Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: This Wednesday afternoon, January twenty eighth, and we're taking up H541, an act relating to interference with voters and election officials. And we have a new draft, draft number 2.1 we should be looking at. I'll turn it over to legislative council to walk us through it. Thank you very much for being here, Tim.

[Tim Dublin, Legislative Counsel]: Thank you very much for having me, Chittenden. For the record, my name is Tim Dublin, legislative council. Indeed, committee members, you have before you draft 2.1 of a committee amendment, trying to commit this committee to h four fifth five four one. Pardon me. The updates have been highlighted for ease of reference, and they're pretty limited, at least in words, although, in fact, made a difference. So we turn to page two, and we're in section two, which will create the new section 17 VSA nineteen seventy five to be titled interference with voters and election officials. So first in subdivision a, we have no person shall. Now there's a a component added here. Intentionally or reckless, intimidate, threaten, coarse, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, coarse, etcetera, etcetera down. I'll just pause here to say that this is a reflection of certain testimony brought forth by professor Smoller of BLS and really reflects the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in a case called Counterman v. Colorado 2023. And I can pause there. Any questions about that so far? Or Any questions on money? No. I don't think so. Okay. So we go continue through subdivision a. And so one, any other sorry. No person shall intentionally or recklessly intimidate, threaten, worse, or attempt to intimidate or worse. One, any other person for the purpose of, a, obstructing the right of the other person to vote or to vote as the other person may choose, or b, here's where we have new language contained, causing the other person to vote for or to not for vote for any candidate for public office or public question at any election. So that new language or public question clarifies that this really will cover all types of elections. You really just have kind of two categories. One for voting in people and everybody deciding on items such as budgets, constitutional amendments, etcetera, etcetera. Those are considered public questions. That's it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Okay. Questions on that? Alright. Fairly straightforward. Thank you very much, Kevin. We'll invite Ryan Kane from the Deputy Solicitor General from the Attorney General's Office to join us and identify yourself for the record and proceed. Thanks very much. I'm Ryan Kane.

[Ryan Kane, Deputy Solicitor General, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I'm the Deputy Solicitor General with the Vermont Attorney General's Office. I don't really have too much to add beyond, I think, what you've already heard. I share the view that professor Smoller shared that with that addition, with the recklessness mens rea, consistent with the Kahneman decision, there's no sort of obvious facial constitutional deficiencies in the statute as drafted. I think the the statute has sufficiently wide potential application to both true threats as well as, you know, other sort of nonspeech conduct that might not implicate the First Amendment initially to make it such that it's not kind of overly broad and kind of subject to a potential over breadth challenge that one could get. I think the other thing important that Professor Smola sort of alluded to and touched on is that even if there is speech that's not a true threat that's prescribed by the statute, there's a compelling governmental interest here in ensuring the integrity of elections, such that, you know, other laws that clearly do implicate free speech. Professor Smoller talked about limitations on what you can wear into a voting place, not, you know, advertise it for a particular candidate or those types of things, as well as, you know, on where you can do electioneering work, you know, 100 foot from a polling place. Those are all very clearly, you know, affect free speech rights, but they've been upheld as constitutional, even applying the highest level of scrutiny that courts apply to governmental action strict scrutiny. So even if in an as applied challenge, some aspects of the conduct or speech regulated under this were to fall outside that true threat kind of line of cases, which is just not protected at all, I still think that the bill is I don't see any kind of obvious issues why this doesn't serve a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to kind of ensure that that interest is protected, that people's rights to vote are not interfered with or infringed upon by threatening or intimidating activity by other people.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: The narrowly tailored component of it, is that because we're specifically talking about this affecting the person's right to vote or to vote as the person may choose. Is that

[Ryan Kane, Deputy Solicitor General, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Yeah, absolutely. I think it's a very especially the paradigm language and adding in recklessness to make sure it's consistent with the mensory requirements of criminal laws. The Supreme Court said that it's pretty directly targeted at the exact harm that it's trying to resolve. So, you know, obviously there may be situations in an as applied challenge where, as Professor Small said, you may have factual disputes as to whether or not that recklessness element has been met. You may have factual disputes on any number of things. And so there could still be a constitutional challenge in a very specific situation. But I think even if you were to a court were to conclude that the specific facts of that fell outside of a truth threat analysis, there may still the statute may still not be unconstitutional, even as applied, given the compelling governmental interest in ensuring, you know, free elections and people's constitutional right to vote and the way in which the statute pretty specifically targets only that sort of conduct that is either reckless or intentionally trying to interfere with those rights.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: And I assume that the imputation, threatening, coercion, etcetera, doesn't have to actually obstruct. It just has to have the purpose of obstructing. That's where you look in the recklessness. Is that my understanding?

[Ryan Kane, Deputy Solicitor General, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Yeah, I think that's right. It doesn't have to actually instruct, and it doesn't necessarily have to have the intentional purpose to instruct as long as they're reckless to whether or not they would obstruct somebody's right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Okay, questions? Other questions for that? Well, we'll try to bring in someone a little more difficult. Happy with questions. That sounds great. I'll put in that. But appreciate your testimony. Thank you for coming home.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: No problem, thanks.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: All right, so Matt Valerio, during lunch after he was scared, he looked at this bill and said he essentially has nothing to add except that he agreed with intentionally or recklessly, and he didn't want to leave out for an hour to testify, which is fine because he essentially said just share that he's been invited. He didn't have anything more to say besides that he thought adding that venturing was a good addition. So we'll go to I guess we can go to Sean. I assume that you're in place of Lauren Hibbett. Sean? Lauren's just here. Oh, Lauren's. Is Lauren here? Oh, there you are. I apologize, Lauren. Noticed that you Over stopped into the Zoom to you, Lauren or Sean, whoever wants to speak to us. You can both have your turn if

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: you want.

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: Okay. Well, I'll go first for the record, Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State. And I have with me

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Sean Sheehan, elections director and Secretary

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: of State. Slow on the audio key.

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: Thank you for letting us, zoom in. I am in our nation's capital, and I have found from, previous, testimony that my Internet is a little laggy. So I apologize if that occurs. It's just hotel Internet with all of the challenges they're in. I just wanted to come and express our continued support of this bill. The simplified version of it makes sense to us at this time. And we also agree with the mens rea being included. Watch the previous testimony that you had on this bill, understood the issues that were being raised. Certainly want to make sure that any action taken under this bill given the importance under this language, given the importance of that action, we wanna make sure that it's, sturdy, stable, not going to get the the state into trouble. And very happy with the clarity, that it gives the voter, the the comfort that I we think it will give voters and election officials. I just wanna you know, on behalf of, our office who communicates a lot with town clerks, this is a very big concern for town clerks. I think the movement of this bill will be very meaningful to them. It's something that we have been keeping them abreast of. We'll continue to throughout the legislative session. They're appreciative of the legislature's work on this bill. And this has been town clerk's big concern, really since 2016. And, and I also want to say, I know the secretary said this last time we testified on this bill. We also really appreciate it for our team. Sean has a team of six, including him. It's a small, powerful team that has a lot of work in a very intense period. The rhetoric around elections, the pressures around elections does lead to a stressful environment and also threats to our office. So we appreciate having this additional tool to hopefully dissuade people from making the threats to begin with. But then if that occurs to have some more tools for the Attorney General. So thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Tim Dublin, Legislative Counsel]: Any questions for Lauren?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Not seeing any. If Sean wants to weigh in as well. I don't have anything to add to that. I was largely here in case the travel or the internet connectivity was an issue, but it was not. The Deputy Secretary was loud and clear, and I fully support what she said and what Ryan said as well. All right, well, thank you for stepping up just in case anyway. I appreciate, Sean. All right. So we will go to Kim McManus as well. And you have about forty five minutes of testimony you have to fill right now, Kim.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Exactly. She's just

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: happy to make it to the table once in a while.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: She will always make

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: fun for me.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Kim McManus, Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. I definitely do not have forty five minutes for you all, so you're going to

[Tim Dublin, Legislative Counsel]: have to

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: find something else to do. I appreciate the revisions, taking out all the civil piece from this. That's what you're talking about. We have no issue with the addition of intentionally or recklessly. It'll be an odd situation for this to be a to charge someone whose behavior is reckless, but their intent is to obstruct somebody or change their vote. So it'll be an interesting set there. But we appreciate having the two different standards we can work with depending on the facts in certain instances. No. We did raise last time that there will be issues around what intimidating means threatening coercing in the situation, but we understand that we will need to litigate those and see what comes of it. And we'll come back if there's an issue with any of our other statutes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: So it's more of a factual issue on whether something has constituted a threat or Yes.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Yeah. Just I mean, that'll be just depending on the facts and circumstances. But I believe we've taken care of the facially constitutional issues, so at least we won't have that initial challenge. Or if we do, we have a lot of testimony to support

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: them Questions out

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: of the for Kim. Somebody's gotta come up with a question. We're not gonna let her off or see unless. I'll take it that way, Karen. Okay, alright. Well, let's draft a law in the next forty five minutes, we have forty five minutes all of a sudden. Alright, thank you very much. Let's open this I mean, do people need to hear from anybody else? Are we gonna be ready to vote? Because I have it scheduled for a vote on Friday. If we're all excited, I can schedule it for tomorrow so that we can space some things out. Anybody opposed to that concept here? We're try to hear early Friday?

[Tim Dublin, Legislative Counsel]: Do we hold on to tomorrow?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: No, we testimony on Friday afternoon for the There's a slide something out in the slot. Well, the statute report, we have submitted this, we'd like to continue that Friday afternoon. I just

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: wanted to refresh my number.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I don't think we've heard anybody testify or witness the opposition to this. Not so much opposition as concerns which I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: think we've addressed. I mean, it was from Matt Valerio whose first time he came in here when he explained that this bill was being used by the law school to evaluate constitutionality. Yeah. Then we address that by bringing in a professor to talk to us about that. Yeah. Would you have on board to enforce this? I'm totally overwhelmed to be handling things like this. Well, you know, that's government operations need to help get us to the law enforcement.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: I think

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: there's gonna be an ask for that. I hope so, yeah. Ian?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Think the other person, ACLU had some criticism as well. And I just wanted to say that they sent us stuff to look at from New York. And it was kind of There's a lot of different things that New York has. They have a Voting Rights Act and also a voter intimidation criminal statute that kind of conflicted with each other. There's a lot going on there. In reviewing all of that and also reviewing Smola's testimony and the Supreme Court case countermen, it really felt like this language was what captured the concerns across the board and was the simplest way to do it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: So I just wanted to Ian and Tim that took over those, go over Snow's suggestion, that case law and the input from ACLU. I

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: just couldn't remember that there was any outstanding opposition. I was like

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah, I know. So I'm sure that ACLU, their main point was wanting to have it even clearer exactly what we're getting at intimidating, threatening, forcing. That's not what Smola thought. I don't think that's what we just heard from the Solicitor General. And having looked more deeply at how that could have been accomplished, didn't make sense. It seemed like this is sufficiently covered.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: It was my understanding. I don't feel like I need to hear from anybody else.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Angela. I would say if we could vote tomorrow for like, floor management, that would

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: be Yeah. That's what I'm just saying. That's what I'm just saying. I think I think what what do guys plan on voting on this? And just a heads up for folks, on Friday, we will be voting on h five of that is back. And depending on what happens, is it?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: H5? Tuesday? No. Friday.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Friday.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Friday.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Possibly H626, if we get that last couple things sorted out. Which I think there's just a couple things unless people want to hear from more people or more issues on that.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Let's do which one, Zach?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Six twenty six, the voyeurism. I think it's down to a couple final issues that we're dealing with, I think. That's my impression at least. Don't if I, you all have the same impression.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I think so.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah. So that might be ready on Friday. I thought was new, isn't it? Oh, is current. Because I don't know that there's more to do on 06/26 that I have scheduled for this happen. See, I think we just decided there's not. Well, I

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: think it might be important to discuss that, if we're gonna tinker with the penalties and the ages Oh, of the right, right,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: yeah, can people shift their minds to 06/26 for a minute or two so we can give some final guidelines to And I think there's still a question, Michelle still has a question that we still need to engage a little bit more whether to get rid of felt consent, actually in both sections. I think Michelle just raised us, she's a little concerned about getting rid of it in the extortion section as well. So we just need to have a little bit more on that. And the other was adding in the penalties. So let me first go back to the issue that Kim raised as far as if you're looking at this on page four, at the bottom of page four, there's a penalty that is a five year felony. And on page eight, there's a two year misdemeanor. My suggestion, I think there is a rationale for that because what we're doing with what's on page eight, which kind of came from the revenge of formed bill a few years ago, is those are situations generally where the image that was taken was consensual. I mean, was an image that was taken. It wasn't like by somebody, a voyeurism, a peeping tongue, whatever you call it. So the image was consensual. It doesn't say that in here, but that's where this came from. But it was the disclosure that is non consensual. So that distinguishes the earlier offense where a person has surreptitiously imaged, taken the images, gotten the images, and then also disclosed them. So it's a different behavior. And so I think that justifies there actually being a difference in those penalties. At least that's the way I saw it. I'm happy to hear what other people think on that. Ian?

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I was going to say I think that makes sense. And it kind of captures Matt's sort of scenario of a bunch of teenagers passing around photos. Is that what is that crime, and how should that crime be punished? And so probably in that scenario, those are consensual images sent to one person and then passed around to other people. And that puts it in the misdemeanor category, which makes more sense to me.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: And my understanding is also it provides some flexibility to prosecutors if they're unable to be proving that under the first section on voyeurism that was not consensual, taking of the image, they have a lesser offense to drop to the misdemeanor offense. So it would give some flexibility as well. That

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: isn't just it may have been sent to a couple of people. There are cases where those pictures were posted. Like if somebody worked at a law firm, it was posted on the law firm website. It was sent to porno sites at times, so it wasn't necessarily

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I was just speaking to the defender general talking about specifically teenagers and teenage conducts. That's all. I agree with you. There are lots of other ways that this could be used, and I guess the question would be, do we feel okay about that being a misdemeanor?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: I don't think anybody's suggesting to change the five year felony in the earlier provision. But are people okay with keeping a two year misdemeanor at this point? It keeps flexibility,

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: there are options.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: So the other question that we had was on page 12, adding a provision somewhere along

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: the lines, well, reading Angela is way better than I can.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Similar to adding a provision along the lines of that, the provision in our manipulation statute, or what was commonly referred to as grooming, where we were very specific about conduct occurring between a defendant and victim who are close in age. We had specific And 18. 18. As I think about it, I don't know if we have

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: to get that. It was quite specific, I think, in that statute.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: It's like if there was 15 at the time and this person was not more than three years older or something, there's a lot of I remember doing that math and trying to make sure we are capturing everything. But the idea being that if this conduct is happening, is occurring between two young people, which we heard is not generally the cases that we're trying levy very heavy penalties for. And generally, what's occurring is different from that. But it does also happen sometimes between two young people. And do we want a separate set of penalties or a separate penalty if the offender is also 18?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Right. And the issue that I would raise in this, and this doesn't mean I'm a forward opposement, is that if it's somebody under 18, this is gonna go to family court as a delinquency. So they're in a different realm. They're not subject to these penalties. Unless, of course, for some reason the state's attorney to have it moved over to criminal courts, then these would apply. That's kind of one, do we need to do that, in other words?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah, and the thing that I'm thinking about in that case is that if this is a young person perpetrating this harm, you certainly want It's little different.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: It's extorting. If you have a 17 year old getting these images and actually distorting somebody, it seems to be a slightly different thing.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Any other viewpoints on that, Jonathan?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Are you fine with kind of where we are or should I we

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: guess it's interesting because of our juvenile system, the family system,

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: being a default.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: But certainly, yeah, wanting to, as our statutes state, and our policies at DCF state, the goal with young people, young offenders, is rehabilitation and education. So just wanting to make sure that that's

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: we That we're adhering to that.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: It means a different issue.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Can look at language. Just don't this didn't jump out as a major issue to me. Alicia, do you have any

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I don't

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: like the idea

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: of a misdemeanor, but it sounds like I'm getting my murdered.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Oh, mean, yeah, that's an earlier thing. But how about as far as the people 18? Should there be a different standard than that?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: know, I don't really feel like I have a strong viewpoint either way because I don't really know.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: All I remember was that that was really complicated, it's about food.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah, and I don't think that I would want to model that skiing. I think it could be something much simpler, but I'm thinking about brain development and in general, young people lack the full capacity, brain capacity to understand what they're doing with these devices, generally speaking. And the power of the device and the potential harm. That's sort of a umbrella statement. And then everything that's spilled through these devices and platforms do we take into account that lack.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Right, and that's why we've sent them to human.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Right, right. So if it's confidential As long as he doesn't get moved.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Too criminal?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah. Well, there's the discretion. Yeah. It's got some But in some cases, could be

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: could you actually could we legislate that away?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Whatever you want. Whatever you can do. I mean, think it's already fully set up as far as, oh, legislate away the state's attorney's discretion. Do you want to I think

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: that a record reflect I don't do that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: No. Meant what we get for it.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Could we put something in here that would prevent essentially the normal system of this goes into family court because this defendant is 16 years old? Setting up Well, no, it's not

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: a court now, and the state's attorney may have the opportunity to

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: But you're saying I'm saying, can you write something in here that would basically make them I guess I think

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: I have to give you, as deputy state's attorney and others, though, you're here as a representative of the subject. I think that we have to respect the discretion of the state's attorney. And you can have a 17 year old who knows damn well what they're doing.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: That's what I'm saying. I

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: would You think

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: gotta have that discretion to potentially

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: judge them differently. Well, yeah, and

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: they have, I mean, there's a whole whole of factors that I mean, it's not Or determining. Not easy to transfer over one from either way, I think. Right. And and so it's and it's something prosecutors and courts and defense counsel are quite used to doing this.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: And that's the whole structure

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: of whole structure of

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: starts to kind of if we start putting cutouts where the structure no longer applies, feels odd.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: It's like having exception What is it? Swallows the rules. Yeah. Right?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Especially, oh, for this one crime.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: But the other ones, they could like, it could

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: because there are some worse things.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I mean, you do it. List of crimes that started to occur.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: To start to occur.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah, could change that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Just to forecast, one of the things we might do after cross over a little more time, is there was a proposal that Marshall Paul made to the committee that we created two years ago that came up with here's what you should do in juvenile justice. And it was way more than we were gonna be able to handle this session, but it really simplifies the whole system into a hot mess when you look at the statute. And that's something that I'm planning that we have time to take hearings on in anticipation of next by any of them on that plan for Marshall. This will get ball rolling on that. So yeah, there's things that are down the road a little bit to deal with that. But on this right here

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I mean, it would be ten years, most likely. I know that's only if the victim is 18. But I think most cases involving an offender 18 are also going to involve victims 18. But that's a very big deal for a young person, and it's something we should definitely just make sure we're So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: the Michigan law as our indirect.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I guess you're saying only if it went to criminal.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Actually it only went to criminal. Also, I don't want to have an extra thing in here that's saying to somebody who's 17 or 16 that, yeah, with you, it's not so bad. And that's kind of the message I would send, not that anybody would be looking at our statute, but that is kind of the message that's sending. But what we are doing is that we recognize you're young and we're gonna put you in family court where it's rehabilitative, where you'll feel confidentiality, etcetera. So also kind of, the more I think about, don't necessarily like the message of saying, yeah, we already have the swather system to address those needs, but this is very serious. You know? Yeah, agree. Karen?

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: I just I appreciate the conversation on it, and for me, it is I would need to hear testimony from folks to really I feel like we can debate and see that there probably are things that we're not thinking about or not seeing the picture. So my preference would be not to include it unless we take testimony to fully vet it.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Have testimony at 02:00, I

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: think? Yeah, we do have a to hear from the floor in August. I don't know

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: if they've had a chance to consider it and research it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Throw Kim back up here. We have a great spot

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: on that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: But we can get some initial thoughts on that. But it seems like that's those are the three remaining issues. This is one. The second one is Consent. No consent. The third one is I understand that Alicia wants to do the two year misdemeanor, but I kind of got a sense that should I have a soft tone whether we keep that or not? I understand where you are. Yeah, I just

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: think it's pretty egregious to have it be a misdemeanor.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: A misdemeanor only applies to the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: It's the one it's just consensual image that is shared.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Without without a threat. Without con because then as soon as you threaten, it's extortion.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Correct. So it's no threat, no extortion, just a consensual image that is then shared with a third party, not consensually. That's the misdemeanor.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: And I appreciate the chair's point of that. It creates options. If you can't go with it, you have that as a I'm gonna get what you're saying.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: No, no, just I mean, just hate making bellies, but it does seem like the consequences can be really bad. People's lives can still be ruined by their

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: triggers without there being any threat or, I mean, that's egregious. Right.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: One person's sexual sexual preferences were outed. Yep. The person Yes. Could be told. I don't know if the person successfully committed suicide, but they attempted suicide because they were so horrified. So do you

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: think this should be better counted?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Like, I'd want to hear testimony, but I think you risk your issue. Don't know. I don't remember why it wasn't.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: I guess I'm not sure that where we get to make judgments of Can what the

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: we look at what other, if we do have, we could look at what other states have done for the crime, because there are a lot of other states that

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: have Is it an automatic higher penalty or the potential of a higher penalty? Like a

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: The case could be Right, so

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: just because the potential's there doesn't mean that somebody like case by case couldn't decide otherwise.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: I was just about to say that. I mean, can I like So I like the proportionality that we're trying to get in here? And if it's what's bothersome, if it's still a misdemeanor, I would be fine to go to a three year, I mean, we have three year felonies. Up three years? Up to three year. But still there's some proportionality if it was taken without person the it would be up to five year. I'd be fine with that.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Having a difference between the two, I think is important because in the case of sex fortune, I was going say there's the trickery element. I guess if all that's absent from Not necessarily. If it was given consensual, if this image was made and shared consensually and then disclosed, I think the only required element that's missing is the threat or coercion.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Or images not taken consensually.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Right, so if we're just dealing with images that are taken consensually,

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: then

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: the only difference between the two year misdemeanor and the

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: five year felony is the threat or coercion. And

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: the disclosure can be literally, that's three year felonies. And let me

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: just add a little bit to

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: that. Well, it's the option of

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: a three year Well,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: the felonies come with habitual offender. There are components to just having a felony on your record even if you don't serve any time.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Right. And this would take away the misdemeanor charge. So every case would be?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Now every, yeah. And just let clarify as well that I distinguish the two of consensual individuals, taken and non consensual. That's not necessarily the case with the one. It could be just that it may have not been consensual, but it's just you can't prove that part of it. So you go with this other that doesn't have that as an element. Yeah. If the five year felony has it as an element that this was not consensual, the taking of the interest. The other one, it's just not an element. It doesn't mean whether or not it actually was consensual. Don't Lower bar. It's just

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: the lower bar. You don't have

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: to prove that extra element. I'm fine, and especially if Alicia had some cosponsors bill, put it to a felony level, but have some proportionality. Yeah, think that's a good I

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: think that's fine. I think given what we're talking about and the testimony that we're dealing with this. So if it was nonconsensually taken, it would be If you could prove that it was nonconsensually taken, that's the thing, as I'm saying, is

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: that it may have been nonconsensually taken, but you may not be able

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: to prove it. And that leads you in this misdemeanor route right now, but I'm saying that if

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: we make it, at least it's a felony. Because, again, in some cases, if try to look back, somebody like your significant other knew your Facebook password or your phone password and grabbed him off the phone. So or there were some cases where someone didn't know the camera was going to bed or like Right. So that's non consensual. Right. Is there

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: a chance that a prosecutor would not charge anything if not left with a misdemeanor?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: No. We can ask Kim that question.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah, that's what I just want to make sure we're not

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: closing the door. Angela has

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: a question. Can you join us

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: for a lackey voice? So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: are we. Thank you. Thank you for

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: being here. We can miss your office.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: There's no other things. There's a lot of things completed. Yeah.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: So yeah.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Can you hear the question? Sorry.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: That's Okay. You were not in the witness seat. I am wondering, before we're contemplating getting rid of the misdemeanor in the case

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: of an image that is taken consensually but then disclosed without consent, If we're making the concern you're making had a three year felony instead of a two

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: year misdemeanor, is there any scenario that you can imagine in which without that misdemeanor option, a prosecutor would actually not charge?

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Do you think? Yes.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Does that enter into

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: The way he was saying

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: If the disclosure is, hey, look at this footage, are you gonna charge me the crime that might result in a three year felony, or are you just gonna charge nothing because you have no options? So

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: there are other options depending on it, especially if it's minors. With minors, you have the disseminating indecent material to a minor in the presence of a minor. There's two in there. And then depending on what was in the reporting, like if it was a sorry, let me just get this scenario right. I consensually have given you a video or a picture, and now you're disseminating it. Again, if it was involving teenagers, we then have the sexual exploitation of children. There's a few statutes there that have misdemeanors attached to them.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: It's more in the revenge porn realm, where it's consenting adults at beginning, then it's an adult who is is has the intent to harass or hurt?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Hurt. I was trying to learn a little bit. Armed harassing. Yeah.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: The one I would look up real quick, which tends to be a catchall, is prohibited conduct. Is that what you're thinking?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Sort of. I'm just

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: going to reread it again. That one is often when it's sort of icky behavior. But Let me just read it again so that I'm not using icky on the record.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: See what I already

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: did. When I was a DV prosecutor, I would say that often. Was like, that's not the standard. I'm just pulling it up very quickly.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Open, diverse, lewdness, which once you share with another person, that's open. And then we would just be reaching the definition of lewdness, which is showing anything that would fall in the category of sexual act or the various definitions of body parts. Think that would be all of

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: that. And that's a misdemeanor?

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Yes. It's first offense, one year, second or subsequent, two years, so that's always a misdemeanor.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Feel good?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah, I mean, that makes me feel better. Just want to make sure we're not taking away If we're taking an option away, I want to make sure there are others. Yeah, good.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I'll just say, co sponsoring the bill, I think it makes sense. I will just say that sitting in this committee and talking about whether that's me, a felony or misdemeanor, in total isolation from all the other criminal statutes and other I'm sure I could probably find something in our current title 13 that in the same conversation we'd all be like, This should be a felony if it's a misdemeanor right now. Or versa. Vice versa. So I

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: don't think

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: need to attempt full scale sentencing report. Well, I've heard that. I've heard that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: I guess I just

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: and I'm sorry, I'm not sure.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Not really anything objecting to what we're doing here. It's just more, I think generally speaking, your sentence both relates to the underlying crime and the charge, but it also should sit in relation to all of the other crimes. So we're doing half of that here. We are talking about the underlying charge and the underlying crime and what we're sensing that, but we're not having that other conversation just Maybe like

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: we haven't on this one, but we talked about how we came to the fifty years. We looked at man's job is. And looking at the ten years that Michelle kind of looked at the range where it was under 18. So we do try to do that. We haven't done it on this year. Felony. I agree with that. We can, and we can find, look at the three year felonies. We can look at that fund sentencing thing that CRG has and look at the ones that are three year felonies.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: And it may not be something that's really possible all the time. It's just something I think about when we're talking, when we're kind of just trying to feel out what feels right. Part of what feels right for me is what are other ways in Vermont where you charge them with through your felony?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: I support, So and I really don't want to pause this. But you're making a good point. So for two bienniums, the House, Barbara and I in this committee, cast out full well, biennium will just start. The second biennium, we had three bills that were establishing felonies of A through E and misdemeanors. And we were looking through the statutes to try to true up things like similar culpability, which is kind of hard to what's culpable probably depends on what area you're in. But anyway, so we did that. And we can do that again next batting. Maybe that's the bill that we start with and it'll be about a 300 page bill, but that's fine. But the Senate, they never managed to take it out.

[Tim Dublin, Legislative Counsel]: Or we might want to double check with it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Just saying. Or can Or we can nothing else done. Yeah. Let's do

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: it. We might want that. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: We may want to not get anything else done. So we've tried, we had that exercise.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: It was actually a good exercise. And it's difficult to get it going. So it's Every time we make something a felony, just to speak out of both sides of my mouth, we are giving lifelong concept touches to people that will result in not being eligible for Section eight housing if that ever exists again.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Unless they get it sealed.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: College. I mean, ramifications are huge. So in some ways, the more things we put in that category, I'm not sure, I'd love to see, people repeat offend if they're in one category more than the other?

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: I will have to say, I don't know if that always plays out in practice. As a case manager, when I worked with women transitioning out of prisons, their Section eight housing was held for them, empty apartments, while they were in jail. Oh yeah, they

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: didn't lose them. So I don't know if This

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: raises a new question for me. As we have a crime that is currently sealable and we're changing to a felony, do we say, okay, if we're gonna do that, we need to add that to the list of sealable offenses? Right? Because because right now, it's it's all misdemeanors except for the ones that are exclude, and then it's only specified felonies. But no sex crimes are sealable. Yeah. This should not But this this is

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: not a sealable. And is this going to be possible?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: So this one's not sealable, misdemeanor?

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Are you pulling it up?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: So if it's if it's sealable and if we're moving it to a three year felony to and all of a sudden, it's not sealable, I think we have a further issue to discuss in here. So what happens when we have forty five minutes?

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: I know. It's good. I think we need to book this morning.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I know, I actually like it. Prefer this.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: So if we can

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: find out if this is currently sealable, my proposal would be to go with the Virginia felony and add it as a sealable. Again, it's different than expungement. We should be less concerned about doing sealable. I'm not pointing at you, I'm pointing outside.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: The past is out there. I passed it outside.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Nice cover.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: We have sealing these things, they're not gone, they can't be used for predicates and all that. But if it's not sealable currently, then I'd still find it.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Don't know if this is States don't fall over the map on this. Washington State first offense is a gross misdemeanor, subsequent conviction is a felony. Connecticut is a misdemeanor, New Hampshire is a

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah, But what penalties are for gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors, and selling these, that can be all over the place.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: But I like

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: doing more gross misdemeanors than making these.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Besides, do we

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: have gross misdemeanors? I know we don't, but maybe we can add more sports. We're all sued. Yeah. So if

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: we can find out that my proposal, it's sealable currently, we can still go over a three year felony and then have it list that as a sealable offense.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: All right. I that's something There is a

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: lot of fun.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: What are we done? I don't know. So I think we're not going to have different penalties for under 18. That's where I think I read that we are looking at raising to a three year felony, but we need to find out about the sealable information. If it is currently sealable, my proposal is that we list it as one of the felonies that can be sealable to be consistent, but we'll still have the felony. And then we still have to figure out the without the person's consent. I don't know if I get everybody as onboard with going to forty year statute of limitations instead of the discovery. I didn't feel, Alicia, were you fine with that? Yeah. So those are the

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: things I had, so still. Are we gonna hear from

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: the network one more time?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Yes, we're gonna hear from Charlie right now.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Perfect, thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah, because I said 02:00, and here

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: is 02:00. Eight. Stop.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Okay. I'll take what I can get.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: And please weigh on any of what we've been talking about, and also the latest draft, which you didn't get a chance this morning to be in

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Yes, perfect. Thank you. Charlie Glisserman, I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I am happy to sit with the draft a bit more, but do you have some initial thoughts on the revisions, particularly the conversation that was happening here just now and the sex torture and penalties on page 12? And do you really appreciate the committee's intention to recognize the real harm that these offenses cause and also create penalties that are proportional and have the intended effect. I would say it's certainly a policy decision for the committee around how to shape these penalties in statute, considering the discretion of judges and prosecutors. I will also say that some of these crimes are, they're certainly new to Vermont and they are newer just in the state of our country. And so understanding how the prosecutorial process and that discretion plays out has some unknowns. So our thoughts based on those unknowns and wanting to avoid unintended consequences are as follows. So the first piece on the discussion that was just happening on the felony for nonconsensual disclosure of explicit images. One thing that I did just wanna note there is that nonconsensual disclosure of explicit images statute does include AI generated and digitized images. And so these are behaviors that have very serious harm. They are also ones that are often committed by very young people and wanted to make sure that the committee was aware of the element of the statute in this conversation around whether it should be a felony. And as Representative Rachelson noted, I was also doing a very quick look at other state statutes during this conversation. It does seem like there is a diversity. Many are misdemeanors, many are felonies. On the sextortion penalties, I noted for the committee informally this morning, the Pennsylvania statute that has a structure that I think we would feel good about, the offense of sex torture is a misdemeanor with an enhancement to a felony if the perpetrator is 18 and the victim is 18, has an intellectual disability, or the perpetrator is in a position of power or authority over the victim. It also has an enhancement to a felony for multiple offenses within that section. And I'm happy to share that language with the committee if it's of interest as a model. As I noted, this is a new crime in Vermont. And so we're just trying to think through the unintended consequences of creating a new felony, particularly in the context of crimes that happen in between young people. If the Pennsylvania model is not of interest or also just throwing into the mix here, potentially standardizing with our existing extortion penalty, which I believe is a three year felony, not a five year felony, or standardizing with the criminal threatening statute, which is a misdemeanor that has enhancements for certain situations. So those are our initial thoughts, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah, I guess I misunderstood that our extortion statute was five years. So you're saying that it's three years? Because that's why we changed that from, I think, misdemeanor to five years. Probably for consistency, since that was the rationale, that it was three, not five, that that should in fact be three.

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I was looking through the statutes, and I did a very close read to make sure I was not misunderstanding, and it is a three year felony.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Okay. Yeah. But misunderstanding here.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Is it three years, 3,000?

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I mean, look.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Fines are just all over.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: There's a pattern here.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Yeah. Is a pattern, isn't it? Maybe we're finally having a pattern in Far East. So that complicates the Well, it doesn't necessarily have to complicate it. We can, again, consider So I guess, I mean, the places that have a misdemeanor, I've been talking about the fact that you get into family court. I mean, what are the other states where these ages? What do they do? Are they charged criminally? Because we also have a higher age at which one is going directly into family court. So I'm just trying to make sure I'm comparing apples to apples on that. So I guess Pennsylvania, that's the one you talked about. Do you know what their juvenile justice as far as where an 18 or 17 year old gets sent?

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I don't know. I don't know, I'm sorry.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: No, that's fine. I

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: wasn't questioning that that manner. Part

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: of the issue.

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: And I would say just like looking at states like in our region, states that are kind of more similarly situated to us, the sex torturing crimes are often either a misdemeanor or there is some recognition of age of perpetrator and age of victim and that dynamic within the statue. Right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: We did some of that age a few years ago.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: Yeah, we were talking about that a little bit.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: So I don't know that we need to be, if we're going go there, if we can continue that, it doesn't have to be like we have in the manipulated statute. It could just be offender is 18 or under, because that's what we have for the juvenile system, that it's a misdemeanor. Because ultimately, I guess maybe it's just less easy or you can't transfer, actually you can't transfer a misdemeanor from family court to criminal court, it's only a felony. So there is a way to Which that again suggests to me that in some egregious case, you may want to transfer that. Have a May language. That complicates a bit in the whole structure, right?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: That's what we're doing. Complicated.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: The whole thing that's already completely overly complicated structure that we will we will do a whole rerun of the criminal court next year and juvenile justice. We won't have the next body. We could have even gone in this direction, or when this started, we could have called for a vote and we probably would

[Tim Dublin, Legislative Counsel]: have voted on it too.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Well, that's what happens when I don't have the afternoon all set up. But no, it's just good. We are fully vetting this. Unless I hear that Pennsylvania is sending 17 and 18 year olds to a family court, which

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I They brought up have a whole website. Pretty fancy.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Male justice? Yep. If

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: it would be helpful to the committee, I'm happy to do some research and also connect with my counterparts in Pennsylvania to see if they have any information about how this has played out there. If you need more information. I

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: would find that helpful, but if you're thinking, don't want to have another slog of testimony.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: I'd rather not have another slog, but I want to get this right as much as possible. I wanna send it to the Senate as paved as possible, because this will be discussion down there again. So then again, whatever we do adhere, the Senate will, that's not how we want to

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: do But it is a really important, like it's not No, a nothing part of this is important. No, this

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: is important. So I still think at least on one, I'm hoping to get a little closer, and that's I think going to three instead of five years for the extortion to be consistent with what we have for extortions. This is something we can do. We can still talk about whether we need to have a misdemeanor for under 18. My view at this point is I don't think we should because I think there should be some discretion to be able to transfer such a case of sexual extortion, like a 17 or 18 year old involved with that, I think there should be some discussion for state's attorneys to be able to transfer that. And I'm kind of in the same place with the only for a three year, but less so, I guess, on the 20 six-six. That's at least where I Anything else? Not at all. So I'm going to try to find somebody to give a walk through of one of our bills that we're going to do next week, see if anybody's available.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: It's free to I'll link to

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: you, Charlie. It really gets are you good? Oh, yeah, Charlie, did you have a lot? I apologize. That was one of the issues.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Let's keep going. No. Angela, thank you for checking

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: me on that.

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I do not have too much to say beyond that. The only thing I would just add is the nonconsensual disclosure of explicit image, that is an image that can be created in a second using an app or a website. This is a major issue for young people who have very little guidance in how to use these tools that are increasingly become available to them with very few safeguards. These are also offenses that cause real harm to victims, and that has to be acknowledged. But I just wanted to re up that for the committee in considering whether that should be a felony.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Are you saying you still think it should be a felony?

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I would say that I have real concerns about unintended consequences of it being a felony.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: And is that true for, period, being a felony, period, or offenders under ATC?

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Particularly for young offenders.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: I really hear that point, given that, as you're saying, the ease with which something can be become, it could just be made into an explicit image.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: When I was talking

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: about brain development before, and I know it's easy to say there are some 17 year olds who know exactly what they're doing, and I don't know if that's true. I mean, there is intent and there is like a wish to do harm. But given the lack of the fully formed prefrontal cortex, they actually play out all of the possible consequences. And the ease with which this can be accomplished now, it's like a normalization process. It's the normalizing of these things. Think about even ten years ago when I was writing about this and researching it, sexting was not yet the thing that everyone was doing, and sending nudes wasn't like it was a thing, but it was a burgeoning thing. And now it's so normalized that I think it's

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: But is there an intent to do harm or brass and intimidating? Is that

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Well, no. Or is it stupidity?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: I'm sorry.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: I should

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: say that. I can't

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: in the blood. So I hear that concerns, and I share it.

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Thank you very much.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Are you sure that's it? Because we have time.

[Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I'm sure that's it, but I'm more than happy to answer any other questions if you have them.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: So I'm hearing that we still have some thinking about, despite the fact that I was pushing towards that felony on the earlier, not the earlier, which one? I was pushing towards a felony on something I can't remember anymore. Page eight, line 17, that we need to continue to have a little more further thought on.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: May I just point out, it's interesting if we get more information how our perspective changes.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: So we can take this testimony all session.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: I can jettison those other bills that I thought of.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Some of them maybe.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Maybe some people don't mind you jettisoning them, but I don't think I'll do that. So do people actually really need an hour and forty five minutes before four, or can I see if there is somebody who can give us a preview of a fill for next week?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: So glad they extended floor to 03:30. Yeah.

[Kim McManus, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs]: They were hoping the chairs would fill it with contestants.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: Oh, it's really entertaining.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: Is there any

[Rep. Ian Goodnow, Member, House Judiciary Committee]: argument for, like, notice?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee]: So we're gonna