Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: I'm sure it was it
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: was an exciting fall.
[Unidentified Senator]: You know what think it's we're all
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: out for that. You're sad. Senate will come to order. In lieu of a devotional, I would ask for a moment of silence for lawmakers from the state of Minnesota who were attacked in their homes over the weekend. Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette. Their assailant has been captured, and, our prayers are with Thank you. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: United States Of America and to the republic for which stands,
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: By way of announcement, let me just give you a preview of the day. So as many of you know, the governor will be out of town in the morning and into the early afternoon. We've had to plan around that because that will put the Lieutenant Governor in the acting governor role and put me in the podium unable to vote. So what we will do this morning is proceed with items that are on our action calendar or a conference of the whole about the Ed bill. We had planned to start with the conference of the whole, but we're having a slight delay because of copying issues. So what I will do is gavel us in and ask that we move directly to the second reading of the elections bill, H four seventy four, an act relating to miscellaneous changes to election law. So with that said of the day, we have up for action h four seventy four, an act relating to miscellaneous changes to election law. Please listen to the second reading of that bill.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: H four seventy four, an act relating to miscellaneous changes to election law.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: H four seventy four was referred to the committee on government operations, which reports that it is considered the bill and recommends that the Senate propose to the House that the bill be amended as appears in today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. I would call on the Senator from Rutland. Excuse me. Senator White, I believe, from Nope.
[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Sorry about that call.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senator from Rutland, senator Collumore.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president, and good morning, everyone. So on the May 30, it became evident that this elections bill had had a number of bumps along the way. The senate government operations committee took testimony on this bill for a good two months and heard considerable testimony. So what I felt incumbent upon me to do was to contact the secretary of state's office and come up with a much thin version of the strike all, which you will find on page 3,300 of today's calendar. And what I suggested and asked of the secretary of state's office was to come up with a must have set of provisions in that bill so that we could take a look at it and possibly move it along. And knowing that there's a time sensitivity aspect to this as well, what you have on page 3,300 reflects those changes. So I'm gonna walk through the first, 12 sections of the bill and then yield to my colleagues from Windsor County. Sections four and five are the first ones in the bill that were not taken off in terms of the must have provisions. Section four creates a new subsection entitled 17, Reading in no event shall a candidate who loses a major party primary by nominated or be nominated to appear on the general election ballot pursuant to this subchapter by a committee or any party other than the party for which the candidate appeared on the primary ballot. Section five in the same measure also, prohibits a candidate who loses a major party for any office shall not appear on the general election as an independent candidate for the same office for which the candidate lost in the primary election. Section seven is the next section that we took up. This is miscellaneous changes to electronic ballot delivery law, and again, it amends title 17 to define an overseas voter as a person who was last domiciled in Vermont before leaving The United States and resides outside The United States. This aligns with the federal definition of overseas voter. It will also enable voters who participate in the secretary of state's address confident confidentiality program to receive their ballots electronically. It does not allow for electronic voting in terms of being able to send those ballots back. Sections nine through 12 have to do with write in candidates. This turned into major revisions to help our town clerks who had asked for many of these. And in section, nine, it amends a new subsection to require a write in candidate file a form no later than 5PM on the Thursday preceding the election for that write in candidate, for their votes to count. Of note, it's also check section 17 in a to be designated subsection b would increase the threshold for a right in candidate to win a primary election so that a right in candidate had to receive the same number of votes as the number of signatures required for the candidate's office, and I will be offering a floor amendment later which reverts back to current law and allows for one half of that number to be counted. Section 10 amends title 17 to require writing candidate to file a form no later than 5PM on Thursday preceding the election for that write in vote to count. And, again, I'll explain that as we go further along why this is necessary. Section 11 amends title 17. In brief, if a vote for a write in candidate in any election for general assembly, state office, or federal office that have not registered by 5PM on Thursday before the election, the vote shall be counted as other write ins unless the candidate is already filed a consent form. A ballot has no names for the office, a printed candidate dies, or there are equal or more other Vogue in, write in votes than the apparent winner, in which case the writing would be the winner. The election officials counting ballots and tallying results shall only list the names and votes received of registered write in candidates in these circumstances. And finally, section 12 amends that same provision to require a write in candidate for the US presidency to register no later than 5PM, the Thursday preceding the election. We spent a lot of time considering when that deadline should be in law, the house when it sent the bill over included a provision that would have said 7PM on election night and until that point, the right candidate would be eligible. The clerks for the most part and we heard great testimony from the clerk and the treasurer's association wanted a little bit more breathing room if you will, so that by 05:00 on the Thursday preceding the election, they would be able to set up a system where they would know ahead of time who had requested to be a writing candidate, and it would probably relieve them of a lot of pressure on election night and not require them to be counting until two or 03:00 in the morning. So that's where we landed at 05:00, you know, the close of business on the Thursday preceding the election, and it seemed to make a lot of sense to us. So those are my sections of the bill. I will now yield to the senior senator from Windsor County, senator Klutz.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senator from Windsor.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you.
[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: So I'll be dealing with sections 13 through 17, which address campaign finance, registration and reporting. These sections aim to provide transparency and clarity to campaign finance and streamlines the process for ballot production by requiring registration for all candidates with the Vermont Secretary of State's office. Section 13 requires all candidates to register with the Secretary of State prior to filing their consent form. This change enables several process improvements with benefits for the candidates and for transparency. First, it will allow the Secretary of State to send courtesy filing deadline reminders, always very useful, for the new campaign finance system to candidates, thus decreasing the likelihood of candidates inadvertently overlooking filing deadlines. Second, it will prevent candidates from slipping through the cracks of public awareness and will enable easier searching of the new campaign finance system as the format of the candidate's name on the consent form and ballot will match with the format on the campaign finance file. These changes are enabled, as many of you may be aware, the secretary of state's invested in a a new campaign finance filing system, which is now current up and running on the secretary of state's website, and it's much easier and more intuitive to use, I think you'll find, and should make candidate reporting simpler to accomplish. It also clarifies the name you use on your consent form, that the name you use on your consent form is the one that will be on the ballot and it keeps the threshold of $500 for reporting every dollar spent or received above $500 Sections 14 through 17 address the campaign finance for PACs for political action committees and the subset of PACs which needed a new definition now called independent expenditure only political committees. In these sections we define them, we require them to register and report, do their finance reporting. It's a bunch of of sort of technical, requirements. Independent expenditure only political committees are defined as the following. Anyone or more, anyone of more or more individuals or any corporation, labor organization, public interest group, or other entity excluding a political party that accepts contributions or makes expenditures in any amounts within a two year general election cycle for the purposes this is the key for the purposes of supporting or opposing candidates influencing an election or advocating for or against a public question. These sections that I referred to close the loopholes on independent expenditures by ensuring that even a single high spending actor one person must report activity designed to influence an election or a public question. They ensure that the PACS and independent expenditure only political committees must list a treasurer and report contributions if they raise or spend at least $500 To add greater transparency to how PACs and independent expenditure committees spend their money, we lowered the reporting threshold from $1,000 to $500 to make it comparable to candidates. We chose to set the threshold for PACs and independent expenditure only political committees at $500 so that we didn't capture the small local efforts to elect or influence votes on a school issue, on a select board issues, or a town issue. Because we all know that people can spend very little but be effective in local races. And we didn't want to have to have them go through the whole effort of filing and registering. These changes will provide greater consistency in requirements for campaigns and improve public transparency, which I think we all appreciate. I now yield to the middle senator from the Windsor District.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Middle senator from Windsor District.
[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president, and good morning, everyone. It's nice to see you. I know that this is the bill you've all been with bated breath waiting to hear, so I'll get right into it. I start on page three three one two of today's calendar if you'd like to follow along, and we start with the audit of the voter checklist within district boundaries. This section requires that town clerks and the board of civil authority and municipalities with multiple legislative districts, they must audit their voter checklist to ensure the checklist correspond with the prescribed district boundaries. See recent election situation in our state where we may have wanted more clarity about the boundaries within a district that overlaps multiple municipalities. It also requires the Vermont secretary of state to notify the relevant clerk and those BCAs of their responsibility and to provide them with training and support. It requires each town clerk to provide the Vermont secretary of state with a written summary of their audit, and it requires that the Vermont secretary of state submit a report to the legislature, which is due November 15. Sections twenty and twenty one seek to strengthen and clarify the definition of voter fraud. We see that it prohibits someone from voting more than once in the same election, whether it be more than once in Vermont or for the same office in both Vermont and in other states. Going and flying in the face of the joke, vote early, vote often. We want you to vote once, and we want you to vote for that correct election, and we're clarifying that language. Sections twenty three and twenty eight, you'll notice there are some deleted sections throughout this bill, but sections twenty three and twenty eight are review period to examine petitions. When petitions are filed, the receiving officer so for us, that might be your your district officer. They must examine those petitions and determine whether they contain enough legible signatures. This proposal changes the review period from seventy two hours to two business days, and this change will generally improve the experience of candidates as filings made between Monday and Wednesday will receive a quicker and faster turnaround. Section 25 through 26 looks at nomination of our justices of the peace and their deadline. The deadline updates this to assist in November ballot production by moving the j p nomination deadline from the postprimary period to the third Monday in July. We've heard from our clerk's association as the chair of our committee noted numerous times, and our clerks face a heavy workload immediately after the August primary, and the Vermont secretary of state also faces a tight timeline turnaround after the primary to print and mail those ballots for that general election. This change will better distribute the clerk's workload and reduce the chance of errors and risks to the universal general election mailing schedule. Section 27 is a guidance section for opening ballots. This has this is 17 BSA two fifty forty six, and this is an important deadline update that did not get revised when universal vote by ballot vote by mail was implemented. It allows the town clerks and BCAs, those boards of civil authorities, to open ballots beginning forty five days before election day. The thirty days that had been in statute seems to have been an oversight in the past, and when the organization required ballots to be mailed forty five days in advance, you can see that discrepancy. By updating to forty five days to align with that universal to align with universal vote by mail ballot standards, this change will eliminate confusion for clerks on what to do with between the forty five to thirty one day period of that window. It also ensures that voters will be able to promptly see their return ballot status on the Vermont secretary of state my voter page, excellent resource as my compatriot noted, and that voters with defective ballots will have ample time to cure their ballots and ensure that their vote is counted. The next section, section 29, if you're following along, is around open meeting law and the annual meeting. It expressly exempts the annual meeting from open meeting law. It also explicitly aligns statute that with how the Vermont Secretary of State and the Vermont League of Cities and Towns have traditionally interpreted annual meetings as distinct from public meetings subject to open meeting law. And you can see that annual meetings are meetings of the legal voters in each town, which is distinct from both state and local public bodies where open meeting law applies. So think about your select board, your your planning commission, open meeting law affecting them, but not your giant town meeting public event that you host. Section 37, you'll notice a lot of sections deleted between 2937, really skinny in that bill as the chair noted. This section 37 has a clarification for automatic voter registration and citizenship. It clarifies that US citizenship is required for automatic voter registration. This section aligns statute with the Department of Motor Vehicles' current practice of only transmitting applicant information to the Vermont secretary of state if the applicant attests to being a US citizen or if the DMV has already had received documentation of their citizenship status. It also clarifies that the applicant's e nine one one address should be used to help ensure clerks assign voters to the proper district. That essentially brings me to the end of my sections other than the effective dates. We have section 40 setting all actions effective on passage. So I'm going to read you the witness list, and then that's all for me. We would like to thank our legislative council. We had two fantastic legislative councilors who supported us in this. We would like to thank and these are folks we heard from. We would like to thank the House Committee on Government Operations, who their chair came and testified. We had a resident of the city of Burlington. We had the executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. We had the executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association. We had the deputy director of legislative affairs for a group called Verified Voting. We heard from the president of the Vermont School Boards Association. We also heard from multiple times our deputy secretary of state from the secretary of state's office, big shout out to their work. We heard from the clerk from Orange County, who is also the lead for their legislative affairs group within the Vermont Municipal Clerks and Treasurer's Association. We heard from a former legislator from Virginia. We heard from the director of elections and campaign finance from the secretary of state's office. We heard from the lead lobbyist for the Vermont Municipal Municipal Clerk and Treasurer's Association. We heard from the Vermont Right to Life political action committee. We heard from the ranking member of government operations on the house side. We heard from a different resident of the city of Montpelier. And then we also heard from the assistant attorney general and chief of general counsel and administrative law division within the attorney general's office. With that, the vote out of committee was four to one, and I am excited to hear, I believe, an upcoming amendment perhaps on this bill. Thank you.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Thank you. I believe the senator from Windsor yields to the senator from Roe.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you. I feel yielded. I just wanna express my appreciation and thanks as well to the deputy secretary of state and the director of elections. We worked very closely, and even as late as this past weekend, we were still communicating, and that is in essence the, reason for the amendment, which is now being passed out. This looks like a two page long to understand amendment, but in reality, it isn't. If you want to look at page thirty three zero two of today's calendar, about halfway down that page, there is a reference made to the right in candidate threshold. Current law allows a right in candidate to go out and obtain 25 signatures if they're running for a house position and 50 signatures for the senate, which is half of what everyone in this body, I think, has managed to collect in every other year. This was and I'll, this is on me. I didn't notice this when we were talking about it for the last time in committee. So I did communicate with the deputy secretary of state over the weekend. This would have been one of those that did not fall into the must have provision. So we have included it as an amendment. And all this does was take what is current law and make it current again, put it back into place so that in essence, the number of signatures required for the candidate's office would be half of the number of votes as the number of signatures required for the, listed candidates. The committee vote was unanimous on this amendment, five zero, and we ask the senate for its concurrence. Thank you, mister president.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, senator from Rutland. The question is, shall the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on government operations be amended as moved by the senator from Rutland? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the proposal from the committee on government operations. Questions now is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations? Are you ready for that question? Senator from Rutland.
[Unidentified Senator]: Thank you, mister president. If I may interrogate the lead reporter, senator Caldmore.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senator will be interrogated.
[Unidentified Senator]: Regarding section seven, which deals with, delivery of early voter absentee ballots, three quarters way down the page, paragraph three, which provides a definition for overseas voters having lived in that environment for many years. I'm curious why the committee chose or the conference committee chose the definition being attached to last domicile versus last registration because lots of expats domicile to follow work, but they maintain registration in Vermont. So why the choice between domicile and registration?
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: And I thank the senator for the question. I think in essence, the two are the same, very similar. If they are still registered, mister president, as a a voter in a particular district just because they're not there at the time of the election, they would still be considered a a a legitimate voter.
[Unidentified Senator]: Okay. I I thank the senator, and, thank you, mister president. I I I do recommend, that, that issue of domicile versus registration be looked at in the future, and I'll I'll articulate that directly with the senator senior senator from Rutland because there is quite a distinction. Thanks.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Thank you. Question again is shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill and recommend his body committee on
[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: government operations. Senator Nash. Thank you, mister president.
[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I would like to inquire
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: of the presenter opinion.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Presenter will be interior.
[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Mister president, I'm wondering if we could find out why section one was deleted. This was a study of ranked choice voting, which seems like something that the senate has passed in in prior years and is successful in other states and jurisdictions and nations. And as it was just a study, why it's being struck.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: I thank you, senator, mister president. Again, this goes back to when we talked as a committee. We pushed the date out to 2028 for the study to be completed by the secretary of state's office, which in essence meant since it's a presidential primary, situation that that would not be able to be taken up until 2032. So the feeling, I believe, and I don't mean to speak for the secretary of state's office, but the feeling was if this still is a hot topic, so to speak, it could certainly be taken up in the less in the next elections bill, which will probably be at this point, sometime in 2027. So it isn't necessarily dealt with in this bill, it probably didn't make a lot of difference in terms of when the report was going to be due and what it meant for an eventual, ability to use ranked choice voting. It was just in the presidential primaries. And, again, because of the date changes, we felt that it was, enough to just delete it for this particular bill, but it might be taken up at a later date.
[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Okay. Thank you, mister president. My other question is in section five, division B. There's two what the the reader heading excuse me comment is one by candidacy provisions. And I understand the section four one which allows a candidate in the primary of a major party not to be on the general election ballot under another party. But five b doesn't allow them to become an independent candidate on the primary election. I don't see this as two bites of the apple, so to speak, because they didn't have a bite of the of of the general, and they're they're not going to a different party, which I see have a problem with being in a primary of one party, but then a general election of another party. But independent candidates, I think we want to have an open general election ballot and that people that want to be on that ballot should be allowed to be on that ballot. And so I wonder what problem we're feeling like we're solving or that the the the committee is feeling like we're solving and not allowing somebody to become an independent ballot just because they were a candidate in the primary.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Again, I think the the answer is that the candidate has already run and lost in a primary election, and so it would be two bites, if you will, at the same piece of fruit, in order for them to be able to run again. Regardless of the party affiliation, if they ran in the primary as an independent candidate and lost, the same rule would apply.
[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Alright. Thank you, mister president. I thank the senator, and I I do thank the Government Operations Committee for this bill and lot from my town clerks who really are supportive of this bill. And even though I disagree with these two decisions, I think the provision that we just talked about is a restriction of ballot access and I think we should not limit the access to the ballot. I think it's an anti democratic activity. It's it's something that political parties want but I think it's bad for voters to limit access. I don't think it harms anyone to to to allow this. I think for the parties, I can see why you would want to do that but for an independent candidate, I think it's it's an anti democratic change But but given the other benefits that in this bill for the for the clerks and around writing candidates, I'm going to vote for the for the bill. Thank you.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast.
[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I wonder if I might inquire of the reporter of the bill.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Reporter will be interrogated.
[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: So, I wonder, mister president, would a write in candidate under these new rules that registers the Friday beforehand, And if they were to lose as a writing candidate in a primary, would they then be excluded from running as an independent as well or taking the nomination from the other party, or would the writing candidacy be somehow exempted from having been on the ballot?
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: I will ask for a one minute recess.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: I'll declare a one minute recess.
[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: To be on the democratic ballot, did
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: you? No.
[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Yeah. The bureau.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senate will resume. I would.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: I believe, mister president, that the, senator from Chittenden has the answer.
[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I thank the senator, mister president. I do have the answer, and I'll just make another comment before I yield the floor. Thank I thank the senator. So my understanding is that, from what was just discussed is that a right in candidate register under these new rules the Friday before for a primary like a a democratic primary, if they were to lose and that right in candidacy not be successful, they would not be able to take the nomination of another candidacy, and run on the in the general election, nor, I guess, even timing wise, they wouldn't be able to run as an independent. I share the concerns raised by the senator from Washington, and I do see this as antidemocratic. I want more people to vote, and I want more people to run for office. This is not all roses and sunshine. We need more good people to step forward and put their names on the ballot, and I I just see this as making it harder to do so. So I'll be voting against this bill, mister president, but I thank you for the time.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, senator. Question again is shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations. Senior senator from Chittenden Southeast.
[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire of, I believe, the chair of the committee, mister president?
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senator from Rutland will be interrogated.
[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. The in the bill, there is a language regarding which political when we need to register with the secretary of state's office based on money received. My question is, was there any discussion in committee regarding the effect of Citizens United and the increased amount of funding that comes from outside dollars into our state that influences our elections?
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: I thank the senator for the question, mister president. Yes. We took considerable testimony specifically about that issue, and that's why in the bill, one person has been or an individual has been singled out as counting for, the independent candidate situation.
[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. Was there any discussion about limiting the, contributions that can be made either from in state or out of state, vote.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: We did take testimony, mister president, on that. In fact, at one point in the strike all bill, we reduced the threshold to zero for, the so called I'm gonna call them packs because I think most people understand that more than the four or five word definition that's in the bill. We were assured by the attorney general's office that that could be problematic down the road, so we pushed the limit up to $500, which agrees with what the candidates have at the moment.
[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. I I guess the concern is that going forward, all of our elections will be influenced by increasing, contributions from outside of the state and possibly within the state from organizations about which we know very little or where the money is coming from. And so I would, just encourage the Committee on Government Operations to continue its work in this area and to look at any, bills introduced that might have an effect on what we have come to know as, the Citizens United decision. Thank you, mister president.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: And, mister president, I'll just conclude by saying I agree with the, the senator's concerns, and I think this bill is the first step toward increased transparency for those who are out of state perhaps and have a pocketbook that's much larger than mine.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, senator. Senator Fromadison.
[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanna thank the, senator from, Rutland, the chair of the GovOps Committee, for making sure this bill moves forward. Those of you who were here last biennium may recall the elections bill. At the end of last session, I I was standing for, I think, four hours, talking about that bill, and it didn't make it over the finish line. So it's been a few years since we've had an election bill. We tend to do election bills only in nonelection years so that we're not changing the rules of the game during an election during the game. So this one was, teetering on the edge, and I, really appreciate the efforts of the senator from Rutland and the secretary of state's office for getting this bill moving so that we could get these provisions. I know not everybody loves everything in the bill. That's true for every elections bill because nobody loves to debate elections more than elected officials. But, I think that, it is a solid bill, and I'm I'm just really happy that we're gonna get this done and hopeful that hopefully get it over to the other body. Thank you, mister president.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, senator. Question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed,
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: nay. Nay.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have amended the bill as recommended by the Committee on Government Operations. Question now is, shall the bill be read the third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay.
[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Aye.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have ordered third reading of, h four seventy four. I would look to the senior senator from Rutland for a motion.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. So I move that the senate rules be suspended and that h four seventy four be placed in all remaining stages of passage.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senator from Rutland has moved that the rules be suspended and that four seventy four be placed in all remaining stages of passage. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have moved H-four 74 through all remaining stages of passage. We have for third rating H-four 74. Are there any amendments before third reading? Seeing none, please listen to the third reading of the bill.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: H four seventy four. An act relating to miscellaneous changes to election law.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for that question? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Aye.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed h four seventy four. I would look to the senator for another motion.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. I further move that the senate rules be suspended and that the bill number, for h four seventy four be messaged to the house forthwith.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senior senator from Rutland has moved that h four seventy four be messaged to the house forthwith. Are you ready for that question? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have messaged your actions on h four seventy four to the house forthwith. I would look to the senior senator from Windsor.
[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. I would like, to move, if I may, that s one twenty five be returned to senate economic development housing and general affairs.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: The senior senator from Windsor has moved that s one twenty five, an act relating to collective bargaining, be returned to the committee on economic development through a suspension of the rules. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and you have returned S-one 125 to the committee on government operations. I we have now S 51, conference committee report on an act relating to the Vermont unpaid caregiver tax credit. I would look to the senior senator from the Washington District, senator Cummings.
[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. S 51, when it left this body, was a fairly short bill. It established a tax credit for people that provide care for a family member or someone else. The idea behind it is, the number we have from AARP is something like 71,000 people provide care, usually for a relative, sometimes for somebody else, but generally for a relative. And that this keeps people from having to go to nursing homes, delays nursing home, and these caregivers frequently need to leave the workforce or take a lesser job, a part time job, and we should give them some help in their taxes. When the bill came back to us, that provision had been struck, and I believe it is three other tax credits had been put in its place. Maybe there's four here. All but one of them were in the budget, and it is my understanding that the funding for these tax credits was riding in the budget, but the bills were still active. The house actually did not call the final meeting of the committee of conference until after age four fifty four has been voted out of both bodies. So what we have and what we have agreed to, and I will tell you the reasons, is section one is the Vermont Child Tax Credit. And this basically says if federal law changes and you're being denied a tax credit because you or your spouse don't have a federal tax number, you still get the credit in Vermont. We're kind of freeing ourselves. If you're a resident of Vermont and you have a child under the age of six, you get the tax credit. This may increase the I thought it increased the age to seven, but I am not finding that on the page. It expands the earned income tax credit, again, separating it from any future federal laws, which may say you can't get a tax credit if you don't have a number, but it expands that for individuals who do not have children. The reason for that is the earned income tax credit is much more generous for people who have children. You get an increment for each child. But for people who don't have children, is very small. And so and these are poor people, people, I believe, under 35, 37,000. And so this would allow them 100% of that credit against different banks or income tax credit. This third section increase just continues what we have done for several years, which is to raise the amount of Social Security you can deduct according to your income. We have raised that every couple years to keep pace with inflation. It raises the amount, and it's staggered. It's you can deduct you know, if you can deduct it all, if, we're going from 50 to 55, and then we just do the same kind of staged increase that we do now, moving everybody up by that $5,000. It, and then there's concurring for civil service retirement. We've gotten everybody, including military pensions, under that same income level. The next thing this, bill does is it goes to military and survivor benefits, and it sets up a different structure income structure for them to deduct, and I am looking for that here. Okay. Military survivor benefits. You can deduct the full amount if your if the taxpayer of your income is less than a $125,000 a year and but less than a 175. So it does that same kind of staging for that. We do require that you can only accept one exclusion. So when you hit 65, you can exclude both your civil service and your Social Security. You've gotta choose one of the other. The exception to that will be the military retirement, and survivor benefits exclusion under section d of this section may elect that exclusion regardless of whether the taxpayer also elects an exclusion under sections a through c of this section. So we give more flexibility to military retirement. And then finally, what this bill does, it it sets up a, tax credit for veterans. Military retirement I think we all tend to look at the wounded warrior ads and think that's who military retirement is benefiting. It isn't. They generally, because they come back as a wounded warrior, can't serve the twenty years necessary to to, get a pension. And what this and we find that some of our vet our veterans come back, physically, mentally, emotionally damaged, and do have difficulty struggling when they get back here in holding a job. We find there's some of them show up in our homeless population. This would allow a tax credit If there your adjusted gross income of the taxpayer is less than or equal to 25,000 a year, the amount of the tax credit provided under this section shall be $250. And then, we take it up to if it's between 25 and 30,000, it'll be 25 less $5 per $100 federal adjusted gross income. We have to walk. We've tried to help this group of veterans, which frequently, mister president, are dependent on general assistance. And the tax credit works because when we've done things before, it would impact your eligibility for other programs such as SNAP. And we've had to work around that so that in the end, we didn't create a a place where these veterans would be better off. We asked why did you strip our caregiver tax credit? And we were told the tax department said they really didn't think it was doable and didn't really feel comfortable doing it. We heard from the tax department. There were several issues with our tax credit. One is we can't put a number on it. It was up to a $2,000 tax credit. If you believe AARP, there's 71,000 people providing care. That's a lot of money. But we don't think everybody would qualify. This we required that you get a doctor's note saying that the person you were caring for was did have difficulty with their activities of daily living, feeding themselves, dressing themselves, right, mobility. So that was the one documentation, but there was no documentation as to how many hours. It was all on attestation. That is unlike any other tax credit we give. And at this point, and it was the last day of the session, I think very late in the afternoon, we decided to go for the greater good for the greater number of people to accept the house's version with the commitment that we will go back and try and fine tune that caregiver tax credit so that it will work with, you know, we can get something that the tax department will feel comfortable being able to administer. And so we would ask this body to serve.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, senator. Question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee on conference? Senator Fermatis.
[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire of the senator the tall senator from Chittenden South East?
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: I would I would ask that we not use physical qualities.
[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: So Fair, fair, absolutely fair. I don't know. I couldn't remember where the Senator, I think the middle Senator. The one who's trying to stand right
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: now.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senator named for a former governor. If he so chooses.
[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I do. Thank you, mister president. I was under the I did was, indicated to me that, the, senator from Addison might want to inquire of me regarding this report since I was on the committee Can
[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: I please ask the question first? Miss Sure. So, mister president, as the senator is starting to indicate, I talked, with the senator and another member of the conference committee about the, original provisions that were in this bill, which, as the senior senator from Washington has, talked about, was caregiver tax credit, and I had, inquired whether it would be possible to put in this, conference committee report a a report back from the tax department about the feasibility of that and have them work through, some of the challenges that they apparently saw with administering that tax credit. And I'm wondering, why the report didn't make it into the conference committee.
[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I would I would echo comments made by the chair of senate finance and also, the member of the senate, the conference committee that, in the end, it was very late in the day and to, that, we are going to look at it again next year and the concerns that were raised. As for the report, what I I would also add is that it was communicated in conversations throughout the building and that hurried day and the days leading up to it that the tax department is already being asked to do a lot for this coming year, especially in light of the the bigger bill that I think is on a lot of people's minds today, that the an additional report, was a little too much of an ask at that time. So I think that would be one other additional comment I would add to the question.
[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Okay. I thank the senator. So, mister president, I I understand, why there were concerns about the administration of this tax credit, but I just wanna remind the senate that this bill, as it passed out of the senate, s 51, was a bipartisan bill that had unanimous support in the Senate. Everyone voted for it, and it is, it would have been a tax credit that would have benefited thousands of Vermonters who care for family members without compensation. And, what I see in this report is a lot of great tax policy. I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm going to vote for this bill, and I I think it's it's good tax policy. But the conference committee failed to, put anything in the bill that even nodded to the senate's position of this, on this bill. And so I just want to express my disappointment that there's not even a report back from the tax department. Yes. They are busy. But if they have concerns about what a unanimous vote in the senate about a tax policy, the very least they can do is provide a report to us. So, I just wanted to stand to express my disappointment. That is a very important tax provision, and I, hope that the tax department is listening and will do some work in the off session to ensure that we can pass it next session. Thank you, mister president.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, senator. Question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee on conference? Senator Furmellen.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. I'd just like to compliment, thank, and show my appreciation to the conferees, from our side on this. As many of you know, I've been here eleven years, and it seems like every year, I've tried at least incrementally to, put legislation in which would benefit our military veterans. And this, I think, is not incremental at all. I think that's a huge step, and thank them. And I would ask when the vote is taken, we take it by rule.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senior senator from Rutland has asked that the vote be taken by rule. I'll repeat the question. Shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee on of conference? Are you ready for that question? Senator from Windsor.
[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: I'm a vote. The bell is thank you. The bell is being rung. That was
[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: going to be my question.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Are there any further questions? Seeing none a roll call vote has been requested and I would ask that the secretary call the roll.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Yes. Senator Brown.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Brennan.
[Senator Patrick "Pat" Brennan]: Yes.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Brock.
[Senator Randy Brock]: Yes.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Senator Chittenby.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Yes. Senator Clarkson.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Yes. Senator Caldwell. Yes.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Cummings.
[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Yes.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Douglas. Yes. Senator
[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Harvey. Yes.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Harrison. Senator Hart. Yes.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Hafferman? Yay. Senator Ingalls? Yes.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Lyon? Yes. Wilson.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Blutens. Yes.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Please listen to the results of your vote. Yeas, 28. Nays, zero. And you have accepted and adopted the report of the committee of conference. I would now look to the senior senator from Rutland for yet another motion to message our actions via a rule suspension to the governor forthwith.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president, for the heads up. I move that the rules of the senate be suspended, and we message our actions just taken on s 51 to the house forthwith.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: I will amend in a friendly way to the governor forthwith, if I may, senator.
[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Yes.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Senator from Rutland has moved that our rules be suspended in order to message the actions just taken on s 51 to the governor forthwith. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have messaged your actions on s 51 to the governor forthwith. We have a resolution to take up at this time. Senate resolution offered by all senators in the chamber. Please listen to a reading of that resolution.
[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: SR 17. Senate resolution honoring the outstanding legislative staff service of Chrissy Gilhooly and extending to her best wishes for her future success. Whereas for a number of years, the cheerful presence of Chrissy Gilhooly has graced the general assembly as she has effectively, enthusiastically performed several critical staff roles. And whereas, whether serving as the supervisor of the committee services and legislative council twenty fifteen through 2017, ensuring that the committee assistants were properly performing their duties, working as a joint fiscal office staff associate from '20 to 2022, engaging in in key interbranch communication activities and working directly on legislative matters with the senate committee on appropriations. And since 10/30/2022, ex executing her duties as the senate operations manager and general clerk supporting the orderly conduct of senate business on and off the floor and the publication of the senate journal, Krissy Gillhooly has always worked conscientiously in a nonpartisan manner and with the highest degree of professional work. And whereas her competency and proficiency in each of these positions drew on her prior private and non experience encompassing communications, logistics, marketing, and management, and spanning theoretical theoretical. Yeah. I'll get it. Theater. Future administration, retail ownership, and a variety of other enterprises. And whereas Vermont state senators know they can always rely on Chrissy Gillespie for essential assistance in the legislative process, and that the caliber of her contributions is unsurpassed. And whereas her employment record in the senate and throughout the general assembly has set a standard of excellence for others to follow. And whereas Chrissy Gillhoun's stellar reputation previously attracted the attention of the executive branch in which she served at the department of finance and management and, once again, the leadership of the Pavilion Building has successfully beckoned her to return where she will master a new challenge at the agency of administration. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate. The the senate of the state of Vermont honors the outstanding legislative staff service of Chrissy Gilhooly and extends to her best wishes for shoot future success and be it further resolved that the secretary of senate be directed to send a copy of this res resolution to Christie Galbally.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: Just like to clarify for the press, that was not applause for poaching from the legislative branch. We will be truly sorry to to lose Chrissy. Now you've heard the reading of the resolution. Question is, shall the senate adopt the resolution? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have adopted the resolution SR 17. At this time, we've cleared off the action calendar, but before we break, I would like to call on legislative council and our crack team of drafters for the conference report and do a caucus of the whole. I believe that is the request. So what I will be doing in just a moment is gaveling out, but everyone should remain seated. And we will hear from legislative council and the chair of the conference committee and the others about what is in front of you in the conference committee report. The intention then is to break and have lunch and then come back at two or 02:30, depending on how long this morning session goes. And I would look to the senior senator from Chittenden Southeast for a motion to adjourn until 02:30.
[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. Pending announcements, I move that we stand and adjournment until 02:00.
[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore]: 02:30. 02:30, I believe. Thank you, senator. Senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that we stand in adjournment until 02:30PM. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we will stand in adjournment until 02:30PM.