eight, reside with or cohabitate with to right to own, possess,

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: reside with? There's very specific language that you said, okay. That's the language that they sent. This says, Be prohibited from working in any capacity that requires such person to be in contact with an animal, including a commercial boarding or training establishment shelter, animal control facility, catch up, grooming facility, commercial breeder, veterinary hospital, clinic or animal welfare society, for the purpose of providing and promoting the welfare protection in humanitarian treatment. That's Massachusetts language.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: That's like its own separate I feel like it is a filler, not Right, right.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And maybe it's too long, but

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we can look at that language with whoever's shepherding this can Definitely.

[Unidentified committee member]: Animal bill. What's the sponsor?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Jeopardy. It's It's Stephanie.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Yeah. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Good. I didn't realize I was saying.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Before we and okay. So and then before we move off the page, but not dealing with May or May and Chao, what about this livestock situation? Oh, yeah. Oh, wow.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't fully get I know. Fascinating.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I like the suggestion to use the definition of a farm. I haven't looked at that definition yet, to be honest. I should look at it right now. But that was one that Lisa offered that we might look to some of the ag related statutes to kind of cross reference. I would like to not exempt people with a gentleman's farm or gentle lady's farm or whatever, you know, who's they're just they happen to collect a bunch of animals, they're not treating them well, then we aren't allowed to remove

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Right. Right. Right. Livestock or poultry. Right.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And still protect folks who need

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: it if this is their livelihood. I hope then we

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: could offer the education and all of that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Is one way to address that adding a sentence that is essentially an exception to the exception, just like the livestock? Mean, that you can add, except livestock or poultry, except in the situation where it's not getting down.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Well, or or you'd say, except livestock or poultry owned, possessed, or in the custody of the defendant, you know, for, like, for the purpose of operating a farm kind of thing. I we're gonna have to get tested.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think we won't protest or in the custody of

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: the You can probably buy an ad.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: There's a missing comment before old.

[Unidentified committee member]: I think we need to check-in with Ag on that.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Because we're we're trying to prevent the, like, basically, someone is convicted of an am will probably charge for, like, a totally unrelated am to their livelihood bond or something. But

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we also want to capture that they have four cows that are miscreating, and they're probably mistreating the rest of them, but you can't really prove them yet, should they be able to have any Yeah,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Do you so she when yeah. It says presented to categories

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, right. Possibility. Right? You should have all of the same category removed.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But the problem

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: is then, do we have to create the categories of animals?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: She just said species.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: She said there

[Unidentified committee member]: were three options that we could take, and that was either categories or This is like a genius.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Were so happy to bust that out. Which one

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: did you like? That could be useful.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Categories, species? Yeah, where you at.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I don't know.

[Unidentified committee member]: I still want to go back and talk actually. I'm just thinking of personal situations that I've dealt with in town, kind of what all the way back to I have issues with three and four on page three. It's kind of subject number three. I don't know. We have people in my town that have hounds, are not pets. They're working animals. So people call and complain all the time because they're tied up outside. I worry about that kind of stuff happening. And again, boar, we also get a lot of complaints of people, you know, because there are some people who just have a different idea of what's

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Or flory fats.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Appropriate for animals. So But, yeah, I I think with number three, though, the key is that it's inhumane or it's detrimental to And

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: so definition

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: of that. What's not the

[Unidentified committee member]: key is especially with, like, animal rights people, sometimes there's, like, it's a extreme what they consider inhumane.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. But that's not the probably gonna win

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: over the court as far as

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: so so I mean, is there a standard in number four? Because I mean, we do have that standard in number three, I think probably the court knows and the prosecutors know how to deal with what is a new way of detrimental to this And

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: there is absolutely case law on it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And there's Okay. There is a law.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Oh, yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Is there case law number four as well?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: To present, I'd have to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: go look. But there is definitely

[Unidentified committee member]: So would that, so in the situation that I just used as an example, would that, those people would be protected?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: The tethered the board of the house.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, so there's already case laws around them?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I'd have to, look, I don't really know. Just mean that the court is not just relying on this language. Has been cases on it and this kind of stuff.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: He can do investigations before he gets to the court. That law. Would consider that. No, unfortunately.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: The state's attorney. The state's attorney would probably look at it and

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: be like, oh, boy, I don't know.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Or maybe I'm just laying my own.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: You're protecting? You ain't nothing but a house dog.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't know, but I

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: just think that that concern is very real, and I think that of leads into my,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: these cases. It should be

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: a may and not a show.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: It's like, it's just that, and there are probably many, many, many cases where they should not have the dog or the animal back, or they should not get the cows. Shouldn't, all these things, but I just like, I don't know.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So which is why I guess I don't

[Unidentified committee member]: know why I guess I'm not then, in talking about this, for the species because, like already if you're talking about canines,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: there are the dogs that

[Unidentified committee member]: you dress up in cute clothes and keep cozy in your house, and then there's ones that skiing animals. That's valid for people who use them in that way. It's common practice.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we have some big question marks on page eight there, though we do think that we should have the residing with the Martin to take a look. But we do need to sort out, number one. And number three, you does have to you're not taking all the animals. If there's an exception for you're taking on the v one, that same exceptions can be there for v three. Oh, fuck. Yeah. That's an animal. Fern and chew.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: You're saying you want the same, like

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: If livestock or poultry are accepted, I mean, then there's inconsistency between one and three. Yep. Right.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: We've got an exception in one, and then it's any animal in three. Right. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Something. Alright. So The next thing I have is is actually on page ten and eleven. It's getting rid of the having to have the veterinarian there.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Right. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That made a lot of sense to me. I guess that's just glossing that off. Yeah. Well, I

[Unidentified committee member]: know I missed that one.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I think I caught them all. I think it's on page 10, line eighteen, nineteen, made off of its all of the swindered animal family assessment the law by a veterinary licensed practice in the state of Vermont. That would have been seen as problematic as on page eleven, six to eight, veterinarian licensed to practice in Vermont must accompany the Humane Officer. Maybe the one on B1 is not the problem. Maybe I misunderstood.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I think it's just the Patient that's a waste of time

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: in some cases. And a barrier to seizure.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: What's the line? Which line are you looking for?

[Unidentified committee member]: Page eleven, six through eight.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And also, think, isn't it 12 through 15? You may not search LB intake, an animal seized under the suburb, if you like. Didn't. Didn't.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Didn't say anything about that one.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. Didn't. Yeah. But judge Zonay pointed out, right, that we're not allowing law enforcement to do some of these. So Eric sent me that actually, humane officers are officers. We we can make we'll double check that.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But but I think, Eric But they're

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: not all law enforcement. They're specific law enforcement.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So so that was something else that someone brought up that we might wanna broaden. That's a different point. So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: before we move on

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: from eleventh, do you want to strike the veterinary licensed practice to come to an Indian officer very next year?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think so. I think that that makes sense.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: The only thing I wonder about that is I wonder if it was put in place not for the vet to verify the mistreatment, but to verify the proper treatment of the animals in the process of forfeiture or seizure.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But it sounds like it's holding up seizures.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yes. Right, that was what I heard too. But now I'm thinking, what if it's there as a safeguard for the animals and not as like

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: How about you change to the extent practical?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Or vague. No I think

[Unidentified committee member]: She had said it was pretty unrealistic to explain. To

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the extent practical, was veterinarian licensed to practice

[Unidentified committee member]: in debated in court. Was not

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Must Trump shall accompany. What does that mean?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Almost that.

[Unidentified committee member]: Something to argue about in court.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: It's okay to consider. Can we go back to

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: You don't like

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the appeal of state precedent?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So someone, just to lay it out for a second, so defense side, the warrant wasn't executed lawfully. There was no veterinarian at the site when the search warrant was executed. Well, your honor, it wasn't practical to get a veterinarian there. What does that mean? What do you mean it wasn't practical? You could have called a fucking bin, he could have been there?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: No, I called free and none were there.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: There's no vet for 50 miles, and they were not, and waited two days.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So what that says is that that's gonna put a little onus on the law enforcement to actually try to get a veterinarian. They're It's a hidden circumstance. You can expect defense counsel to make that argument. Yeah, okay. They better be able to prove it up. I

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: would also be, I won't argue hard for this as to be practical. I'm just sort of wondering out loud, why would they put that in there? And I'm thinking maybe there were some seizures, were animals injured in the process of executing a warrant, so then there was the legislature then, in their infinite wisdom, like, well, let's make sure there's someone there who knows

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: how to take care of animals. Right. It seems that Lisa would have been worried about that then. I like the extent

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: of We could try that. Lisa's gonna get a chance to look at it again. So

[Unidentified committee member]: Lisa had pointed out that

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I'm listening to her, beginning

[Unidentified committee member]: after the end of the five year probation,

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: she was saying it seems important to have checks during the plan as well to make sure that they're not violating not having the animals, not just after the five years.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So think do we need to do that if we have added a provision that says if they are possessing animals? I I don't know. It's kind of like having law enforcement go out and then double check that you're being a law. Or like

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: an eviction of a domestic assault, and now you have a lifelong ban of firearms. There's no nothing in law that is like the police come and check your eye to ensure that you don't. It's basically if you get caught with them, then you

[Tom Abdelnour, VSEA Legislative Coordinator]: Right. Would get

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: think she's concerned that, like, could should there

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: be a periodic check? What if they are back to using animals for five years? Yeah, I don't think the period If we were not adding this now provision that says if you do possess an animal when you're banned from it, you're subject relative to a two year misdemeanor. I would say yeah, but it seems a little too police state y to me if we're gonna just keep on double checking. If they're on probation or something, it wouldn't be unusual for

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: a police officer to just, oh, there's an animal here. You're in violation.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, that so it may go past probation. I mean, it could be past. So

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: in an investigation. Someone, you know, gonna know and someone's gonna report it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't know. We're a small state. Yeah. Just it'll resurface for sure.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. And staying on that page Sure. Can we can we reorder number four? That way, I this is something that I brought up yesterday that Eric said more. Seemed to make sense to him. But yeah, mean, setting aside the fact that three witnesses said there are no animal cruelty prevention programs or educational programs in Vermont, we'll just

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't know. I found someone. I looked it up.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Was like, sure have

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the Vermont Animal Cruelty Education Program. See where it's located. Yeah, that's that's not a good one, probably. No.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Absolutely to set it aside. But just the reordering of that paragraph and I don't know, maybe I'm the only one who wants to do this. But the court may impose the cost of such programs or counseling upon the dependent when appropriate. Line seven and eight talks about moving that up to make it very clear. That goes along with the animal cruelty or prevention programs. Then having a separate, I think like a 4A or 4I or something that addresses the juvenile situation separating it out. We're messing with that section. We'd love to change to

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: licensed psychiatric or mental health. I I can get the language, or mental health counts. Yeah, that

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: seems like an update. It makes a lot of sense. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Just also another idea for the shall versus may could be the graduated. It's may if it's the misdemeanor. Some of them are shall if it's the felony.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: That was part I of Martin's scheme.

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: No, that was a great misdemeanor.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Another way to try to skin the shall may discussion is they're mays for the misdemeanor, and then some become shall for the felony. I

[Unidentified committee member]: feel like we just need input on others in our commitments.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: No. I'm just thinking about

[Unidentified committee member]: Put the options out.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. Could see that. Because then it's like, okay, you're charged with aggravated animal cruelty. Probably a lot more often, these shouldn't happen. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So Vermont Law School has an Animal Law and Policy Institute.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Any classes you can I

[Unidentified committee member]: came in during this, whether this goes to criminal or civil?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Which one? The civil court.

[Unidentified committee member]: Are we making that decision?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: That's why I was

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: so glad you said that. I was like, oh, good. It just felt very validating because when I read that yesterday, was like, this

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: makes no sense to me. Yeah. And it allows us to go to the civil rules for a lot of torpedoes as well. Not the forfeiture so much

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: as the service of process and such. On

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: that same page, page 12 up at the top line too, Senate recommended adding and humanely, where it says cannot be safely confined under standard housing conditions. I don't know what thoughts are. You haven't defined humanely anywhere.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, isn't humanely

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: the opposite of humane, then was it not defined?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, it seems like a little bit.

[Unidentified committee member]: Is it? Inhumane is not defined.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Oh, okay. I don't know if you I think the purpose there is to make sure that we're not handing the The main officer may arrange for euthanasia of an animal

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: seized under this section when the owner is

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: unwilling or unable

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: to provide necessary information required

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: by the animal, or when

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: the animal cannot be safely and completely confined, under standard. I

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: don't have a strong opinion, just like that was one other

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: mean, should we add I mean, this is to get us an extra African to have people weigh in on it as well. We can Okay. Is

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: there a venue live in here about where so it's a civil case. Is it in the criminal court, or

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: is it in the civil court? We're talking about having a civil division. Right? It's Yeah. Civil

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: court. The

[Unidentified committee member]: dimensions of it

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Are you talking about civil forfeiture?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. Civil forfeiture. And then so is that what we're talking about changing it entirely to civil?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Yes. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, I think so. I think is it 12 Page 12, line 11? Input from ZOLDIG.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So anyway, yeah. So then

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah? No? That doesn't work? Well, I just like

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: hearing the point that was made that this is a hard thing for prosecutors to do. They don't have any experience in it. Right now, it's in criminal court, using civil it's a civil proceeding in criminal court. If you put it entirely to civil court, then it's also filing it in a separate court and going to a separate It's actually going to a different building and everything.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: What about the idea of one person being transgender?

[Unidentified committee member]: Do you disagree with Judge Lille Nay?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: No, I don't disagree with Judge Lille. No, I just think his point is well taken, but it does contradict a little bit of what Lisa's point was. It's actually now making it more of a different process than it is now. You're talking two completely separate tracks. Currently, it's not quite that. It's at least filed. Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: And it seems to me that, well, I kind of like that, because then you have one judge that knows what's happening and you're going to have the judge in civil court going, well, what happened to the defendant? Do they have the ability to pay before they make judgment?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. Where is the criminal case at? That kind of thing. Yeah. If there is a criminal case as long as well.

[Unidentified committee member]: I tie it to the next thing that came up for me? It was on page 13. And I guess maybe I think it does relate to this. Burden, I think Lisa was saying, does it need to be clear and convincing? Could it be preponderance of the evidence? Would that have to change if it was in one court or the other or not? Nope. It could be either. We can do that.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. The criminal judge applies the civil

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: civil All

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: of the civil law.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: And in fact, you can do it both in the same hearing, even. So they can apply the criminal burden and the civil burden.

[Unidentified committee member]: I don't know. I feel like hearing Judge Zonay said, but I don't know if we explicitly asked him, this is going to change a whole thing. Do you

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: have any thought about that?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: No, and maybe it does make more sense for her to go into the civil war.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I just wonder why they shift gears and do it.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: But I think what was his biggest reason for taking it to civil?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's not criminal. On The United States, we could apply, for instance, service rules, the system of service rules, and the basically the rules that could apply. We can use the rental escrow as kind of a model for how we do some of this. Although I still think we should look into direct payments to the providers instead of going for a registry, which I don't understand why we have to go for a registry. That doesn't make sense to me, frankly. Well, have to before. Okay, well I guess it goes through Stephanie for this next round, we'll see more people say.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Hope that's the right answer,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: because I think you and I are kind of

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And he said, What if it's not a great use of using the very tight criminal resources. Right. So it's less criminal.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So my suggestion on all of that is to have you and Eric work with the judge offline to try and maybe list.

[Unidentified committee member]: Come up with the best answer.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Get rid of the registry,

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I just don't think you need Is that including the standard, the advanced standards?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So you wanted to be a proponent of that?

[Unidentified committee member]: I don't know. I thought that was a good question.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I had to consider So there are decision points. And the way Eric will do that is he'll put both those options in there just so we know that that's a decision point. Just like we probably conveying the decision points, but we're not really changing previous languages. I would have him, when you're talking to him, have preponderance of evidence as an option, but make this a decision on things. Because if I'm clear

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: This is not

[Unidentified committee member]: for the animal cruelty conviction. This is to get your animals taken away.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: It would be lowering it to get your animals taken away.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So it's already lower than it is right now. Just was clear. No, no, know. So it would lower it.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Even further. Yeah, Because we were looking out for

[Unidentified committee member]: the safety of animals. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, agree. So also, is this somewhere in here, when you look at the way that Texas is doing? I know the Oregon Florida Florida, but I think Texas seems like a more apt. So look at Texas? Well, no, gave those three options. Oh, okay. The ten day, if you don't get back to us, or letting them sell

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: the dog. Minnesota, which seems

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: That should be here. Right. That's the thing Texas just scheduled.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And Texas says when they've issued a warrant, it's scheduled for something's okay. The person's gotta show you know, it should be written that. If the person doesn't show up, they really push their opportunity to this. That's already in here, or there's a preliminary hearing. It's all good cause. Okay.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: If the train fails to respond to the notice for preliminary hearing, right?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. But we were talking about how we can make it so there's not like a second service in process. That's kind of they've got a little confusing in the OIC of what that looks like. Yeah. I just think that I mean, I'm looking for the committee to kind of bless you working with the judge to try to straighten that up rather than try

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: to So so just so I understand, try to clear that up in a little simpler. There is some sort of default judgment that happens, but make it more clear.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, and the hearing is set when the service is accomplished.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: The checks are small, but you're Yeah.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I'd also love to know, as a junior, junior member, how do we think about burden of proof? What is the discussion around? How do we determine what it should be? In the criminal world, it's of decided for us, but is it severity of the crime? So, like,

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: the more severe the crime,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the higher the burden? Or So it's easy on the I mean, it's somewhat easy on on often on the preponderance with a lot of the simple stuff. And the other reason about it's a clear and convincing. It's when do we put in the clear and convincing, is the kind of more complicated one. Yeah. And so if here we're taking away somebody's property, I think what Lisa said, think it's right, is that other places you can lose your property and your proponents have ever been standard. But is this different that you're losing your pet or your animal if that's why you would have a little heightened standard, like, a convincing. Yeah. Think we all just have to make that judgment. Okay.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Should we be thinking about animals as property?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean, our director of what's her name?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Our director of animal welfare

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: for the Department of Public Safety, who's just done this for years and taught it, says that they are property. That's their legal

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Oh, yes. Right. People treat their kids like property, too. I'm making a philosophical point.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So if it I was was treating my cats more as property when I spend $1,000 for the medical care.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Why do I do Vermont law, it sounds like?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: think so. She said, I asked

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: her that question. Oh, so that was what you were I'm kind of aware of. Think

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: she said you're legally responsible for. Like, do I have

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: to get a kidney transplant? No, don't. No.

[Unidentified committee member]: Was cheaper to put the cat down than it is for medical bills. I know which way I'm going.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Wait. No. I think that's right. Because she said you can dispose of your property. Can dispose of that animal as long as it's not a cruel way.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But she also said you're required to I which

[Unidentified committee member]: I do remember her saying something like that, but I don't think it was for your

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: pets.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Are we on page 15?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Think we can move off of 13. Oh yeah, I was just trying to just give you the rest of it.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I just want make sure that I get everything done.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: The only responsible for food and medical care, it's obligated. She was saying that that money Yeah, anyway.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Balloon for vets. Right. I mean, yes, maybe you're responsible for medical care, but the medical care could be euthanizing this animal.

[Unidentified committee member]: I had two things on 14. One is a note, I don't know where it goes, but I feel like it's a decision to be made. And I feel like the director of animal welfare said she could provide language on it, is what are the standards that a agency has to meet in order to take possession of an animal? And then line 14, I think Judge Zonay mentioned, what are reasonable costs? Like, does more clarification needed? He said, like, I because he said, like, you could say approve a $100, but maybe there's only $50 worth of but they could just say

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: when he was talking about The register. The regis like, holding the money and how they

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, Joe, we're switching out of that

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: money. Yeah.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Yeah. Think we should switch.

[Unidentified committee member]: But I do still think who determines reasonable cost?

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: But I guess that's where I,

[Unidentified committee member]: that it's important to me that the entities that are requesting possession meet some level of care.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think I mean

[Unidentified committee member]: People that's working the system.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: This would be a practical way that the entity providing the care goes and argues that this is how much it should cost, that they can have an argument and the judge is ordering that, ordering a life defender at that point to pay for it, right?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yes, like in an RJO, restitution order, there's a sixty day timeline that the defendant can appeal a restitution order basically on an argument on unreasonableness. So you're scratching somebody else's car in a negligent operation, you might have to pay them back, but they totally falsified how much it costs, then you can do that. I'd imagine that that would be the same process here. But I think where Zonet was having an issue was the prepayment. Yes. Yeah. So how do you

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: It was not so much appreciated, I think, as the disbursement to without, are they filing receipt? Yeah, because it was like an estimate

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: of reasonable.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Oh, I'm sorry. You're saying prepayment to the caregiver, not prepayment by the

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. Is there basically like, how much is this going to cost for people to hold the dogs? Oh, it's going to cost $100 a month. When is there an assessment? Is that a reasonable assessment?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: for boarding. Right. Because we do not buy animal feces.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So but it sounds like, I mean, the idea is that they're carrying, they come in and the number one is It's a real idea. Want your pet back. What's Want your pet back, you're gonna have to pay for its upkeep until we've gone through this process. The So

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: if you want your pet back

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: The idea is giving the person a chance to say, Yeah, I'm not going to pay that. And that means that you've given up titles. That's the decision point that we're trying to force to be earlier in the process. It paying or do you give up the title so they can try to dispose of the animal? So

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: that you don't get in a position where they're not paying, they're not giving up, they're not forfeiting that the dog is, that the animal is held in being cut or

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: in the feast. You don't pay over X number of days or whatever, I think the idea is that, well then you've made enough finals.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I've paid your four and got money

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: What's happening with people's cars getting towed, we should not set

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: up a system that just leaves it. Just poke in the hole.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: They agree.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, well, we have ten minutes left for glass. We'll have more to discuss Are we So

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: this class on page 15, the thought of cost of care action, is that all essentially gonna go away? If an animal is seized under the section, the state or custodial caregiver may commence civil cheating?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, I think we're trying to put that into the civil realm number one, and hopefully, you'd like a direct payment instead of registry because it's Okay.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I was intrigued by Lisa's point that you're giving evidence an in ongoing criminal investigation to a layperson by allowing custodial caregiver to commence the civil proceeding.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: That's not helpful.

[Unidentified committee member]: We are doing some good work right now.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I think, I mean, we do have a few more pages to go through, but why don't we go through those when we have the rest of people, and we'll go back to that page nine discussion.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I mean, should we go through all of it again?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't know.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I don't think we have

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to go through all of it. I mean, enough of us were here. I'm not delaying everything. They can be some people here. They'll need to be in their seats. But on that other one, I think we do need to have a little further discussion. Can I wait Mr?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Chair, can I wait to meet with legislative counsel responsible for this bill until after we've had the rest of You the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: want some testimony? Yes. And discussion. And then we have Steve Brode. He knows what he has. What's our first name to send? So after the floor,

[Sarah Copeland Hanzas, Vermont Secretary of State]: We're done.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: After the floor we have Attorney Gerhard from Lamoille County going to come in and testify on this bill.

[Unidentified committee member]: Floor and then caucus of the whole.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So 03:45 is what we're the