Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Me try.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: Maybe. Please. Can't talk to life.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: I know. But then Will senate please come to order? Our devotional exercises will be conducted by the reverend Ken Zan of the Chaoshan Temple of East Callis. Welcome.

[Reverend Ken Zan (Chaoshan Temple, East Calais)]: May we be inspired. May we be filled with courage and strength of purpose. May we be filled with hope and motivation. May we be inspired by that things change, The long winter, snowy and cold, yet a few warm days melt feet of snow. The first pussy willows bud, new birdsongs echo. Changes small and large in every moment remind us that for problems this too shall pass. May we be inspired by that there is good in the world. May we see with a broad vision, seeing not only disasters and difficulties, but seeing also the first responders who leap with bravery, determination, and care. Seeing people whose words and actions align and embody goodness, wisdom, and courage. Seeing clearly not only what we might hope were different, but seeing also what is hopeful, encouraging, and worthy to be emulated. May we be inspired by that what we do matters, that our every action has effects in our interconnected world. May our well intentioned actions radiate out positively through space and time. We don't know who or what will be affected by it. May we be inspired by that we do not know. Let us hold it as a source of wisdom and of wonder, as a source of possibility that there is so much that we do not know. Let us take it as a source of inspiration and openness. There are more possibilities than I can now imagine. Problems, solutions that I would not have thought possible. May we be inspired by that there is beauty in the world, the beauty of the crystal clear spring waterfall, the beauty of a child's laugh, the beauty of the good heart of the person sitting next to you. May we be inspired to live and act in line with what we value, cultivating in ourselves the goodness, wisdom, and courage we would like to see in the world, cherishing the integrity of uprightness. May we be inspired, May we be filled with courage and strength of purpose. May we be filled with hope and motivation. May we be inspired.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any announcements? Seeing none. We have senate bill s one ninety eight being on the calendar for notice and affecting the revenues of the state under rule 31 as referred to the committee on finance. We have senate bill s three twenty seven being on the calendar for notice and affecting the revenues of the state under rule 31 is referred to the committee on finance. This is yes. Senate Bill s 89 being on the calendar for notice in carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations. Now have house bills for reference. We have h five eighty two, an act relating to adult protective services introduced by representative Noise Noise of Wolcott, and it passed the house on 03/11/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Page five eighty two, an act relating to adult protective services.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it is referred to the committee on health and welfare. We have h six thirty five, an act relating to eliminating Department of Corrections supervisory fees. Introduced by representative Hedrick of Burlington. It passed the house on 03/11/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H six thirty five, an act relating to eliminating Department of Corrections supervisory fees.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on institutions. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. Senators have on their desk now, house proposal amendment to j r s 43. What this does is to move the date of next week's joint assembly out by almost another week. That's done to give the money committees more time during next week which is their crossover week and it will make our schedule a little more uniform. So with that Mr. President I would move that the rules be suspended and that pending entry on the calendar for notice JRS 43 be taken up for immediate consideration.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: May I require may I inquire of whoever is scheduling it? There's my question is, what time is the Joint Assembly? It is not noted. Is it the same time at 10:30AM? So it will impact the morning committees.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: It appears so.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: It appears so. Thank you so much.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: We have s one seventy nine for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Chittenden North.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: Thank you, mister president. No no amendments, but there was a question yesterday.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator, you you I've been informed that you should actually wait until after the reading, and then then I'll call on you again.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S one seventy nine, an act relating to the uniform disclaimer of property interests act.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden North.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: Let me try that again. There's a question asked yesterday about timeshares and if they are allowed to be disclaimed under this this act. And I will keep my personal opinions of timeshares to myself. But I was informed that yes you can disclaim a timeshare. Order to inherit so I just want to come back to the the body and let them know that you could disclaim those. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and we've passed s one seventy nine. We have s two twelve for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two twelve, an act relating to potable water supply and wastewater system connections.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the third reading and the question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and we have passed s two twelve. We now have s two twenty seven for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, mister president. Indeed, there is a an amendment to be offered by the committee before third reading and it's being passed out now. I believe I can start speaking to it before members have it in hand. It's short. It includes three instances and it speaks directly to, the floor debate of yesterday where I hope, mister president, I made it clear that we had tried to be exhaustive in consideration of various scenarios that could take place in our schools, but that could never be full enough, especially in this moment. And so we considered all three of the scenarios or questions that were brought to us and that is what's represented in this amendment before you. The first instance of amendment is it is directly related to the lack of clarity around what should happen when a superintendent or designee is confronted with an immigration law enforcement officer. And we are including, there's probably three words in there that aren't highlighted, but are the word change that they provide official identification and a judicial warrant. So I think that's like a three word change to ensure that we are doing our due diligence, that that's an important requirement as well, official identification judicial warrant. The second instance of amendment relates to the third. So if I may, I'll speak to the third instance of amendment, which is striking out the seemingly contradictory language about not obstructing immigration law enforcement, should they access the non public areas of a school. We had a long conversation about the word obstruct and it in many ways I would say was in light of some of what we witnessed on Tuesday and the proximity ICE officers who really did not look official enough that I would want them near our kids and I imagine that a lot of school officials would have a hard time not putting themselves in between ICE and the children that they are responsible for caring for. We talked about automatic weapons, very informal clothing, face coverings. And I actually said in committee that what I would do at that point, if I was a school official that I believed was best practice would probably be to go into a shutdown similar to an active shooter drill. And so we talked about what obstruct could mean whether it's locking doors, and going into other protocols, short of essentially trying to get in a physical altercation with law enforcement that could cause more harm, damage and trauma for everyone in that community. So we landed on striking out the entire subsection on not allowing or not putting in statute a request or requirement that school officials not obstruct immigration law enforcement officials and instead we go to the second instance of amendment and ask for that model policy and procedure document to include an additional, additional best practices or model policy around what happens if law enforcement, enters a non pub public area of a school without providing that identification or a warrant. Mr. President, I believe the straw poll in our committee after receiving this language was unanimous support for this language, and we would ask for the chamber support.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: So the question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the senator from Chittenden Southeast? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the reporter of

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Again, if I misheard something, I apologize. I'm looking at the second instance of amendment Mhmm. In subdivision six, and the last sentence reads, procedure shall additionally provide, etcetera, etcetera. And then the last line of that, beginning with the preposition without providing official identification or a judicial warrant, I thought I heard the senator say when she was reporting this and as a conjunction instead of or, and I think it makes a big difference. The the language says or in the amendment, and perhaps I didn't hear the report correctly. Could I ask for clarification, miss president?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Mister president, I think this could be stylistic or it could be a a helpful suggestion for a word change, but I would note that, we are talking about creating procedures around various scenarios that could happen. So it could be that they need a procedure for a warrant that's presented but not identification. They might need a procedure for identification being presented but not a warrant, which, you know, could be very likely scenario at this time. That's I don't even know Mr. President on Tuesday if either were provided but certainly not a warrant at the time. So this allows them to develop procedures that may involve an official not providing one or the other or not providing both?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: I thank the senator. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is, shall s two twenty seven be amended as offered by the senator from Chittenden Southeast? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. So the ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and s two twenty seven has been amended as offered by the Chittenden Southeast senator. The question now is oh, the we should read it a third time now. Listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two twenty seven, an act relating to creating immigration protocols in Vermont schools.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Question now is, shall the bill pass as amended? Are you ready for the question? So all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. Ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we have passed s two twenty seven. We have on the calendar for action S two eleven introduced on 01/07/2026. It was referred to the committee on transportation, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar starting on page 438, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the revenues of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on finance, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on transportation. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two eleven, an act relating to motor vehicle inspections.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Windsor, senator White for the committee of transportation.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White]: Good morning, everyone. This is perhaps the most Vermont y bill we are gonna talk about all session Because if you are a Vermonter who has a vehicle, every year you do the annual ritual of ideally, you have been. The annual ritual of meeting with your local garage to inspect your vehicle. So every Vermonter who drives just about has an opinion about this bill. So I would pause it to you. This is our most Vermont y bill of the legislative session. If you turn to page four thirty eight as the president informed you, you will see the beginning of s two eleven. This bill started out as a bill to transition Vermont vehicle safety inspections for pleasure cars, ideally, to move them from an annual safety inspection to an every other year safety inspection. That is not what you ultimately see on your desks today or starting on page four thirty eight. You do not see a bill that is implementing that change Rather, due to thoughtful considerations of your senate transportation, what you do see in front of you is a bill that requires that we get a plan to consider a transition towards an every other year inspection that we would get from the Department of the the Agency of Transportation. So I'm going to briefly inform you about why we took this bill up and spent considerable time on it. Then I'm going to explain to you the two sections of the bill, give you the vote count, and tell you the witness list, and hopefully all within ten minutes. We started this bill, with the considerations of the revenue and the perhaps loss of revenue for the Department of Motor Vehicles and what would happen if we moved away from an annual inspection to a biannual inspection. After reviewing that, we got lots of information from the Joint Fiscal Office as well as from DMV about how we would potentially have a shortfall if transition to an every other year inspection. So with thoughtful consideration, we asked in this bill to look at a plan for how we would avoid those revenue shortfalls if you check out section one to give you a preview. We also talked about air quality and emission standards, which are something you get done on your vehicle alongside your vehicle safety inspection if you didn't already know. How do we maintain or hope to be accepted into our SIP program, if you know what that is, how do we meet those air quality standards while also moving to an every other year inspection was another key point of our conversation. I want to note that we reviewed multiple national studies that are on the record in our committee that show some important considerations because our committee identified in Senate Transportation that safety was our number one concern, this bill and all other topics related to vehicles this year. So I just wanna read a may I read a quote from

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: you may.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White]: So existing scholarship on the statistical relationship between crash rates and inspection programs is inconclusive. So let me explain what that means. That means that there are some studies that may show a connection between an annual vehicle safety inspection reducing crashes, but there isn't enough statistical analysis for us to know if that's true. So we have been asking Vermonters for many years to every year go through a vehicle safety inspection without having hard data to show that that effort is in fact reducing the likelihood of crashes or increasing safety on our roads. Further to quote, confounding variables such as differences in vehicle age distributions, climate, and road salt exposure, enforcement practice, socioeconomic factors, and overall traffic volume make it difficult for researchers to establish any causal link between inspection regimes and crash outcomes. So we don't know if vehicle annual safety inspections are actually doing the job that we've asked them to do, which is keep us safer on our roads. Yeah. So I'm gonna so that's the first big thing I wanted to tell you about. The second thing I want to note, we're on the border of New Hampshire, and they recently made the decision to do away with their inspections altogether. And what followed has been a protracted legal battle between that state and the EPA. We want to avoid that. So that is in part why we moved to a plan rather than an implementation is to make sure that we do it right and we do it the Vermont way. The final piece I wanna make before I walk you through the bill is that we also investigated as a committee the inspection manual, and you don't see those changes in this bill, but if you have questions about advisory versus failure, what actually causes Vermonters to fail their safety inspections, that conversation may be best placed when we discuss the DMV bill, I believe, next week. So if you have questions about that, happy to answer, but we investigated the inspection manual specifically in the DMV bill this year. So let me walk you through the Section one, it advises the Secretary transportation and natural resources to develop a plan to transition safety and emissions inspections programs that requires pleasure cars to be inspected once every two years beginning January 2028. We go into what the plan does. Some highlights that you can see if you're following along would be that we propose a fee structure for inspections and address the potential for different fees charged in relation to different inspection types for vehicles. We also ask to identify any anticipated impacts of state revenues during the transition to biennial inspections, as I noted before. It will outline and also we also ask them to have an outline for an outreach and education program so that Vermonters know an inspection mechanic stations and any interested party is able to participate and understand the changes. We also advise that the secretaries of transportation and natural resources include those same inspection station owners, inspection mechanics, and vehicle owners and dealers, and any other interested parties to take on a stakeholder engagement process. We asked them to do this on or before 10/15/2026. I'm not sure if people are laughing because I've done something. So I apologize. Oh, okay. Yeah. It's but on October 5 I don't know. You're just giggling, so I didn't know. 10/15/2026 is when we ask the report to come out so that we can start off strong with 2027 to be able to look at the report and review it. The committee vote was four to one, and I'm going to now read you the witness list. We heard from the Director of Enforcement Safety from DMV, the Commissioner of DMV, the Finance Director of DMV, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Supervisor from DMV, we heard from JFO Legislative Council, We heard from the mobile sources section chief of the air quality quality division from the agency of natural resources. We heard from the deputy commissioner DMV. We heard from the associate general counsel of the Department of Environmental Conservation at ANR. We also held a public hearing, which in conclusion, I hope that you can all support this bill because what we heard during the public hearing and what I'm sure you've heard from constituents is that they're feeling squeezed. And another bureaucratic annual headache is costing them money and making them less likely to have a safe, reliable vehicle at this time. So we ask that the Senate consider this bill, vote yes so that we can plan for a future where we move from annual inspections to biannual inspections. And I thank the committee and I know I stand on the shoulders from of the senator from Bennington, when we moved from six months to a year. So hopefully, we can do the same in 2028. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: For the report of the committee on finance, I recognize the senator from Chittenden North, senator Mattos.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: Thank you, mister president. Your senate finance committee took a look at this amendment, and, we appreciate the the report looking at the fees in the future, moving to potentially moving to a two year inspection cycle. So at this time, there's no effects to the revenues of the state and your finance committee heard from legislative council, JFO, the commissioner of Department of Motor Vehicles. And on a seven zero zero vote, we ask for the body support. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on transportation? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have amended the bill as recommended by the committee on transportation. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. And I wanna offer my thanks, to the senator from Windsor and also to the committee at large for this bill. I I have never been happier about a piece of legislation moving through, I think, than this. I have talked with many, many people over the past year and a half about the possibility of this bill. I have not to date had anyone who wasn't ecstatic at the thought that inspections might go to every two years. I have felt for years that in effect I'm being held hostage every year to a set of repairs that certainly wouldn't hurt me to have, but hurt me in the pocketbook. And so going to two years with the research that shows that doesn't markedly increase, I'm sorry decrease safety seems to me the least we can do in this moment when people are worried about affordability at all levels. So again my thanks to the committee I think it was a innovative solution to have an implementation scenario and and I thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Never let it be said we didn't do the least we could do.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: Are

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s two eleven. We have on the calendar for action s two ninety eight introduced on 01/23/2026. It was referred to the committee on government operations which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page 440 of today's calendar. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two ninety eight, an act relating to creating the Vermont Voting Rights Act.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Windsor, senator White for the report of the committee.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White]: I know you all missed me from my last day. So totally different topic. We're talking about the Vermont Voting Rights Act. The only major similarity I can see from the last bill report you heard to this one is that I'm deeply appreciative of the work that the committee of jurisdiction did to refine the bill and slim it down. If you have been following the trajectory of s two ninety eight as it was introduced, it was it started out as a 25 page bill, which you have before you, and it ends, I believe, as a seven page bill, although I may be wrong about the exact pages. We're looking at under 10 now, so you can see the winnowing effect that we took as a committee. So the Vermont Voting Rights Act came into the Senate Government Operations Committee because there is intense concern about changes coming from our Supreme Court related to reducing voter access to the vote. May I quote from testimony from the senior policy counsel from Fair Vote Action?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: You may.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White]: With the US Supreme Court that seems intent on eliminating many federal voting rights protections and the passage of state level voting rights acts throughout the country, this seems to be the most effective tool to protect and promote the franchisement of all Americans. We have seen voting rights acts passed in 2001 in New York, Connecticut, Washington since 2001 in New York, Connecticut, Washington, Virginia, Oregon, Colorado, and Minnesota. So as you can see, there is concern about the Supreme Court changing the Voting Rights Act at the federal level. We have also seen other states proactively, enshrine certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act already, so we are following a line of other states who are taking it upon themselves to create a a Voting Rights Act. I'm gonna just jump right into the section by section because I think we can all agree as elected officials. I don't need to explain to you the value of voting and the need for accessible voting. I hope we all agree on that foundationally. So what do we do in the bill? We start with a title and we move into creating a subsection that has a vote that relates to new prohibitions around vote denial and vote dilution, and it empowers our attorney general to enforce those violations through civil action. You'll see two defined terms now, municipality and protected class. You will also see in further the prohibition of vote denial and vote dilution, which states that no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard practices or procedure shall be imposed or applied by the state of any municipality in a manner that results in denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of The United States to vote based on race or color or membership in a language minority group. And that a violation is established if on the basis of the totality of circumstances, it has shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the state or a municipality are not equally open to participation by members of a protected class in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in political processes or to elect representatives of their choice. You may be thinking we should already have this, doesn't this already exist? That's why, as I explained at the beginning, this is codifying a lot of information that we already have. Further in this section, we're on section two, that ensues the those the next present provisions have a chapter that shall not be construed to deny or impair or otherwise adversely affect the right to vote of any registered voter. So kinda building more on that. We also, to enforce that, have the attorney's general general's office in the later section, enforcing those violations through civil action. And to quote, I'll say, whenever the attorney general has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred and that the rights of any voter or group of voters has been affected by such violation, the attorney general may initiate a civil action for the appropriate relief. A court may provide a remedy and some of those remedies are a $5,000 fine for a first violation and no more than a $25,000 fine for subsequent violations. And then any order requiring reimbursement to the state for its expenses in investigation or prosecution of that option. So that's a that's a change. Section three, we also have it looks at offenses against the purity of elections. This chapter already includes civil and criminal sanctions for election violations made by election workers and voters, see voter fraud. And then the four new sections contemplate actions by these people, but now also possible third parties that are neither the voter nor the election worker. So other groups who have seen that there is voter fraud happening, they can now be a part of showing that there is that voter fraud. You don't have to actually be a voter in that election, for example. So we have now a new section titled interference with voting, stating that an election officer or a person acting under the color of the law shall not intentionally, not intentionally, refuse to permit or fail to permit a qualified voter to vote, refuse or fail to tabulate, count, or report the vote of a qualified voter, and that violators face a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each affected voter, and that an election officer shall not change a ballot of a voter to prevent the voter from voting as the voter desires, and violators will face imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine not more of $1,000 So this is very serious. The crimes that we're talking about, this is a serious situation. We also, below that, add a subsection around intimidation of election officers. If you're familiar with your own going to the polls day, an election officer can be the town clerk, it could be your justice of the peace. It's the folks that make the day function. It's not us as election officers, it's the individuals like your board of civil authority. That's who we're talking about. A person shall not intentionally, by bribery, intimidation, threats, coercion, or other means in violation of election laws hinder or prevent or attempt to hinder or prevent an election officer at any polling place from holding an election. So you can see it's both sides, protecting voters, protecting and preventing intimidation of election officers, and those violators face imprisonment of not more than two years or a fine of not more than $2,000 or both. We go on further with intimidation of voters and having a civil cause of action. Similarly, you can't intimidate, you can't coerce. We have a $2,000 penalty there for up to or no more than two years of imprisonment for that. And then we have the last piece under this is the communication of false information to eligible voters. So not only can you not knowingly or intentionally lie to a voter, you can also not communicate false information to eligible voters. And that states that a person shall not intentionally communicate to a registered voter false information, knowing the information to be false for the purposes of impeding the voter and exercising the voters' right to vote. We can think of a scenario here. If I were to, be an election officer and tell someone who is a voter, actually, no, the voting isn't happening here today. You need to go to a different town to vote. You need to go somewhere else. Go away. That would be an example of false information. If I'm telling you that the voting doesn't start till 7PM tonight when in fact it closes at 7PM, that's another example of false information. So this provision applies to the information only about the date, time, or place of the election, how to register to vote, or a voter's registration status. So we're very specific about that, and that's why I use those examples. Violators face imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of not more than $1,000 And in addition to that criminal penalty, we create a private cause of action wherein an affected vote an affected voter may sue for injunctive injunctive relief and attorney's fees. Okay. I've got only two more sections. The last section, before we get to the effective dates is around safety protections for candidates. We spent a considerable amount of time on this section. If you are like me, you have received threats to your safety, you have received threats to your family, and you are concerned as either a seated elected official or someone who's friends with other seated elected officials about their own safety. And, unfortunately, due to the murder that happened in Minnesota of their, speaker of the house, it has become a national conversation. So this is our attempt to be a part of that conversation by making sure that in Vermont's campaign finance law, that the definition of expenditure may also include those costs incurred

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons]: as

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White]: a provision for the security of the candidate. So what does that mean? That means that I, senator Becca White, could raise campaign funds for my election, and I could buy my lawn signs, and I could buy my brochures. So I could also buy a Ring camera for my home. I could also get security provisions to make sure that I'm safe. And that could be for me as a candidate. It could be for me as an elected official. There was some conversation in committee about how we may actually have already been allowed to do this, but we wanted to clarify that this was an acceptable expenditure. And finally, the effective date is that it takes effect on passage. I'm going to read you our witness list, and then the vote out of committee was five zero zero. I know. Oh, here we go. So our witness list was the, captain of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the secretary of state, our legislative counsel, the deputy secretary of the secretary of state, the former town clerk from Pulteney, current representative, and, minority leader, if you catch that, the manager for the out for outreach for the Harvard Law School, the commissioner of the department of public safety, the communications lead for the organization Represent Women, the former town clerk of Dorset, and the Association of City and Town Clerks President, the lead sponsor of the bill. We heard from a concerned citizen from STOW. We heard from the Vermont Municipal Clerks and Treasurer's Association. We heard from a senior policy council person from Fair Vote. We heard from the executive director of policy development for the Department of Public Safety. And as I said before, the bill was passed on a five zero zero vote out of our committee. And we appreciate the we appreciate the senate's deliberation on this topic, and we hope that the body concurs with our belief that s two ninety eight should pass and become the Vermont Voting Rights Act. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Government Operations? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you, mister president. Senate judiciary did look at this bill, primarily for the private right of action, I'm sorry, civil cause of action and the, criminal the criminal provisions as well. Senate Judiciary didn't have any amendments or changes to offer, and the committee doesn't have a position on the bills. However, I do actually have a clarifying question for the

[Senator Brian Collamore]: reporter. Would

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: you like to interrogate the reporter, Bill? The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you. I'm looking on page four forty under the definition section where it says protected class and I see the language discrimination based on race or color or membership in a language minority group and I'm wondering where that language came from and why well I'm wondering where that language came from.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White]: Yes, we spent some time in committee on this. We also previously had a section around language access So this was associated, I think, largely with that conversation as well. I would have to confer with legislative counsel, but I believe it's five per if you're 5% of the population of a specific size community, then you're considered a language minority. And you would be you would be a part of that. But I can confirm with legislative counsel about the definition.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: I think senator.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. I rise in support of this bill. I'm really glad to see it come to the senate in this shape,

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: but I wonder if I might interrogate the reporter. The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: I wonder, mister president, if the reporter, and I'm gonna just preface this question by saying I don't expect the, the senator to know the answer to this, but instead, I'm gonna use this opportunity to take this platform to raise a concern from a constituent to see if it has been a discussion in in senate government ops. Recently, on town meeting day in South Burlington, there was a very close election. There was a 31 votes difference, and I have multiple constituents. This gets at the core of democracy, and I don't think I need to tell this audience how important voting is to have people's votes count. In that election, Because of the issues that I think many of us here are experiencing with the United States Postal Service, many ballots that are that are sent via absentee ballots are not arriving on time by election day, and there's also issues with postmarks happening with for all the problems that I think we've read about in the news. So I guess my question, mister president, is and, again, I don't expect this to have been taken up, but, I have residents that know they've mailed their ballot eight days prior to the the day of the election, yet still on the official registry, those ballots did receive after the day of the election for problems with the United States Postal Service, and they're they're feeling disenfranchised to some extent because they've come to rely so much on the US Postal Service. But I'm just not sure to tell what to tell these constituents,

[Senator Mark MacDonald]: and I wonder if the reporter of

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: the bill might have any any comments from discussions in committee or otherwise, knowing that this bill doesn't necessarily address that, but if there's anything that we might wanna consider as a senate in the years to come.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White]: I appreciate those remarks, and if I understand the question correctly, I I'm not sure that anything in this bill would make that situation there. I don't believe there's any similar criminal penalties that would be associated that we cover in this bill. However, I would confirm because perhaps vote dilution, you know, I would have to talk to legislative counsel about the relevance to that. We did discuss in committee federal changes related to the SAVES Act and potential changes at the congressional level about who can vote and what materials or identification you need to vote potentially with federal changes. And I don't believe we did discuss mail in voting to any it's not coming to mind in our committee, but we certainly heard about the change in, what is considered the the post office's change between, like, stamping. And I think we should address that in the future as a committee. And I will you know, I think I see the chair of the committee, perhaps, we would consider it if he is open to a conversation about it in the future.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: I thank the senator. Mister president, I just wanna say that, if I were on senate government ops, which I'm not, and I don't I haven't dove into this topic, I certainly would want to at least factor in if it's possible within the confines of our statutes and state laws that if a recount were to, in fact, be called for because of an election was so close, that ballots received after the day of the election should in fact be considered. But I'll leave it at that. I'm not on the committee of jurisdiction. It's just something that I would hope the government office would consider in the years to come. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you, mister president. We would welcome, assuming most of us come back next year to have a new member of the senate government up. To address the senator from Chittenden's concern and to maybe provide a little bit of perspective, normally in non election years, we don't take up election bills. And I mean that the procedures involved in holding and running an election are most likely not taken up because you're only months away from actually running the election that year. So we didn't take any testimony. In fact, the revised draft that is before us today was suggested by the secretary of state's office who had concerns about the original bill because it did involve some changes in the procedures that would have been in effect for the upcoming election. But, again, to allay any fears that folks might have next year, assuming the composition of the senate remains fairly intact, we will definitely be looking at election changes, and that is certainly something that I'm aware of. Unfortunately, it seems certain areas of our state are more impacted by the lack of the United States Postal Service being able to effectively deliver the mail. I'm lucky enough that in my district, we don't have that problem. Usually, if you put something in the mail two or three days later, you get it. And so, yes, we will be taking it up and I thank you, president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I'm very grateful for this bill and, fully intend to vote for it, but I do have a question. So I'm wondering if I can interrogate the presenter of the bill.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I'm looking on page four forty three about, the false information, to eligible voters. Appreciating, the provision about, that this is limited to date, time, or place of the election, how registered to vote in the voter's registration status. And wondering if the committee took any testimony on expanding that to manner of voting. I am thinking in terms of, you know, if if somebody is intending to mail mail in a ballot, but they are somehow misdirected or if there's false information provided about say voting electronically when that is not in fact an option and wondering if that is if you feel that that or if the committee or the presenter feels that that is covered in this or if, if that is not covered?

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White]: So we don't have counsel in the room so I can't even look over for like a nod or a head shake, but the way that I understand it, if someone were to be if if for this situation, if a person, like, a town clerk intentionally told someone, you cannot mail and vote, I would consider that a way information about the date, time, and place of an election.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Just to follow-up about the electronic, you know, potentially electronic voting, is that would that be considered, like, the place of an election?

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White]: That's I I my understanding of it would be yes. But I would like to confer with legislative counsel because this question did not specifically come up in committee. We do not contemplate electronic balloting in this bill in any way, shape

[Senator Anne Watson]: or form. Great. Thank you. Thank you, reporter.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, mister president. First, you know, just, recognizing that this is second reading. You know, I think these are all really valuable questions and and, could potentially be answered next week. But I think it speaks, mister president, just to the importance of enshrining voting rights in statute and making sure this is a foundation, that we can build on. And so I rise to thank the committee, for advancing, this very important bill and this very, important right that separates a democracy from other forms of government that I think we have long held are less ideal and less savory. I often don't personally, like having the bill is introduced and the bill, in the calendar because I tend to get confused about which is which, but in this case, as the lead sponsor of the original bill, I just want to rise to say I certainly still thank the committee, for considering so many of the important elements of what was in the original bill, for further action in the future, potentially in a non election year. I think when you look at some of the language that's embedded both in the original bill and in what's in the calendar, what you see and what I hope people see is a long history of reminding ourselves why the right to vote is so important and that there are still those who are or, feel disenfranchised from that right to vote. In fact, I think it's always valuable to remind ourselves that the National Voting Rights Act of 1964 is simply not that old. And while original enfranchisement discussions centered around black men, you know, we then enfranchised white women. We then enfranchised certain other racial groups and have continued to try and make sure that the spirit of the law is met in the letter of the law. Essentially, voting rights are not something we can set and forget. Every generation has to fight for this ability for everyone to participate fully in our democracy and be represented. I just noted a couple of pages in the bill as introduced that was handed out pages nine and sixteen, just to give the chamber a flavor of some of the ways that we can or should talk about this that might not be well encompassed in the idea of a protected class. On page nine, there is a section that I hope will advance potentially in a non election year that requires greater assistance for voters who are over the age of 65 and voters who may have a physical limitation or some other kind of limitation with voting. The reality is you may not claim to be or be recognized as part of a protected class to still need that support to access the right to vote. I don't think it's ever inappropriate to remind our chamber that while we remain a very enfranchised and accessible state, sometimes named first or among the top states for people to be able to access the right to vote, A recent MIT study named us as tied for forty ninth, for the rights of people who have, disabilities or physical limitations to be able to access the right to vote. They may not consider themselves or fall under a protected class. Mr. President, on page 16, I would say that, you know, you see specific rights for people of a protected class that have a lot to do with the way people of certain races and language groups and immigrant groups have been specifically disenfranchised in this country. So when we look to take best practices from other states and from other courts, that have expanded on the franchise or made sure, it applies to more people, I hope we continue to do this work and look into the future for how careful we have to be about ensuring everyone has access to the franchise. This is one of our last opportunities to look at this issue before the November twenty twenty six election. And certainly, you know, as we mentioned in other contexts, I hope we don't have to be vigilant and remind ourselves of this all important right to vote, and making sure our neighbors and our fellow Vermonters can access the right to vote. But I do value that we now have, or hope to have if this should pass, the ability to call upon our own state laws to remind ourselves that we hold these rights extremely dearly, and we expect that all Vermonters should be able to access the right to vote. So I thank the committee, and when the vote is taken, I ask that it be taken by role.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator has requested when the vote is taken to be taken by role, and thank you for saying I'm not that old because I'm younger than the voter rights act. So that makes me feel better. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White]: Thank you, mister president. I was able to connect with legislative council. So the question asked, from the senator from Windham around, language minority definition, there is a federal standard. This bill does not contemplate that though. So we can get more information on third reading, but just wanted to correct myself there. For electronic or mailing a ballot specifically, and if that's considered the place of the election, maybe I should go to law school. I was pretty close. I was right. So that's great. It would be considered if you were a town clerk and you said, no. You can't mail in your ballot, but in fact, you could. That wouldn't be considered false information. And then the question from the senator from Chittenden around mailing time and is if you get your vote in after the date of the election, we don't contemplate that in this bill. Just wanted to clarify. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Mister President, may I, rescind my motion for a roll call on, the committee amendment and instead ask for a roll call upon Yay. Second reading of it.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee of government government operations? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the bill as offered by the committee on government operations. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Roll call, mister.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Roll call has been requested. Are you ready for the question? If so, secretary shall call the roll.

[Senator Mark MacDonald]: Senator Baruth?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Yes. Senator Beck?

[Senator Scott Beck]: Yes. Senator Benson? Yes.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Yes.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Lyons. Yes. Senator Majors. Yes.

[Senator Mark MacDonald]: Senator Ewing? Senator Harrison?

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Those voting yes, 28. Those voting no, zero. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s two ninety eight. We now have h 50. The committee on conference has submitted the report and found and it is found in today's calendar. The question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee on conference? I recognize the senator from Orange.

[Senator Mark MacDonald]: Thank you, mister president. Just to refresh the senate's memory, this bill is about creating an inventory of excess state properties that may in fact at some point be available or converted to housing. So the Senate Committee on institutions met in conference with the House Committee on institutions and corrections to go over some of the changes that the House had made from the bill that the Senate had passed. Some of these were pretty minor. They asked for or changed the biannual reporting to annual reporting and they added some of the language directly from the governor's executive order zero six dash '25 which was the impetus for the bill. The one piece that the house had struck was to include in the inventory not only state owned properties but also leased or rented properties. And in conference, it was decided to place that back in so that it can comply with the Senate's version. And the rationale for that was if we're going to be looking at potentially selling properties or facilities, we really ought to look at what we're renting and does it make sense to move what we're renting into one of these facilities that's not currently being fully utilized before we actually liquidate it. So that was the essence of the committee's action and it was a unanimous vote to accept those positions. So with that I would request that the Senate concur and I will report mister president. We think we set a record for the time frame for our committee at thirty four minutes and nineteen seconds. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Something for all other committees of conference to reach for. The question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee on conference? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. You have accepted and adopted the report of the committee of conference on age 50. The senator has requested floor consideration of a senate concurrent resolution. The text of FCRA appears on today's action calendar on page four forty five. The question is, shall the resolution be adopted? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons]: Thank you, mister president. Complete with complete understanding that the senate does not ordinarily take up resolutions independently and individually, I asked to have this one placed on the calendar and to offer some comments. Because if you, know someone or have someone close to you as I do, who has long COVID, then you understand the the illness and the commitment that people make to trying to resolve the problems that they face. So, also, it's an opportunity to provide information to the senate, and as senate health and welfare will be taking this up a little bit later in March, to offer some information about long COVID. Long COVID is an extension of the COVID nineteen disease within an individual that affects their ability to do many things. It affects, most specifically for those of you who are biologically inclined, the mitochondria of our cells, and reduces the ability to utilize oxygen and reduces the ability to actually function. It can affect it affects many systems, the metabolic system, of course, so you need an internal medical physician or or or specialist. Neurology, it affects the brain. It can affect the ability to move into function, so you need a neurologist or specialist. It affects the heart, so cardiovascular needs. In fact, it affects the heart significantly, and this this week is the week that we're, is the COVID week on, long COVID week on heart and cardiovascular. Some folks who have this for an extension of three months or more are capable of, functioning, going to work, and doing things. Others are so significantly affected that they are become incapacitated to the point of remaining in bed all day and can't think adequately or can't get up and do the things that they would like to do. Raising a glass to drink or eating food is tiring. So, mister president, it's a it's an it's an emerging disease, but there are over twenty million people with it. And the emerging disease means that we're learning more and more about it and how to help people who have developed a disability with with long COVID. As you'll see in the in the resolution, March is long COVID month, and there are section days and weeks of the of March that are dedicated to different aspects of the COVID effect. This week happens to be heart and cardiovascular system. And as an example, what happens when you try to get up and walk to your dresser, your heart rate goes up so high that you need to sit back down. So the the so exemplary of the disorder that people are facing, people who have been very productive and working could be students, could be kids, could be adults in the prime of life, can be o older folks who face some really dire, conditions. So I I bring this to you from the Senate Health and Welfare Committee members and ask that you support the resolution recognizing March as a long COVID month, and, and we'll send a copy off to, our Department of Health. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the resolution be adopted? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and we have adopted the resolution. That completes the orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. Pending announcements, I move that the senate stand in adjournment until 09:30 a. M. Tuesday 03/17/2026. If I might lead on the announcements. My thanks to everyone for crossover through the morning committees. We are halfway through crossover day which is today. Every one of us is going to have an afternoon of crossover decisions to make and then at that point much of our crossover work will be done But the money committees of course have until the end of next week. But this is a significant milestone for us in terms of focusing and limiting our work. It has been a very smooth session that way. I don't want to jinx this afternoon, but I I have been very pleased with the way that committees have been handling their workloads. So my thanks for that. And with that, mister president, I'll just leave the announcement to others.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Washington. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator appropriations will meet at 01:00 so that we can

[Senator Mark MacDonald]: get out.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons]: Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Finance will also meet at 01:00.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland. Thank you, mister president,

[Senator Brian Collamore]: as well senate government operations.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windsor. Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: Thank you, Mr. President. March 13 is a surprisingly significant date throughout history. In addition to it being the birthdays of two of our most beloved colleagues, Senator Hardy and Westman, it is also a day marked by the discovery of not just one, but two planets, Uranus in 1781 and Pluto in 1930. Too many tragedies, sadly, occurred on this day. So I'm not even gonna go there because the number of massacres, battles, ghetto closings, it's just frightening how much happened on this day. But I won't know two notable deaths on this day. In nineteen o six, Susan b Anthony died. That's for Ruth. And in 1938, Clarence Darrow died, who I have just been given in his book by Jeffrey Amistoy, the story of Clarence Darrow's time spent here in Vermont, which is a great read so far. March 13 is also marked by some notable historical events. And I'm not going to bore you with the number of them, but there are a significant number. These are just three I thought you'd be interested in. 1925, Tennessee bans the teaching of evolution. In 1942, however, Julia Flick became the first woman colonel in the US army. Right? And in 2013, the first pope from The Americas was elected Pope Francis. And historically, as we all recall who served in this body, in 2020, on March 13, also a Friday, president Trump declared a national emergency in response to the COVID nineteen to the COVID nineteen pandemic, and our world got turned upside down, although I am incredibly proud of how we responded to it. You also share, Ritchie and Ruth, you share a birthday with an extraordinary group of people. Among them are 1764, one of the ones closest to my heart, Charles Gray, second Earl Gray, Prime Minister of England for whom the tea is named. Nineteen o eight, Walter Annenberg, the great publisher, philanthropist, and ambassador to The United Kingdom. In 1939 Neil Sedaca. I'm waiting for the senator from Rutland to start singing. 1950 William Macy close to my heart an actor. 1995 Michaela Schiffrin and 2004, Coco Gough. And lest we forget, you share a birthday with the National Elephant Day in Thailand. Happy birthday, Ruth and Richie.

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Senator, I think Pluto's been delisted.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Was

[Lieutenant Governor (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 09:30AM, Tuesday, 03/17/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 09:30AM, Tuesday, 03/17/2026.