Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Align. Alright. Welcome to the House of the Community this Tuesday afternoon, May fifth. And today we have a couple bills in the proposal for to vote out. We were gonna vote them on Friday, but because of scheduling issues, we had to postpone it to this afternoon. And after that, we're going to be looking at the latest version of S-one 193, which is the forensic facility bill. We're gonna start with S208 because I want some selfies here. I don't think we need a walkthrough because it hasn't changed since we last looked at it. We're looking at graph number 3.1, dated 04/23/2026, 03:57PM. And this draft took out most of the language and reads a policy making, a model policy, the law enforcement advisory board to be done 07/01/2027. So just to get this rolling along, I would take a motion to find graph number 3.1 favorable. Second. Second? Starting 02/2008. Yeah, 2 '8. Two zero eight first. Second. So let's open up for discussion. Any discussions? Go to Karen.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I think can start. So I appreciate the work that we've done on two away. I feel like it's taken quite the journey in different formations. But I feel like we landed in a place that addresses all the different pieces of it, of the concerns that we were hearing from Vermonters about law enforcement use of mask and identification. And then we also took in the decision from the Ninth Circuit Court, so of being able to adjust to that and take out the federal piece of it. And then I feel like we are following along on the trajectory that we have set up with how we do policy implementation in the state with law enforcement. We followed a similar approach to what we did to parent and perfect policing or use of force. And so I feel like it was on a long journey, but it landed in a spot that takes all those needs into consideration. And I look forward to supporting the bill.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Anybody else want to weigh in before I close the deal?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah, Zach, I'll weigh in again. I know that we spoke about this last week, but one of the things that I come back to is the original intent of this legislation, admittedly by those that were supporting it, was very much to create restrictions and provide oversight over federal law enforcement agencies via ICE or otherwise. And I think contrary to what the previous representative just said, I really am not content with where we've landed on this because now it feels like we're solely kind of penalized and punished in a very draconian fashion by Vermont law enforcement, who admittedly, from all the witness testimony that we've received in this room, has done everything by the book to keep our communities safe. Everyone knows where I certainly where I stand in support of law enforcement, but it just seems to me that I'm not quite sure how this bill, from the way that it was proposed, drafted, and passed from the senate and brought over to this committee, it has strayed so far off the path, and it's looking to hurt and penalize the very people that are keeping us safe. And so I just I have a real tough time having an anti Vermont law enforcement bill lead this committee. And for that reason, among many others, I will be voting And my my vote really is to support Vermont law enforcement and the people that keep us safe in our communities, but also in this building every single day. And, you know, I hate to say this, but a vote in the affirmative for this legislation is a vote against Vermont law enforcement, plain and simple. And that's just the way I do

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: it. Anyone else?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I'm voting for this bill because I vote in favor of the many folks that we've heard from throughout Vermont who feel that such a policy is necessary, and also because we heard from law enforcement that the approach we heard from Vermont law enforcement that the approach taken in this bill is the right approach to take by sending, tasking the Law Enforcement Advisory Board with coming up with this policy. I think any policy or any law that seeks to add clarity to a really large and consequential system is a good thing in most cases. And this is one of those cases where clarity is going to be, I think, appreciated by monitors, by law enforcement. Nothing in this bill seeks to penalize. This is all about looking for ways to set clear expectations for everyone involved, law enforcement and Vermont civilians alike. So though I wish we could have also included federal law enforcement, I recognize the implications of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. And I think it's really quite alarming and sad that we have had to spend so much of our time on bills like this session responding to some really scary and unlawful actions by our federal government. So wishing that we didn't have to do that, wishing that we could be spending our time focusing more specifically on issues a little closer to home. All of this is really close to home now. Because of the position we're put in, because of the federal government and the folks in our communities who need this clarity and are seeking this type of help are some of the most vulnerable in our state. And it's our job in this building to work with them in mind. So that's why I'll be voting yes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Anything else?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Can add I to what I said previously? I'm not going to address the fear of mongering because I think that's something that the chair knows well, that I have a huge issue with in this room and the sensationalizing of the political landscape. But I do just want to clarify what the previous representative just said is I don't think Well,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: no. Clarifying, but

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I'm gonna put it in my own words. But I think it is disingen I find it disingenuous to say that law enforcement is in support of this bill because Vermont law enforcement did not testify in support of this bill whatsoever. If anything, we heard from chief Burke last week that he has real reservations about this bill, the approach that it was taking. However, if we were gonna pass something, the most comfortable he could get was the approach that was outlined. It was not that he was in support of the bill itself. We have not heard from a single law enforcement representative that they're in support

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: of this bill, not one. So I just found that very disingenuous. So just a quick one like this. Disagree with with with you as well as far as how that But what I took from law enforcement is that they would prefer certainly a model policy over having us micromanage in the statute. And they weren't in favor and they were not opposed to this. If we were gonna do this kind of thing, had to be in a model policy. It's really what they were talking about. So they'd reach out, yeah, I think the point was that Chief suggested that there isn't a need for this. And this is where I think I have a disability spread out with Chief Burke. And that is, I think it's become salient, the issue of masking and identification. And certainly that rose really more on the national level. But on March 11, I heard from a number of people who were concerned about who was wearing a mask and who wasn't identifying themselves as far as state police and local police. I think in conversations I've had and reading the after action report is it was completely legitimate why they were wearing masks at that event. I think having a policy that sets that forth is actually can be beneficial when the public has seen somebody wearing a mask or identification. We have addressed it through the proper channels of the law enforcement advisory board. As far as what we had before we took out, I think I need to address that as much as anything because a lot of people are clamoring for us to put that back into this bill, for holding the feds to to account. I have a couple issues with that. One is that I think it would be unconstitutional. I think it's not worth the risk taking this to the second circuit. I think our arguments are weak, and I don't want to be supporting something that I don't think we have good arguments for. That's one thing. The other thing is the more we got into it, the more I felt we were micromanaging law enforcement, which I don't want to do in this committee. I want to set forth and say we have an expectation that you will follow a fair partial policing policy. The Vermont Criminal Justice Council has done that, has done the policy. Same with the use of force policy. They came up with that policy. We wanted to have clarification on masking and identification. So we asked again law enforcement to do that rather than us, Mike, to mention that. So I'm very comfortable where this has landed. I think there's a need. I do understand folks, some folks in law enforcement don't believe there's a need. I just feel I disagree with that part. And I think this is the best approach to keep this. Any other comments? Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Just one quick one that I haven't touched upon at all. I know we're doing this because a lot of people make them maybe feel more comfortable because they're not wearing a mask or something like that. But you also have to look at from the point of law enforcement, I think, how we feel dealing with an army of people wearing masks that we can't identify. And we're not complaining about that, but it is scary to us. We can't identify the people that are committing crimes against us, people that are wearing masks. And that's something we need to think about.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Barbara? So I am supporting this bill. I think having model policy, even though it understands from law enforcement that they don't think it's an issue now, there's nothing to prevent it from being an issue in the future. And having the ability to identify officers will prevent impersonation and misuse. It will help build trust and transparency. And it's been found that it can reduce escalation and confusion, and will provide some consistency across the agencies. I find it disingenuous to say that this bill is anti law enforcement, and I resent that being brought up as a political issue, and I'm proud to support this bill.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, Zach. I have

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: a procedural question. If someone were to bring a strike all amendment to this bill, or bring it back to the original language of s two eight as it came over from the senate, would you still find that to be unconstitutional? I hear you saying that, but I just wanna make sure that because I'm hearing whispers in the building that there could be strike all amendments coming.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Is that a procedural question?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah, it is actually. But I'm just I don't interrupt you. I appreciate you interrupting me. Okay? It's my time, my discussion point. I don't want you to interrupt. I'd appreciate it. Have a little respect. I but that is a question I have. You know, I'm hearing a lot of whispers in the building about some people being very discontent with the way that you've landed on this from your side of the aisle. And I'm wondering if a strike all amendment came, you would still find that language not to be acceptable on the floor, it's in committee or on

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the floor. I mean, that is probably an unfair question, but I won't answer it any more clearly. Yeah. I find that this would likely be unconstitutional and not supporting what we had there before. So it's like

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: because I can just see how this could potentially play out. And so I think it's great for us just to cover our bases in the committee to understand where you stand, chair, because after all, we're the one who struck the language to find it unconstitutional after the Ninth Circuit's rule. So I think it's really important that the body, when this gets to the floor, takes your guidance and understands that this is unconstitutional. And that's a rare point of agreement that you and I have, is that the language is absolutely unconstitutional as it came in.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Until a court rules on something being constitutional or unconstitutional, can't say that I don't get to lest this is unconstitutional or constitutional. I believe we have weak arguments and that it would be found, likely to be found unconstitutional if it's litigated in the second circuit. I don't think that is an opinion that changes unless all of a sudden I saw, I'll leave this open, but all of a sudden there was a Second Circuit opinion that came out and said, Oh, I was wrong about that. Sure. That's another thing. Any other final comment? I'm not seeing if the clerk could call the rule. Arsenault? Yes. Dolan? Yes.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Goodnow? Yes. Postlatt? No. Harvey? No. Hawaii?

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: No.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Oliver? No. Rachelson? Yes. Christie?

[Rep. Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Burditt? No. Malay? Yes. And just to be clear, Coach did contact me and I believe Ken to say that he's going to use his third and last remote voting day today. Alright. So why don't we because I know that I wanted to do prop for next, but because we only have Rick for a little while, I'm gonna have Rick do a walkthrough of the amendment that people should have in front of him. And then he has to run off. Yeah. I'm sorry, Karen is going to be the reporter to await. So we'll just have the report of this memo to perform the Yeah, think we're just going to do a walkthrough of this and then turn to platform and come back to. I just want to walk through or two on that. Okay. Yeah. I just want to do a walk I misunderstood you. I thought we're doing a walk through on prop four, but we can't get to change. Yeah. There's no reason for a lot of first prop four. So, yeah. Good afternoon. We're looking at draft 3.1, right?

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So Draft 3.1, Rick Sable with the Office of Legislative Counsel. Good to see you all. We are looking at draft 3.1 of s two zero nine. A few changes from draft 2.1, which are highlighted in yellow. I'll just skip to those changes, mister Fear, unless you have

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: another preferred. Yeah. Just just go through those pages before me. Yellow?

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. So there's a yellow highlight copy, there's a non highlight copy. They need to give them the

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Give them the give them clean.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I will inform you of yellow highlights. Alright.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: There we go.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Looks like clean.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Page two,

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: line eleven and twelve. This is a new edition. This is the prohibition on the premises of a adding into office operated by the Department of Motor Vehicles that is open to the public. So you may wonder, wouldn't this be covered by RomaDet I? Not necessarily. It's possible that DMV would not be in a state building, wholly controlled by the state. So this would also allow DMV offices, which may be in a building with other uses, also protected from civil law. Couple other changes that are not in yellow here is removing the cross reference. For example, three public library headset as defined in '22 VSA. That is at the end. The cross just to make it all unique or the same, not unique, look the same. Okay, page three. Removed was under a facility licensed, removing regulated by the Child Development Division of the Department for Children and Families. That type of prohibition would have included locations of the chair you wanted to remove. So those would be your private daycares, after school daycares, those would be no longer included. However, if they're in a school, if it's

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: an after school program in a school, that would still be under the education institution.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: think when I looked up the definition of pre qualified private provider, which is on line 12, page five, I think it might include a home as well.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that, I believe, is pre K.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Oh, okay. Yeah. Yes, sorry. My bad. That's okay.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Back to page three. Line three used to say healthcare facility as a defined. Again, that is later cross referenced in the definition section. So just removing that cross reference and moving it to the last part of the book. Okay. Line 12 on the same page three, striking through those three words or assisting with. So under current law, one of the remedies is a person who violates a subsection by knowingly and willfully executing or assisting with an arrest. There's a request to remove that or assisting with. So, it's just gonna be specific to the person conducting the arrest. Okay, page four, no changes to page four. Page five, this is the cross reference. Again, children's camp was previously defined in the prohibition section, just moving wording down to the Definition section. No substantive change on that one. And then on page six, the two other cross references again added, Health Care Facility and Public Library. These were again defined in 2.1. They were defined in the projection section instead of the definition section. So really just the removing the or assisting with and adding the DMV and removing the after school program are the substantive changes in 3.1.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any questions on the? All right, I don't see any. Thank you. Since I know that you have to be in Hang up for

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: a minute or two, yeah. So

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Eric, is your timing? Are you able to stay here if we do 02:09 next or do you have to get rolling? I can get back

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: into a product. Let's turn to proposal four.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So Sophie can hang around in case.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: In case there's a question. Okay. So proposal four is the proposed amendment to the constitution, the Equal Rights Amendment. The amendment itself, the language is fairly short. I'll just go ahead and read it. If the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law, The state shall not deny equal treatment under law on account of a person's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted or applied to prevent the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide the quality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination. There's also, of course, a purpose and preamble to that. And we did have the required public hearing. We had some witnesses a couple weeks ago. I don't remember exactly what it was. And this is the second biennium. The first biennium that's passed out of the It always starts in the Senate, constitutional amendments every four years. And it started in the Senate and passed the Senate by more than two thirds vote and then came to the House where it passed as well. This year it has already passed the Senate. It is before us. We, just like last biennium, we have to take the language as it comes from the Senate up or down. We don't do amendments to constitutional amendments. And if this votes it's out of the house on a majority vote, it will vote to voters in November. So with that, I'd like to just go ahead and get a motion on the floor that we can have further discussion. Is there a motion to I'll find favorable the proposed amendment to the constitution in the state of Vermont, proposal four.

[Rep. Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: So moved.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. Coach moved and and Karen seconded. So discussion. Anybody have discussion? Tom?

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah. I'm just curious. I'm a little more concerned about it than when I voted for it before. But I'm curious why we picked the protected classes that we did and why we have to pick any protected classes at all and name them specifically in here when we know how lists typically get longer and we may have to change it again. Don't know. And that, you know, maybe we could have used a different one. Maybe because they're not as frequently used, like, I don't know. And why isn't the terminology that all persons are born equally and free and independent isn't about, But that's about as broad as it can get. And then we add in some specific protected classes. We miss the people, and our list will always grow. So what will be the future of the bill? Are we gonna change it again in

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: four more years? I'm just curious. Yeah, may not be up in the Senate.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Eric, I wonder if you could actually weigh in. I recall last by Andy and there was a question of whether this was a closed list or in fact others would fall under the protection of, particularly that first sentence, that the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh yeah, Eric, it's Patrick with the Office of the Consul. In response to that question, Connecticut faced a similar question. They had a state level equal protection clause similar to this one, at least at some groups of people that were specifically prohibited from being treated differently under the equal protection clause. And the question came up, well, what about someone who alleges differential treatment on the basis of membership in a class that wasn't part of that list, that was in the Connecticut constitution at

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: the time in the corridor,

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that the list was not exclusive. So it could be added to at future points in time. Now, I think because it's a constitutional amendment and not the statute, it would require a future amendment to the constitution to change that, but if you wanted to do it expressly, but the fact that something isn't in the list as currently written, at least according to the Connecticut case, did not mean that they might be able to make a claim under that provision of a constitution going forward on the basis of some other group that wasn't in this.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Well, that's not really fair if

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we don't include them all.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's a policy call for a plaintiff's speaker. Any

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: other Zach? Yeah, I go back

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: to the comments I made when we originally took testimony on this, and the concern about gender identity and gender expression. I go back to that because I really struggled endorsing or codifying any change to the Vermont constitution. And I understand one of the terms, guess, is cross referenceable, if that's a word, in statute, but the other is not. And I think we owe it to our constituents, we owe it to the people of Vermont that when we are endorsing and proposing changes to the constitution, I think we need to be able to define what the words actually mean in the proposed changes. Again, I go back to that. This might feel nice and it might feel good to vote yes for it, but I take our jobs to be profoundly very serious. And if we're unable to define something and could actually be doing more damage and to what representative Oliver, to the point that he was making about open ended versus closed. And I understand Eric's point is that, technically, I guess this is open, but any change would have to be made through another constitutional amendment. I just really struggle with this. And it just feels, especially in today's political landscape, that suggestions like this and language like this is very much part of a cultural zeitgeist that is currently falling out of vogue and that not many people are really subscribing to. And I think that's kind of like the wokeism and some of these unique terms that probably are gonna fall on their face in just a number of years and maybe months. So I've spoken my piece. I was a no back then. I'm a no today, and I just don't see there to be a

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: need for this. So I guess just a second question for Eric. How would the court define terms in the amendment? Specifically, I think we're looking at gender expression. Gender identity is defined elsewhere in statute. But I don't even know yet. So if they have to interpret what gender expression means, how would they both do it then?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I think

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: they would use principles of statutory interpretation. The courts generally use it without offering any opinion about what the term itself means in this case, but speaking generally, dictionary definitions, uses in other statutes, possibly in other states, possibly maybe other court decisions have interpreted the language at issue. So I think the court's going to use its sort of traditional methods of analyzing a term and looking at other legal sources, if not plain language sources, if not dictionary sources, that sort

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: of thing.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Can I ask a follow-up from that? Not to put you on the spot. No, go ahead. When I think of the very nature of gender fluidity and sexuality as it's currently defined today, certainly not the same as it was defined, call it, a decade ago, even six months ago. These things are constantly changing, and that's kind of what I was referencing in today's political landscape and certain ideologies that people subscribe to. So my feeling is that these terms, while we may be able to ascertain some kind of definition today, it very well could change in a month or in two months or in a year, depending on what sexuality is in vogue. And that's what I struggle with, is that these definitions are constantly changing. So what people might be voting in favor of or in opposition to today could very well be very different in the very near future. Would you agree with that?

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, I would say that that's probably identified something that the court would probably have to take into account when they were trying to formulate a term that's evolved over time. That's a relevant factor. Yeah.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Any other discussion, Angela? I'm really proud and happy to vote in favor of this in committee, and I'll happy to vote for it on the ballot in November if it reaches the ballot. And I think that's just the point that I want to make, that this is one of those because it's a constitutional amendment, it's so different from other things that we vote on here. And what we're voting on, in essence, today is, as I see it, whether or not to give the people of Vermont the opportunity to vote on this. So I'm very happy to vote in favor of that opportunity and believe that it's well past time for a state equal rights amendment. And so I'm glad it's hopefully moving forward.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: The way I understand it, it kind of points out some specific demographics. And maybe this question had already kind of been asked, is there any other amendments that we've done to the constitution or in the constitution now that that that points out specific demographics, or is other language brought to just cover people?

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure to answer that one off the top of head just because I haven't reread the entirety of the constitution Yeah. Recently. But it's a it's a worthwhile question and

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: certainly something that that could

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: be looked into, but I'm not sure about every precise other instance. Because there's a lot of protections in the constitution, some newer, some older, so I'd want to look into that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Okay, well I appreciate that.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, and

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I don't think it's necessary, you know, because of the way our constitution is worded. You know, for me, you know, things are a pick your battles, saying I'm going to support prop before, but I really don't think it's necessary. I think it could be challenging. Interesting.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Eric, I just had a quick question, because I got this question this weekend, and I wasn't actually sure of the answer. If it passes out of the legislature, it will be on the ballot in November. It'll be on the state ballot where Vermonters vote for governor, the district governor, or will it be its own? The question I got was, is the full body text

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is the what? Sorry.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Is the full body text of this going to be on the ballot for people both?

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Not the purpose. No.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Not the purpose.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Substantive language in that section.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Section two? Section two, yeah.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Section two. Yeah, section two.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So with that, all of that will be there for people to read what they are.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Okay. Great. And I think if I remember correctly, the statute also requires the Secretary of State to not on the ballot, but to disseminate some material, background materials.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Thanks. Quotes, did you have a I thought I saw your hand for a second.

[Rep. Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Just a further comment. On the other constitutional amendments that we made, similar to representative Arsenault's comment. This places the true representation back in the hands of all of our fellow Vermonters. And during that period of time, after we pass this out, if we do, there will be opportunities between now and November for people to talk about this and probably talk in some cases depending on some amendments over time. They're talked about more often than not amongst our fellow Vermonters. And and that's that unique feature, you know, of the constitutional amendment. You know, there's forums, there'll be roundtables. And as I recall from the first, you know, the first vetting when we did prop one, two, and three, those they varied in the number of, let's say, you know, meetings around the state and this and that. But the community engagement was pretty intense in a positive way. And I think that's the other piece that we need to rely on, you know, in this. This this doesn't end with us. You know, it truly ends, you know, on the fourth or the seventh, whatever the date in the ballot box. So I just thought I'd reiterate that point. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you, coach. Anything else? We're gonna read the roll call the roll. Arsenault? Yes. Dolan? Yes. Gridnow? Yes.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: No slam? No. Harvey? No. Malay? Yes. Oliver? No. Rachelson? Yes. Christie?

[Rep. Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Burditt? Yes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. Barbara has agreed to report this one. It will be on the notice calendar for five days. So sometime next week, it will be on action. It's that? He's still moving ahead of him. I certainly don't know. So alright. So we'll turn back to 209, which we had to walk through. And Mr. Duke this along, I will take a motion to find favorable draft number 3.1 of S two zero nine of the amendment. So moved. Second. Alright. Is there any discussion on this? You mean one?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I'll speak. I got you. Go ahead, Zach. This is the opportunity to do it. Unsurprisingly, and I also not in support of this one, and what I keep coming back to, we say that we don't want to micromanage law enforcement. The concerns that I have with two zero eight is very much the same concerns that I have with two zero nine, just in terms of the unconstitutionality and the concerns there that if we don't have the ability to legislate and create oversight over federal law enforcement in 02/2008, I struggle to see how we'd be able to do that in 02/2009. And one of the things one of the chief concerns that I have with this policy is the applicability of all the locations. And I understand the chair has struck the language of to and from for the vast majority of these locations, but I still, I struggle to see why we have polling places in there when only three municipalities in our entire state allow non citizens to vote. I have concerns. You know, one of the things that we brought up during testimony is that if federal law enforcement is on the scene and they suspect that voter fraud is taking place, that gives them the reason to be there. And so one of the things that I come back to is with federal law enforcement, if they want to find a way to do something, they are going to find a way to do it. And I think one of the things that we certainly, I think all 11 of us should agree upon is that we want fair, free, and valid elections in the state of Vermont. And that's one of the concerns that I have is that if we are trying to create spaces where noncitizens who do not have the ability to vote in federal elections or in state elections for that matter, If we were trying to create the ability for them to exercise that vote unlawfully, I have issues with that. I also have issues with the fact that we are creating potentially multiple spaces of quote unquote asylum in the state of Vermont. And that, again, during my line of questioning with the witnesses in this room, I continue to ask the question of how long is someone going to be permitted to remain in one of these spaces? And we never got an answer on that. And the answer that effectively that we got was that these people, these individuals could stay in these spaces indefinitely. And I just find it a hard time. And we even heard from the governor's chief counsel that on its face, how do you even implement a law like S209 with state buildings? To wrap Oliver's point is we came up with these really unique and nuanced instances where you do have, say, a federal post office renting land from either a private landowner or from the state itself across all Vermont's towns and counties. And then you create a really troublesome scenario where you are unable to provide oversight. You can create friction between the landowner and the tenants. And we don't know whether this law would be applicable. And for all those reasons, I could speak all afternoon about my concerns with this bill. I'm not going to because I know the way the vote's gonna go. But I just have a really tough time with us enabling not only unlawful, but potentially dangerous behavior and putting Vermonters in harm's way. And again, here's another bill that I will absolutely vote no on. I hope that there is a challenge to this in court. And I think the five of us who raised concerns with two zero eight on constitutionality concerns are vindicated again on this one.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Karen Lydia.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yes. So I plan to support this bill. I appreciate the work that we did on this. I feel like we did have robust discussion and testimony on this. And I know for my community, they have been specifically asking for this. And for me, I agree with both two zero eight and two zero nine. We are navigating unchartered waters. We don't know if it's going to be found constitutional or not. For me, with two zero nine, there is a difference that it's building on legislation that's already in existence with not allowing civil arrests in courthouses. And so I feel very confident in our ability to build on that. And I feel like it is important for us to share with community members like, yeah, we're going to expand that and see if that continues to hold. And so for me, I feel like it's responsive to folks in my community that have been asking for this. So I look forward to voting yes.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah, I think Try not to echo Erin too much, but it expands existing law in a logical way, in my opinion. We spent

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: time really

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: narrowing and clearly defining how we expanded it in a way that I think makes a lot of sense. It is very responsive to community members from my constituents as well. And all of these protections have a pretty major caveat that once someone gets a judicial warrant, they can exercise it and execute what they need to do. So I feel like it's a step that needs to be taken in Vermont. I think it's responsive in ways that believe are important, and I'm looking forward to supporting it.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Similarly, along those lines, I wanted to say specifically, I'm really glad that we were able to be responsive to and inclusive of the testimony we've heard from migrant justice, from the folks who are most directly impacted by the efforts happening right now to conduct a rest beyond where we would draw the line. And so we're drawing the line clearly for the state of Vermont, saying this is what is okay, and this is what is not okay, to the best of our ability. I just really appreciate that we added DMVs and that this bill takes into consideration and account the testimony we heard from people most directly impacted. It's not just ideas from people are sitting around, coming up with ideas. These are things that are happening to Vermonters. And so I'm grateful that we're able to do what we can to protect them.

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

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: think this bill has nothing to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: do with the law enforcement at all. It was 100%

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: geared towards the feds. I say that because we haven't had the problem that this addresses. We haven't had that problem with Vermont law enforcement. It is expanding a bill, you know, that basically says that we can, we have some jurisdiction over the feds, you know, with the court thing. I guess it says that, I don't think it's ever been challenged. The thing that goes through my mind is when we've done firearms bills in the past, if I remember right, we have to be careful on how many different places we can restrict that you can bring a firearm because if we go over a line it's considered uncontrolled and against the second amendment. And I'm just wondering if this isn't gonna do the same thing or if we're naming too many places that it's gonna cross that line, we're

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: going

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: to be restricting the feds too much I guess you could say, and because of all the reasons that I can't support the bill.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'll just comment that I feel stronger about the constitutional arguments that we have for this particular bill as opposed to S-two zero eight because of the government either having core services involved or that it's actually state property in many instances. I got some comfort from the Northern District Of New York opinion that is on our website. So are we gonna win this? That's a good question. But I think the arguments are strong or stronger certainly than than what I saw as two zero eight. So that's why I support it. So unless there's other questions, I I actually am I apologize to everybody that I'm going to need to actually go back to two zero eight because I have a second vote. There's two votes I'm supposed to take on this. One is for the draft, and the second is that we report favorable with a proposal amendment. So this first vote is just on this amendment, and this will just be a straw poll, and then I will have uphold the bill rules by the second motion. So all those in favor of draft number 3.1 or dash 3.1 of s two zero nine, Either raise your hand or say aye. Coach, are you there? I see Everybody that you would say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Nay. Okay. So six-five. And so I take a motion that we report as school nine. I realize we only are 11 in here, but how can you have a number attached to a voice vote? Oh, well, was we just took it it a straw No. Was just a straw poll, but and now we're gonna take the vote. Right. Because we always do Right. No. Well, we did

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: a voice vote, but and then you attached number to it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I heard that six people said yes, but then the five I've just never seen a voice vote with a number attached to it. The numbers are spot on. Absolutely right. I apologize. It did prevail, though. I guess that's what I was supposed to say. I just have it. I get what you're saying. I apologize for that. Sure. So yes, did you say 209? This is 209 right now. Yes.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: 09.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I'm going to go back to 208 in a minute. Right now we're doing 209.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Sorry. I'm confused. No. That's fine. We're so When did we vote on the amendment to two what did we vote on in 02/2008 in the first place?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We voted on the amendment. I the the motion that I still need is that we report the two zero eight favorable with proposal of amendment. It's just a second. We vote on the amendment first, and then we vote on to report the bill out favorable with the proposed amendment. And that's just somebody's drop ball? No. The second vote is done by

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I guess I was confused about the straw poll. We're retaking the vote that we previously took by vote. Right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So let me make very clear. We just took a straw poll on draft number 3.1 of s two zero nine. And I was next going to ask for a motion Can I make a suggestion? Let's get two zero nine right now. Right, that's what I'm going do. For motion for two zero nine. Yes, yes. So it's two zero nine that I take a motion that we report as two zero nine favorable with a proposal of amendments. Families. Okay. So we're doing the amendment? We're doing two zero nine. But the amendment was a straw poll. For now we're doing the actual vote.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's correct.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. Yes. I messed up on two zero nine. We're on two zero nine. Third, we call the vote. Arsenault? Yes. Roland? Yes.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Rutland? Yes. Roseland, no. Harvey? No. Malay?

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Oliver? No. Rachelson? Yes. Christie?

[Rep. Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Burditt?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. Malay? Yes. So going back to 02/2008, it was a straw poll that I followed the rule, not a big deal that we did that way. But we're going to now take a motion that we report S-two zero eight favorable with the proposal amendment. Is there that motion?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Second. Karen.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Karen, I seconded. Okay. Any questions at all clear now that I okay. So the court can call the roll. That's two zero

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: You don't mind if I get caught up here, dear?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, no, go ahead.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Thank you. Bless you. Arsenault?

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Dolan? Yes. Goodnow?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yes. Houseplant, no. Harvey? No. Hawaii? No. Oliver? No. Rachelson? Yes. Chris, safe? Yes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Perfect. Go on. Yes. And you can just throw out the other or recycle the other vote because it's as drop down. We don't have that big board. Okay, thank you everybody. I know who's reporting these. That one is Ian. 209 is Ian. Karen is 208. Barbara is 404. Why we take ten minutes break, and then we're gonna Yes.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And so I know typically I would say it's from what I understand, it is atypical for committee members to speak out against bills that are coming from their county of jurisdiction. However, if they are planning to do so, that they should notify the chair. So I guess consider that your notification plan. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'll agree. Definitely right. Yeah, thank you.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I just I'd figure on camera and let you know.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yep, well, it's great.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I appreciate that. Always transparent.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We'll take ten minutes, and we're gonna start on one ninety. I'm gonna go back to one ninety three since we have the commissioner here.