Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Will the senate please come to order? No. Our devotional exercises will be conducted by the reverend Elizabeth Gleich of Middlebury Congregational Church of Middlebury. Welcome.

[Rev. Elizabeth Gleich]: Good morning.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Good morning. Let

[Rev. Elizabeth Gleich]: us pause now at the beginning of this full day in this great city, in this great state. Let us come to a concentrated awareness of the presence of God, the ground of being, the heart of creation. Let us pray. Oh god, we are grateful that you have created us, each one of us, to honor the sacredness of every other human being. We are grateful for all of the great religions for they teach this truth, the sacredness of each being. We are grateful for human communities and societies that honor this truth, that create systems and laws that embody this truth. And we are grateful for these servant leaders here gathered. Bless them, their hearts, their minds, their bodies. As these members do the business that is before them today, may they be blessed with patience. Where they are divided, grace them with a unity of spirit to strive for the common good. When the path ahead is unclear, may

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: they

[Rev. Elizabeth Gleich]: be given wisdom and insight. When priorities must be weighed, may they always protect the most vulnerable. Above all, may their deliberations and decisions be guided by a spirit of love and justice for all. May we all be blessed by the hearing of these ancient words. What does what does God require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Amen.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: there any announcements? By way of announcement, I am pleased to let the senate know that our resolution on gender equality in women's Nordic combined passed both the executive committee and the full body of the National Lieutenant Governors Association, and I encouraged all the lieutenant governors present to please forward it in their own state, even though many of them had no idea what Nordiskiken was. Are there any announcements? Seeing none. We have a joint resolution to take up at this time, j r s 49, a joint resolution relating to weekend adjournment on 04/17/2026 offered by senator Baruth of Chittenden. Listen to the reading of the resolution.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary/Reading Clerk)]: Resolved by the senate and house of representatives that when the two houses adjourn on Friday, 04/17/2026, it'd be to meet again no later than Tuesday, 04/21/2026.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution, and the question is, shall the Senate adopt the resolution on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and we have adopted the resolution. Orders of the day. We have on the calendar for action, h seven forty four, introduced on 01/22/2026. It was referred to the committee on judiciary, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary/Reading Clerk)]: H seven forty four, an act relating to procedures for release after arrest.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Windham, senator Hashim, for the report of the committee on judiciary.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you, mister president. So this is one of those bills where partway through the presentation, you may be asking yourself, why are we, voting on this bill today. I will provide that additional background and context towards the end of this, pretty short report. So h seven four four amends rule three of the Vermont rules of criminal procedures, which is a rule that governs arrests without a warrant. The rule lists the types of offenses for which an arrest may be made without a warrant, including felonies, witness misdemeanors, and some non witness misdemeanor offenses. Most relevant to this bill is that rule three also outlines procedures for the arresting officer to follow after the arrest. Specifically the bill amends subsection k rule three related to temporary release after an arrest. The provision requires the law enforcement officers who made the arrest to contact the court to determine whether the arrestee can be released or held. This often comes into play after hours when the court is closed. The arresting officer will contact an on call judge or judicial officer in those situations and they must provide the court with an affidavit or sworn statement, including information that allows the judicial officers to determine whether to release or hold the individual. Under the current rule, which the legislature amended in 2019, the arresting officer's affidavit for a sworn statement must indicate the crimes to be charged by the officer. As it turns out, the language that the legislature passed was unclear and became somewhat problematic, which has led to the need for this amendment. An officer does not make charging decisions, rather it is the prosecutor who makes the charging decision. So H744 fixes this problem by striking that sentence and adding that the presiding judge for each court may require that prosecuting attorneys indicate the charge or charges that they intend to file. The presiding judge may also require the prosecuting attorney to request any conditions of release, bail, or orders to hold without bail. This additional clarifying revision codifies existing practice. Practice. So regarding that additional background, there was there was previously some disagreement between the judicial rules committee, the legislature, and the advisory committee on criminal rules on how to remedy the language in 2019. The advisory committee's initial proposal would have substantially changed existing practice and would have placed a significant and unnecessary administrative burden on law enforcement and prosecutors. This bill represents a solution to the underlying issue by preserving the judicial discretion judges already use to determine if and when they need additional information from prosecuting attorneys. This solution remedies the legislature's previous changes to this rule so that current practice is both codified and clarified rule three. The committee heard from the following witnesses, general counsel from the Department of Public Safety, a superior court judge who was also the chair of the advisory committee on criminal rules, a sponsor of the bill who is also a member of the judicial rules committee, the the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs and Legislative Council. The vote in committee was four zero one and we ask for the senate support.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes haven't. You've ordered third reading of h seven forty four. We have on the calendar for action eight h eight forty nine. It was introduced on 02/03/2026. It was referred to the committee on judiciary, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Thanks. Eight eight forty nine, an escalating civil action for damages for deprivation of federal constitutional rights by any government official.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Windham, senator Hashim, for the report of the committee on judiciary.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Mister president, I I was advised for this bill to not describe it as a short or technical bill, so I won't do that. I will say that h eight forty nine permits a plaintiff to file a lawsuit in a state court for an alleged US constitutional violation against a government employee on the local state or federal level. Currently, and state employees can already be sued however, this bill expands that ability to federal employees. The cause of action created by h eight forty nine is modeled after federal statute 42 USC section nineteen eighty three. That federal law creates a cause of action for damages against state and local officials who violate The US constitution. The impetus for h eight forty nine is to close the gap in available constitutional remedies. While the federal law provides a federal right of action for those imposed by constitutional violations committed by state and local officials, the law does not apply to comparable violations by federal officials. Currently, a plaintiff can sue a federal employee under a Bivens action or a federal tort claims act. These both have to originate in federal court. The Westfall Act which amended the Federal Tort Claims Act provided an explicit carve out for lawsuits against federal employees for violations of the US Constitution and this is located in 28 USC, twenty six seventy nine. This law was last amended in 1988, and since then Supreme Court decisions have drifted away from Bivens in an attempt to dissuade judge made constitutional remedies, and suggested that the path to creating relief for constitutional violations is in the hands of legislatures. H eight forty nine provides that path to relief in Vermont by permitting lawsuits to be filed in state court if the underlying claim involves a federal constitutional violation. This would not prohibit lawsuits from initially being filed in federal court by a plaintiff if they so choose nor would it prohibit the defendant from transferring from state court to federal court. Those are rules that we cannot change. So under this bill, who can be sued and for what? The answer to that question is any person who acts on the color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage can be sued under h eight forty nine if they subject or cause to be subjected any person in Vermont to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or securities secured by the US constitution. Under color means that a person is acting in an official capacity. So in other words, a person acting in an official capacity under any law can be sued under this bill if they deprive someone in Vermont of any of their federal constitutional rights. So some examples. I know that the first and the second amendment get a lot of conversation, but there is the lonely third amendment that is not often spoken about. So let's provide a hypothetical here. Let's say one day you see a by the way, the third amendment prohibits the ordering of soldiers in private homes during peacetime. So let's say one night you see a long line of Humvees pulling into your driveway and you get a knock on the door and a lieutenant says that there's gonna be a platoon of soldiers staying in your house for the next couple of days and you don't really know what to make of it. I think it's a little weird but you also know that you're gonna be suing somebody, and you're gonna figure that out soon. So you somehow find a lawyer who has experience in litigating third amendment violations and this lawyer, files a lawsuit for you in the local court in your county. Now it is still possible for, for the defendants to remove that case or transfer it to federal court. Now a less farfetched, scenario is an instance in which, let's say your home gets raided, by a number of ATF employees and they happen to raid the wrong home and they arrest you and detain your family and they seized all your firearms and they also put you on a prohibited person list from purchasing firearms.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: You

[Senator Nader Hashim]: would be able to then sue those employees in your local state court for, allegedly violating your second and your fourth amendment right and again they could still remove or transfer that case to the federal court. So the type of relief that a court may provide a plaintiff would be monetary damages or injunctive relief. Injunctive relief could be an order to cease causing a deprivation of rights. So now I'll walk through the language of the bill. Subsection a creates a private right of action for violations of The US constitution by individuals acting under color of law. Subsection b defines color of law and subsection c clarifies that any defense available under federal law 42 USC section nineteen eighty three shall be available in actions brought under this section. It further provides that existing qualified or absolute immunity defenses remain available under this section. Subsection d provides that when courts apply this item, it will be guided by how federal courts have construed 42 USC section nineteen eighty three. Those subsections c and d are intended to clarify that page eight forty nine is modeled after the federal statute and courts should follow the federal jurisprudence related to that law. Section two of the bill provides that the act shall take effect on 07/01/2026. The committee heard from the following witnesses, legislative counsel, chief superior judge, the director of civil rights of the civil rights unit from the attorney general's office, members of an organization called Democratism, a law professor from Northwestern University, the ACLU, and general counsel from the Department of Public Safety. The voting committee was four one zero, and we ask for the senate support.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Franklin.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire, of the report of the bill?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporters interrogated.

[Senator Randy Brock]: I just wanted to make sure I understand the provisions of the bill, and so perhaps, some some examples of what might happen. Would this prohibit, for example, or would this allow, an individual to sue people we hear about probably most are immigration authorities from making an arrest in which they entered a home? Would this be the kind of thing that would give rise to a lawsuit?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: So I'll I'll preface by saying anybody can sue for anything. Whether there is actually a claim that could move forward to liability and damages is a whole another question. But the the lawsuit presumably would be filed after an an individual is detained, and if they believe they were unlawfully detained and in violation of the Fourth Amendment, they could, have more substance to their claim. So I the short answer

[Senator Randy Brock]: Mhmm.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: To the senator's question, I believe, is yes.

[Senator Randy Brock]: K. And as the law in Vermont reads right now, could they sue?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: So the individual would potentially be able to sue only in federal court under, what's called the Bivens action, which permits fourth, fifth, and eighth amendment lawsuits. However, the courts have, really begun constraining or rather they've been dissuading, the usage of the Bivens action to file suit in federal court. So the answer is yes. They could sue in federal court, but this permits a legislative made right of action in state court rather than a judge made action under the Bivens Act in federal court.

[Senator Randy Brock]: So it removes this to a state court action. Now if the federal government, is claiming, because presumably, they they would be defendants here, in some way shape or form. Could they, allege that it is their proprietary responsibility since it's a, you know, a federal action that they should be immune?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: So the federal government I I don't wanna speculate on what the federal government may say, but I they could certainly make the argument. They would likely make the argument that they are immune. And if they wish to, they may remove the case to federal court. So it in a way, it opens the door to filing your initial lawsuit in state court, but the door does not close behind you, but it can still be removed back to federal court.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Mhmm. Now if they if this then gets removed back to federal court, who's the prosecutor?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: The plaintiff who filed the initial case. Well, there isn't a government There is a government. It it would be an individual citizen or an entity potential. It's like an organization.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Organization or the individual simply goes to federal court and pursues the same case that he or she would have brought in state court?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: It's possible. I I think it it depends on what the underlying question of the case is.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Is it possible then the underlying question would be something under Vermont state law? However, it's not something that's prohibited in federal court under federal law.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: I'm not sure I understand the question.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Well, you're taking a state a case that's a state case, and the plaintiff alleged some harm. Is it always going to be, in effect, the same harm under federal law? If particularly federal law doesn't prohibit the action in the first place,

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: why would it go to federal court?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the US constitution. This is for US constitutional claims specifically.

[Senator Randy Brock]: And so those lawsuits that would not be constitutional law violations would not fall under this particular act?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Can can you repeat the question?

[Senator Randy Brock]: In other words, if if the issue is not something that is under federal jurisdiction, would this law change it to allow it to be sued under Vermont law? And then would that then transfer over to federal court for a federal court to enforce it?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: I'd like to check with ledge counsel just to make sure.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Would you like a brief recess?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: That be good.

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

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: We'll take

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: a brief recess. Senate, please come to order. Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Folks, mister president, I believe the question and the answer was clarified in our conversation with ledge counsel. In summary, the substance of the claim would remain the same because it's an alleged violation of the US constitution that would originate centrally in state court to be transferred, to federal court and the substance would remain the same.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Thank you mister president. The substance would remain the same and and that leads me kind of the next question. Is there any precedent for this any place else?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: There are similar precedents in a number of other states. There is not another state that has the exact same version of this type of bill. Illinois currently has something similar, and but specifically for our version, we would be, the first state.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Then is it fair to say that this provision of putting state government in the position of suing the federal government for its violations or alleged violations of the constitution, we would be the first in the nation because none of these other suits have could have come to a conclusion yet. Is that fair statement?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Not not quite. I want just wanna clarify it would be any plaintiff. So anybody, a private citizen would be able to file a lawsuit. It's not specifically for the state of Vermont to file a lawsuit in state court against a federal employee.

[Senator Randy Brock]: But isn't that what this law allows is it creates a situation in which a Vermont resident could go to a Vermont court and file a suit alleging that some other that the federal government or some other state is violating the constitutional right, for example, of a Vermonter or doing so in Vermont or whatever the specifics of the case may be. But there is no other jurisdiction, is there, that has done what we're attempting to do here successfully.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Yes and no. There it has not been overturned. Illinois the Illinois law has been challenged, so they're in the process of figuring out where that will go.

[Senator Randy Brock]: So there's been one case involving one state that has alleged something like this, and it hasn't been finalized or approved, if you will, by the appellate courts.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Yes. Okay.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Rutland.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to interrogate the reporter as well.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporter's interrogated. I'm wondering,

[Senator Randy Brock]: mister president, if the reporter could clarify something. Does the right to private right of action, is that limited to just US citizens?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: It's limited to persons in in Vermont. So it's not exclusively for citizens. Everybody who is a person in a jurisdiction has rights afforded to them by the US constitution.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Thank you, mister president. I thank the senator.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Burling, Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I am not ashamed of my city of residence. I I just wanted to point out something, that is obvious to everyone here, and we see it every day. And that is that the federal government is arrogating to itself every legal power possible, and it is also overstepping the bounds, in my own opinion, of legality every day. And the president, according to multiple news sources, is promising pardons to people in the event that they are brought to justice for those transgressions. So it seems to me we're in an extraordinary situation. What the judiciary committee was trying to do here, and I believe succeeded in doing, is finding what power remains to the state, and that is to create by statute a private right of action for citizens who have their constitutional rights taken from them by force. And we are talking about a moment in time where we have now a domestic force that is out violating people's constitutional rights on a daily basis. So I believe that it is the responsibility of every state legislature, not just those we've heard about, Maine, Massachusetts, California, Illinois, other states have taken similar steps. They have not used exactly the same language, but they have attempted to arm their citizens with more power in court, state courts, in addition to federal courts. And I think that that is absolutely necessary in the current moment. I would remind senators on page two of, what I think of as a very protective sentence and that is line three through five. This subsection does not alter amend create or support a qualified or absolute immunity defense in any other action or proceeding brought under any other provision of Vermont law. So we are not touching in this statute qualified or absolute immunity claims that federal agents might bring in court. They still have those remedies available to them but a Vermonter who has their liberties taken from them has one additional step that they can take. And, mister president, I think, I support the roll call for this because I do think it's an important moment, an important step, and it's necessary that everybody be on the record for it. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to question the report.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporters interrogated.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: There was a a conflict of explanation, mister president, between citizen and persons, and I'd like that clarified, please.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Yes. So anybody who is a person, has rights under The US constitution, that's that's that's basically the, the best answer I can give you. Unless do you have a a more specific clarifying question for that?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: The, the last explanation used the word citizen, and I just wanted to know if it was a citizen or a person that we are talking about. So I don't A citizen of The US or a person in The US?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Yes. So any person in Vermont, if the claim originated in Vermont, may be able to file their lawsuit in this jurisdiction.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, mister president. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Franklin.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Thank you, mister president. I'm not sure if I heard, everything correctly or interpreted everything correctly from the answers by the senator who introduced the bill and other comments that we've heard on the floor. But the way of understanding this is we are attempting essentially, if successful for the first such case in the nation, to say that an individual in Vermont can bring a suit against the federal government which would likely then be referred to federal courts for decision making based on the actions of the federal government in Vermont, which I understand that there certainly have been enough instances cited of misconduct or improper actions constitutionally by agents of the federal government. But my question I come back to is how do getting Vermont courts involved as the plaintiff in a case that ultimately gets decided in federal court any different than simply making a suit in federal court?

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Thank you Mr. President.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so the secretary shall call the roll.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Senator Harrison? Yes. Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Heffernan? No. Senator Ingle? No. Senator Lyons? Yes. Senator Major? Yes. Senator Matto? Yes. Senator Morley?

[Senator John Morley III]: No. Senator North? No. Senator Kesha? Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Senator Plunkett? Yes. Senator Ron Hinsdale? Yes. Senator Bahoski?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yes. Senator Watson? Yes. Senator Weeks. Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Senator Westman. Yes. Senator White.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary/Reading Clerk)]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Senator Williams.

[Senator Terry Williams]: No.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Those voting yes, 23. Those voting no, seven. The ayes have it, and you have ordered third reading of h eight forty nine. We have on the calendar for action h six twenty six, which was passed by the house on 04/10/2026. It was referred to the committee on judiciary which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate propose to the house that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page thirteen twenty eight of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary/Reading Clerk)]: H six twenty six. An act relating to sexual extortion, voyeurism, and disclosure of sexually explicit images without consent.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senate senator from Chittenden Central, senator Vyhovsky, for the report of the committee.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Thank you, mister president. H six twenty six is an important update recognizing the changes in technology and the harm done when these types of things happen. Image based abuse includes the creation of distribution of or threat to share explicit images of a person without their consent. Once an image is shared online, it can spread instantly and be nearly impossible to remove. The consequences are wide ranging, impacting survivors' safety, reputation, relationships, job prospects, and physical and mental health. Image based abuse disproportionately affects young people and can shape the rest of their lives. As technology advances, this harm has become more and more common and more and more severe. It is essential that our laws be updated to protect Vermonters in today's reality. H626 addresses three forms of this abuse. Video voyeurism, which is images are recorded taken without a person's knowledge or consent in a private setting, such as a hidden camera in a backroom or changing room. Non consensual disclosure of explicit images. These are images that may or may not have been originally obtained with the permission of the person in them but are later shared without that person's permission. Vermont statute on non consensual disclose encompasses what is often called revenge porn as well as digitally altered or AI generated explicit images. The last section, the last issue that this deals with is sextortion, a form of sexual exploitation in which a perpetrator threatens to disclose a real or synthetic explicit image unless the victim complies with demands. This can occur in the context of domestic violence, human trafficking, or online scams. H six twenty six strengthens the remedies in criminal and civil court for victims of video voyeurism. For criminal remedies, H six twenty six creates a separate subsection on voyeurism including images or recordings. This allows video voyeurism crimes to have a different statute of limitations than regular voyeurism crimes, which is like a peeping Tom. And the reason we did this is because those videos can be held for a long period of time without the victim knowing that those videos are held. So, create a longer statute of limitations for this type of voyeurism. It also creates a penalty enhancement for acts of video voyeurism if the victim is under 18 years of old, recognizing the increased severity of the harm for young people. For civil remedies, H-six 26 allows a harmed individual to file a lawsuit against a perpetrator who displays or discloses an image of video voyeurism that may do they may do so at any time. H-six 26 allows victims of non consensual disclosure of explicit images to have access to the same civil remedies as a victim of voyeurism that does not involve video. The bill clarifies that a diagnosis of trauma related disorders such as PTSD meets the requirements of actual injury in a civil claim filed by the victim of voyeurism. And this provision is informed by a 2025 Supreme Court decision, Kilburn versus Simmons, involving harm caused by video voyeurism. In a concurring majority opinion, Chief Justice Reiber and Justice Weeks emphasized that Vermont tort law had not kept pace with our understanding of post traumatic stress disorder and psychological trauma. They urged the development of this area of tort law to bring us closer to parity, ensuring that those harmed psychologically, as well as physically are heard and compensated. H626 creates penalties for criminal threatening involving explicit images or sexual conduct. Threatening to disclose an explicit image is a deeply coercive act. It can be used to compel victims to provide money or labor or to engage in sexual activity against their will. The committee heard from multiple the House committee heard from multiple parents of teenagers who died by suicide after being victimized by online scammers. Scammers obtained explicit images through digitally altering or generating images or manipulating youth into thinking they were in an online relationship with another youth. Scammers then threatened to release the images online or to the victim's friends and family unless they were paid a large amount of money. These young victims felt overwhelmed by shame and despair, and ultimately they lost their lives. H-six twenty six recognizes this deeply harmful act as a crime. It includes a penalty enhancement to reflect the increased severity of the harm if the victim is under 18 years old or if the offense results in serious bodily injury or death. H-six 26, as I said before, extends the statute of limitations for voyeurism involving recordings, voyeurism involving disclosure of those recordings or images, non consensual disclosure of explicit images and sextortion to forty years. When images are shared online, they are nearly impossible to remove. The victim can face ongoing threat and harm for the rest of their lives. These shifts align with how crimes are involved involving explicit images actually unfold. The committee heard from a survivor of video voyeurism who did not discover an explicit image of themselves online until years later. The criminal statute of limitations had already passed before she even knew that she was the victim of a crime, and she had no opportunity to seek justice. By shifting the statute of limitations, we recognize the nature of these crimes, the harm that is caused, and we provide victims with the option to pursue justice in criminal court. We heard in your Committee on Judiciary from Legislative Counsel, the policy director at the Vermont Network against domestic and sexual violence, a victim of video voyeurism, the Department of States Attorneys and Sheriffs, and the commander of the Internet Crimes Against Children task force. Your vote on h six twenty six with the one amendment that we made, which was to extend an enhanced penalty to victims under the age of 18. Your vote in committee was five zero zero, and we ask for the senate's support.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. And you have the ayes have it. And you post that's not correct. And you propose to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on judiciary. That was a mouthful. Question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and you have ordered third reading of h two sixty two. That completes the orders of the day. Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. I move that the rules be suspended and that h nine forty, an act relating to the miscellaneous public utility subjects be committed to the committee on natural resources and energy with the report of the committee on finance intact.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The senator from Washington, senator Cummings, has moved that the rules be suspended in h nine forty, an act relating to miscellaneous public utility subjects, be committed to the committee on natural resources and energy with the report of the committee on finance intact. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the motion carries. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. Pending announcements, I move that the senate stand in adjournment until 1PM, Wednesday, 04/15/2026. And by way of announcements, if members of the rules committee could remain when we gavel out for a quick meeting, I would very much appreciate. Thank you, mister Perch.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Senator Mayor will meet after the fall of gavel.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Senator Health and Welfare will meet five minutes after the fall of gavel. I was gonna ask my vice chair to do this for me.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: Senator National Resources manager will meet five minutes after the poll again. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Essex.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Thank you, mister president, and

[Senator Randy Brock]: I thank the senator from Lamoille. Senator Agriculture will meet at 10:30. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Lamoille.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Transportation will meet in five

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: minutes. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: Thank you. Senate economic development housing and general affairs will meet at 10:20.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: And

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: yesterday, it was a very important day, and we were not all together to celebrate it. But today, we need to celebrate it. So today is our yesterday was our senate secretary's birthday. And as we may recall, his birthday is marked by a number of extraordinary births, a lot of villains, a few heroes. Actually, preponderance of villains.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Which

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: Cassidy? Which Cassidy was born on this day in 1866? Guy Fox, who managed to have all sorts of explosive moments in England, was born in 1570, and Lord North, with whom we waged war, was born in 1732. However, Thomas Jefferson was born on this day in 1743. And in 1943, FDR dedicated the Jefferson Memorial in Washington honoring the two hundredth anniversary of Jefferson's birth. So I hope our senate secretary visits this special place in Washington on a regular basis. And to to to cap off the sort of challenges on this day, this is the day that John Wilkes Booth shot, president Lincoln at Ford's Theater. However, some wonderful things happened

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: on this day.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: In 1796, the first elephant arrived in The United States from India. I wanna know who got that as a president. I haven't found that. In 1954, Hank Aaron played his first professional game with the Milwaukee Brewers. And at the Academy Awards in 1964, Sidney Poitier became the first African American man to win best actor for that incredible film, Lilies of the Field. And lest we forget, on this day, Handel's Messiah premiered in Dublin in 1742, and we all sing Hallelujah for the birth of our senate secretary, John Bloomer.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Oh my.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Senate Secretary)]: Happy birthday.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: And hallelujah. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Mister president, since I won't be able to do this again with the senator from Windsor present, one correction on my part, my greatest hero and one delightful addition to the world was born in twenty twenty three on April 13. And so my daughter, Mira, celebrated her third birthday yesterday too, which she shares with her great, great, great grandfather, a fabled engineer in what is now Pakistan, who built the first hydroelectric dam among other marvels in South Asia. So I would just add some of my family history to April 13 as we wish the senate secretary well.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. I don't know how I follow that. Nothing great happened in my family. A new start time. Senate finance will start at 01:00 today, so I wanted to make sure everyone knew that.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 1PM, Wednesday, 04/15/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. I'll oppose nay. The ayes have it, and we'll stand in adjournment until 1PM, Wednesday, 04/15/2026.