Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Welcome back to the Senate Committee on Government Operations Committee meeting on Friday, January 16. We're gonna take up another stab at S-twenty three, the Act Related to the Use of Synthetic Media in Election. We're joined again by the ranking member of the House counterpart, Representative Shea Waters Evans, and Rick Segal, our legislative counsel. For those of you that weren't with us here today, there were some concerns raised here about some of the changes that the House made to the bill that we sent over, which unfortunately ran out of yardage and didn't get messaged over to us until after the veto session in June. So this was our first look at it yesterday. So I'm gonna see whether representative Waters Evans would wanna go first and kinda give us a, well, that may be an unfair thing to do. Tell us how your committee felt about what we had suggested, whether they kind of went, Oh, yeah, we didn't think about that. Or in any fashion that you choose to give us sort of the reaction.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: Sure. Yeah. Thanks, Shay Waters Evans from Charle High. I did go back. We had an informal conversation. It all came rushing back to us in a wave of, oh, yikes. We forgot we did this. All of the drama surrounding it, and then we really immersed ourselves in it again for a minute. But I think what just and it's it's what I mentioned when I was talking to you all yesterday, which is that the changes that we made in the house were because we were there were many who were concerned about free speech because there were concerns that as it came to us from you all that it was a little too broad and it wasn't specific, not that it would withstand a court challenge. Right. We really were hoping to pass something that, you know, met those standards that was, you know, a legal law. And that was something that we could we could all stand behind and defend. So when I brought it up with my committee yesterday, there were definitely some people like, oh, but we made those changes for really good reasons and kind of and, know, we all think that we're doing everything for good reasons. But that was the general feeling is is that we were is that it it wasn't just tinkering with it just for the sake of tinkering, but because we were really thinking about the long term affects the long term future And this like

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And liabilities. Yes. And there was one thing

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: I wanted to bring up with you, so it took for you some extra sort of information I got that this was I remember last year when we were talking, we were afraid that this was going to happen, and then it did, which is that there was an executive order that was signed at December 11 by the president that is trying to limit what states can do as far as AI laws because, you know, the the reasoning of the the president was that, you know, this this field is growing, and it needs to be, you know

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Chopped down.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: Chopped Chopped down, kind of, you know, managed as a country, not as an individual state. Okay. But there hasn't been a law passed by Congress, so they can't tell us what to do yet, state by state. So I just wanted to read you a couple of things. I have my glasses today. Thank you, senator, for yesterday. So so I think this is why we need to be as specific as possible. And I think why it's important just to think about at least with some of the the tweaks that we made over in the house. And because it's just some of the language is interesting, in in this executive order, said, we remain in the early stages of this technological revolution and are in a race with adversaries for supremacy within it. Oh. Very dramatic. But this is the tone that we're taking right when we're, like, talking about this legislation. And so it does say it wants to forbid state laws that conflict with policy set forth in this executive order. And it wants to check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the states that threaten to stymie innovation. That's the purpose of all of this. The consequence, I guess, and this is to be clear, being challenged, you know, the course of this executive order is, but still it stands for now. And it establishes an AI litigation task force. And what that task force is going to do is look into state laws that, you know, in in the opinion of the the federal administration that are trying to make laws about AI that are Restricted. You know, that are, yeah, that are restricted, that are going against the administration's policy. So the thing that worries me is that we did and the consequence of violating that would be the acronym is BEAT, and now I can't remember what it stands for. They I think it's it's the yeah.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: The broadband. Broadband. It's EAD.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: Yes. BEAT. And they we got a grant, I think, last September, maybe last year for a $180,000,000. A lot. For the Northeast Kingdom broadband. And so, like, not that we should be rolling over and playing by the rules because we want the money, but also it is something I think to think about, which is that if if they do decide to withdraw funding because of a law that we've made that they think goes against their policy, then that would be significant. So my thought is make it as as as specific as possible to accomplish the goal of what you started, which is addressing AI in elections and and how they affect the outcome.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator White.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Thank you, chair Collamore. So my understanding was that was for only non deployed BEAT funds. So since we've already received the funding, perhaps.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: Do you trust?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: No. But again, the way the executive order was written, it's my understanding it was for non deployed BEAT funds. So it was a contingency We already got an open air. Yeah, so I was just thought.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I don't know if you knew. But even so, we have other AI areas that we've been addressing in AI and we will be. Yeah. Well, yeah, I think this that's a conversation for all of those pieces.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So Okay. Point taken off.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: Yeah. In the context of this slide, I think it's just something to think about, which is that they're going to be looking at at at new like, scrutinizing new legislation.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Protect Americans, and so we just want them to from the corporate do. Shut up. Will we be extorted or not? So

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Well, I don't think

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: it matters what we do. We might be extorted.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We do have a suggestion of a proposal amendment to And before we leave today, please make sure I reference a conversation that I had with the House Judiciary Chair, Martin LeLonge, with respect to both the judiciary and the attorney general's office weighing in on this bill and some concerns they had, which would appear to be okay at the moment, and we don't need to concern ourselves. I want to read it, at least get it on the record that we did recognize they expressed some concerns about both the civil and criminal penalties contained in the bill. So unless you have something more, Shay, maybe we'll move to the proposal of our amendment, see how you feel about it. We could certainly take the weekend to let the other body take a look and see how they feel. Rick, if you wanna walk us through the proposal.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: You. Rick Sable, Office of the Legislative Council. Can I start with a couple of things, mister? Certainly. So the AI executive order, I'm doing a summary of that order next Friday at House Commerce, if you all wanna watch or I'm not quite ready to talk about it now because that's next Friday. I have other business to attend to, but that should be helpful for not just me, but all the AI stuff that's gonna come before us in the coming weeks and months. Secondly, chair brought up

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And data privacy. I mean, it's not just AI specific. There's also a bunch of data privacy that we're that did

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: what I'm trying do. Yeah. But the AI effect.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: The executive order is specific to AI. So does that affect data privacy? Probably not. But, you know, other bills could also include data privacy, but also AI. Secondly, the chair mentioned the civil penalty. So there is no criminal wanna make that clear. There's no criminal penalty in this bill even in the amendment. There was concern about the civil violations language that was added by the house Yes. That I didn't walk through yesterday because it was as a request from the AG, I would if the AG is okay with it, it's their language that they wanted to put in the bills and the state's attorney's office. So if they're okay with it, that's good to hear. But obviously I'll read Martin's. Yeah. Okay. So what I have here is draft 1.1 of a proposed amendment to the bill. It's a instance of amendments. And my understanding is there were two really, major concerns with the language as passed by the house. First, the major amendment here is the definition section. So, senator, I don't know if you've seen this type of amendment before and maybe a little bit of background how this works. So this is a what you see on the screen would replace the language that's coming out of the House bill. It's not a strike all amendment, it's just specific language. So what you're seeing would replace the definition section that is currently in the in the bill. You don't see the old language, just the new language. So the language being proposed, deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media, means synthetic media that appears to a reasonable person, no change yet, to be a realistic representation of an individual. Okay. The house version was political candidate. Wait.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I am now looking at the right version then. I'm sorry.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I'm on I'm being senator Clarkson from yesterday.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: This isn't on our The proposed amendment that's on our thing says something different than that.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: It says political candidate speech.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No, this would have, you would have only received this particular one probably about twenty minutes, maybe half an hour ago.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Oh, this is in our email. This is not the one on the legislative website.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: This is the website. Yeah, it's the website.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: It is on? Okay. Go ahead.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It's draft 1.1. Yeah. Don't have it.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Okay. So appears to be a reasonable person to be a realistic representation of an individual that does any of the following. So, again, first change is the house version limited to a political candidate. So this broadens a little bit to any individual. It could be Arnold Schwarzenegger. It could be Senator Collamore. It doesn't have to be a political candidate

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: at this point in time.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: That does any of the following: a, injures the reputation of a political candidate. So this remains from the House I have it restructured to kind of make it easier to read. This stays from the House versions. This is the defamation piece.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Four

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: b Just so to unduly influence the outcome of an election, including public question, which is appears on ballots by providing materially false information to voters. So this is kind of the squishy one, but, it's it's my attempt to kind of thread the needle of the committee wanting to not just limit it to a segregation harm and not just, in the house person who unduly influence the outcome of election. You wanna ensure that public questions, issue based Right. Things are included. It still has to be individual, though. So it still has to be kinda keep using Arnold Schwarzenegger. It has to be Arnold Schwarzenegger saying something that he didn't say that would influence someone to fame a candidate or influence this ballot question in a materially false way. So what that means is you must a voter must rely on that. It must be a substantial thing that you're being lied to about, like the Joe Biden robocall. Right? I bring that up because that is a very well known example. It's literally a fake Joe Biden voice telling voters the wrong time and day of the election. I think it's what it was. Yeah. It did. So that's kind of an example of the material. If you said, hey, the sky is red tomorrow. Is that materially false information? No. You're not gonna not vote because you said the sky is red. That's a really bad example. That's one that came to the top of my head. Sorry, Abby.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Think they know the answer to this, but I am not, and so I just wanna make sure. I recognize that the first line is that piece about injuring the reputation. In the second line, would that also apply to artificially positive information? Because that was sort of one of the things that we were concerned about is, you know, if I, AI, reproduced Senator Sanders saying he thinks I'm the best person in the whole wide world and you're gonna vote for me, but he never said that. Right. Would that also be captured in this?

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. If it's deemed to be materially false information. And that's that's why it's squishy. Right? It's so something I'm gonna bring up also the I have the court case. I'm gonna show you some some lines because you can hear from what I say, but having a judge read you the important things is also important to see. It's also what is negative to one person is positive to another person. So senator Vyhovsky is saying senator Sanders is saying good things about you. For you, maybe that helps, but for someone who's on the other side of the poll, the little spectrum, that may be a bad thing.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Both

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: are materially both both are deceiving. But are they materially false information that would lead to a voter to substantially change his or her?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: What he never said to that? Is that materially false?

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: No. There has to be something else that would deceive a voter. Right? That's that's the question. Is that this statement that he didn't make that was aired, did that statement was it materially false information that a voter relied on to

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: How would that not deceive a voter if Yeah. The person never said it and I and my campaign or someone is saying that he did?

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: It depends on how how important a statement is. So a statement that is really critical, that's why it's gonna be the judge and jury are gonna have to hear what the statement is. Right? And, again, the the Joe Biden thing is a very clear example. That's materially false. Bernie Sanders saying you're a really bad candidate, a really good candidate. No. It's not clear. It doesn't

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But he didn't say it. Yeah.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. But that's not that's not the end of it. That is not in of itself gonna be a violation of the of the bills or what passed.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I choose him because he's so popular. So it would like, Sure. Like, in the state of Vermont, we have numbers saying, you know, 80% of the state is, like, Bernie. Maybe voters. So I choose him as someone because it it sort of crosses the spectrum and one would assume that that would have an impact on that 80% that is supportive.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: So let me, maybe this will help, let me take a step back. Defamation, in order for a statement or something to be defamatory, it has to be demonstrably false. Bernie Sanders saying you're a good person or a bad person, that's not demonstrably false or true, that's an opinion. So an opinion is never going to be defamatory. True. So think of it as, again, lying to people about the time of election. That is demonstrably false or true. Saying that Becca White is a good person. That is an

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: opinion. That

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: is an opinion that somebody would have, and yes, it may hurt your chances, but it's not materially false information, because it's either

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: true nor false. I guess the spot that I just get sort of hung up is if the falseness of it is that the person did not say it. Yeah. Right,

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: but you have You're right, I understand, but you cannot protect You cannot restrict speech just because it's not correct speech. There has to be something else. There has to be some harm.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Would senator Sanders have a case for defamation? Sure. Because someone is saying act that he said things he didn't say?

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Would it hurt his reputation?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I don't know. Maybe.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Can I just ask?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Send it away.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: So the term endorsed has, like, real meaning in political candidacies. So I feel like if I were thinking about this example, a materially false statement could be an endorsement. Like that in and of itself. So it may not be the qualifications or the characteristics of that person, but if there was a fake endorsement, that in and of itself is claiming a truth about someone that is inaccurate because you can or you cannot endorse someone. So I do you you get what I'm saying? So I do think if there was a video, an AI video of someone of note saying, endorse this person, that's material materially false because that person is not endorsing or they're not taking a stance on the election. So that is one piece to it that I would agree with. Okay. But yeah, I'm really appreciative of so far where we've gotten in this amendment. I think it captures what we talked about as a committee. So thank you for that. Just I'll say it captures my feelings in subsection A and B. So thank you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Any other questions so far for Rick?

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. The only change to subdivision two is changing so synthetic media means image, audit reporting, or video reporting of an individual, not total candidate. Mhmm. And that just matches up with the definition of deceptive synthetic media. And then removing the without the consent of the candidate. That was a concern of the committee, it was a couple of members of the committee. And that's not really a from from my perspective, First Amendment, that's not an issue. That's more of if you have a candidate that wants an AI video done at them for whatever reason that, you know, it's harmful in one way, that would provide that person to do that, but I understand that you may not want that equal provided to candidates to do this. Okay.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So,

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: questions about those two?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Didn't catch it.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: The other change, is on the disclosure piece. So not changing language, add in language that says disclosures either audio or, written on a video or image. Those disclosures included in synthetic media, shall be made available for individuals with disabilities. So I really thought about how to word this because you cannot if you have a video that has the words that are required, I've got

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: the correct This

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: media has been created or intentionally manipulated by digital technology or artificial intelligence. So if you have a vision disability, do you work that without making it requiring its speed very, very large? And I thought about, well, what if it's available in a different way that someone can access either on the website or I think it's open to interpretation how they would do that. But I'm happy to hear I about anything

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: have a suggestion because I do have concerns asking someone with a disability to take an extra step to get the information. And so I wonder if it might be okay to to state that disclosure is included in synthetic media pursuant to the subdivision shall utilize universal design. Oh.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Do we need to define that? What that is?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Mean, there's a in the statute. Federal definition, but I'd be if we do, I'd be happy to work with you on a definition, but the sort of general sense is that it creates content that is inherently accessible universally. Okay. So

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: why why wouldn't we change the average viewer language that's currently on statute to that is appearing a size that is universally whatever the phrase that you use.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Utilizes universal design? Universal design, that's Yeah, no, I'm happy to do that. I actually, yes, that's what I was suggesting, Okay, do exactly

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: so let me just bring us back to where we are with this, with all due respect to Senator White and Senator Vyhovsky's concerns about whether something is true or not, whether All we're doing is saying if it isn't, you're gonna let people know.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Let them know.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's all we're doing. It isn't that we have to have some test to see whether or not Bernie Sanders really said what he said. All we're saying is if they did, it's gotta be said that it wasn't him or it could be.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm not saying that because the way it applies, it would apparently not we would not have to tell people that it was AI and false if he we simply made an AI video of him saying an opinion that he didn't

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, anyone would have broken the law. Well, that wasn't. So be it. And I think I also understand, and we'll have Rick give us that judge's thing in a second if if he wants. I completely understand what and it seemed like four of the five of us went through a lot of this last year. The squishier, forgive me for using that adjective, but the squishier we make something, the less likely it will hold up in court. And I think we need to keep our focus on that. If we really wanna pass something that's got some teeth to it, we need to make it as likely to pass judicial muster as possible. So those are the only two things I wanted to say. I'm fine with the changes here. I was fine with the way that the house came back. I didn't really have that much of an issue. But

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: that's all I wanted to say. Yeah. Would just say I would be in favor of moving forward these sections as amended as our committee amendment,

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: but I do want to see if there's a way we can expand on the second instance of amendment. There's Just to go anything.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I would vote for it now, but I'm also open to, I don't think we're in a rush, and if there's a better way to do it, I want it to be accessible to folks.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Think absolutely recommend Okay, that with universal

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: so we are doing it that way, okay. So it's the committee. Go ahead, Chittenden.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: Thank you. I just wanted to mention, there's not a rush, but time is important because if we want to implement this for the primaries this year, it would need to happen pretty quickly. You know, probably by the February, least

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: after that.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: And in the year first, it's

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: on February.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: By the by yes. But

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: because I think it's affecting my past.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Right. So I'm double checking on that.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. You're That's why I'm brushing. Yeah. This is Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Just wanted to note that for everybody until the January. No.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Like Like, we can do this next week. Yeah. Okay. But now it'll be up to you guys to concur with us.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: What the fuck?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: You know.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We know how it works.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: We know how

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: it works.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: It was 64 it was 641, just telling me how to do the house government operations.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: Oh, it was.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So We like shout

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: out too.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Could I quickly show you the the utility? Because, again, I've been telling you all that first, you're make concerns to me, but I'm just lodge counsel. I I I do have and it's also just one judge. This is not supreme court. It's a federal judge in California, but because it is very similar to the Vermont bill that we have suggested here, I do wanna show you a couple of lines I think will help you, see where I'm coming from and that, you know, you can do what you want because 26 states have done this, and this is one judge, one state that has had it law thrown out, okay? So I wanna highlight a couple lines, this is the fun part of my job. Okay, So the plaintiff in this case is a guy that made a set of media, and he was pulled by the state and stopped it. Okay, so he sued. So the plaintiff and defendant of California both agreed that at a minimum strict scrutiny is appropriate for this type of law. And it's again, a law that discriminates on the First Amendment. So even California admitted, this this is a strict scrutiny law. So the second highlight there, the US Supreme Court recognized that a state indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process. So I I mentioned last time that in order for the government to restrict speech, there must be a really good a compelling reason. So here you have a judge saying that, yeah, you can restrict election speech. And I highlight this one because we've all talked about it, the robocalls. Yep. Even the court's like, yeah, this is an example of a bad thing that's happened, the twenty twenty four Biden New Hampshire primary republic calls. Okay. While the court acknowledges that California may have a compelling interest in protecting election integrity, the tools it deploys to achieve its interests must be the least restrictive means of achieving such a goal when significant speech issues are at stake. So this is the whole narrowly tailored thing. This is how we kind of phrase this. Okay? And the court here, interestingly, gave California some examples. Here's how you could do it. Their restriction is, I think it's also ninety days. It's a bit broader than what the house produced. It's kinda closer to what came out of the senate. For instance, California could limit the law to reach false speech that causes legally cognizable harms, like false speech that actually cause voter interference, coercion, or intimidation. California could also limit the statute to breach the factual statements that are demonstrably false, like the time, date, place, and manner of voting. And secondly or thirdly, another narrow construction might be California to limit the plaintiffs to political candidates who are actually harmed by the speech. And that's kind of what came out of the house, right? It has to be the political candidate, But this is one court. This is one judge. This is there's 25 other states where it's still somewhat like this on the books. Senator Morley. Does

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: the senate double ops

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: amendment weaken the house version? Weaken in what ways? We have no Just make it less constitutional? Yes. So as this amendment I presented today, it's my opinion. Yes. But that's because it broadens the No. Just wanna make sure I understand. It's not necessarily unconstitutional. A court may and in fact, this court may get appealed to. The Ninth Circuit in California may say, actually, this is fine. And then the Supreme Court may say something totally different. Mhmm. So it's one of the parts of this frustrating process.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Sandra Vyhovsky? So that answered part of my question, which was that this was not within a circuit court and

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: And it's a circuit court. It is a the the Federal Circuit Court. So it's going

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And this is this decision came from a federal circuit court?

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: No. So it came from a district court, and a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would be the next court. Okay. It's within the federal system of Got

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: it. But it has it's not

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So not an assault.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Right. Are any of the 26 states that have laws similar like this in any state of appellate?

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: I've only seen the Minnesota challenge get thrown out because they didn't have standing, which I talked about last Yeah. So no other law that I've seen has even been challenged.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That is helpful. I, as you know, don't love this. I wish we could just ban it, but I recognize we live where we live. I'm ready to ban it with you. I want I know. I think I can live with this middle space.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I I don't I mean, if they haven't if if the 26 other states haven't even been challenged, I don't know why we are Worried. Like, worried so much.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't It's my due diligence.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I know. No. And I appreciate that. I just I think that we're sitting at a point in time where sometimes we've gotta take bold things and maybe it gets challenged, but then we know where the line is. Right. But currently, we don't know and we're like running scared and compromising with ourselves over something that hasn't even been challenged.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: And and so the reason I highlighted it's it's a good point, sir. The the reason I highlighted this is because the court cites, like, well, these these things that I quoted are court precedent. And this decision does quote some new stuff that I didn't highlight because it's arguable, but the stuff about elections are important and the government can regulate to some extent, like we talked about last time, you're required to put paid for by your campaign. These things are legitimate government uses of restriction. However, the further you get from that good interest, the squishier it gets, and you just, that's it. And yeah, you find out where the line is, and I'm trying to get you just for the court and say, you can't do this, don't do this. And they haven't said you can't do this, at least not the Supreme Court, but they said don't pass this line that where you're unconstitutionally restricting speech.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. No. And I appreciate that. I appreciate that you're doing your job. And I I also know that from from my own supreme court experience that we tend to look to circuit courts, particularly our circuit. I have seen instances where laws that were done in other states, power Vermont Supreme Court has been like, it doesn't really apply here because that's different. So I just, I think that we're worrying about something at this point that hasn't happened anywhere else. And yes, we've got a ruling out of California, we have the

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: ruling of California,

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: that very well could be appealed and overturned in appeals court, So and we just don't

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: does anyone wanna change anything about the amendment? I know there was some about using different language to indicate the disability piece.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And I, Rick, I sent you a page from the US Department of Labor where they outlined what is universal design.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Yes. So is the committee on board with that amendment?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Universal design, yeah. It will mean you have to come back to us today and show us a new amendment.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Chair, before we move on to this, who's going to be presenting the amendment?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Oh gosh, I think it could be any one of us.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Did you qualify for that?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House ranking member)]: Yeah, I feel like I I feel like I reported that,

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: but I'm also happy that it's not. I guess the reason I ask is so if I didn't need to,

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I would like to do.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I reported the chair did. Yes. Okay. That's my

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: that's my.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Love that memory. That seems like the right memory.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna write that down. Okay.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'll report.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Ricky, if you feel like it makes sense to put a definition even though there's something existing on an age in the Department of Labor? I think probably we'd be okay because the definition would be more so Yeah,

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll kind of check and see

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: how complicated. But we'll have have you go back in if we can. We're going go over next week now. Tuesday, we don't have really a lot on the agenda. It's the governor's budget for the rest. And then after we'll get together. So if you could come back Tuesday afternoon, three ish. And it should be fairly quick if all we're doing

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: is adding a definition. It should be from just double check. Okay.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: It should be brief.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And that will give Shay a chance to share what we've decided to do. And we will take a vote. We'll take a committee vote of

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Amenden. Sure. And

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'll be on mute. Have missed

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: one more coming back. Get it to you or 02:30.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: 02:30. Vote from 02:30 to

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: four Tuesday. Excuse me. How strange.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, could we could wait from 02:30. Are you are you are you guys done after this? Yes. If you give me fifteen minutes, I can type it at the minute. It's up to

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: It's only 02:35.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. We can

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's fine. So definition changes that you're okay with the definition

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes.

[Rick Segal (Legislative Counsel)]: As amended. Okay. So you just want the universal design language? Yeah, just need fifteen, maybe twenty minutes to

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: be safe? And let me read marvelous piece just so we can hopefully end this. Senator Collamore, as I mentioned yesterday as we were walking on the state house call, it was last night, we took testimony in house judiciary on age five forty one, which addresses voter intimidation. The bill includes an identical civil investigation provision that is also included in s 23. We have testimony from the Defender General and the Superior Judge, Judge Zoning that raised some concerns with the language. I see, however, that the language in s 23 is identical or nearly identical as in statute from title 17, section twenty nine zero four, at least since 2017. In other testimony we heard on h five forty one, the secretary of state suggested that we consolidate all of the civil investigation sections that would be found after s 23 and h four fifty one in three different locations in title 17 to one title wide civil investigation section. Therefore, my suggestion is we do not have to worry about the civil investigation sections in s 23 or h five forty one at this time because the same provision in title 17, section twenty nine zero four, has apparently not caused any problems in the past decade. Also, plan to put in my first bill drafting request for the next biennium, to be that consolidation and a rewrite of Title 17. So I took that to mean, don't worry about this. If need be in the next biennium, if needs to be amended, we can amend it. So with that in mind, we'll release Rick for a few minutes and be able to come back. And that way, Chittenden will have the amendment. Just won't make it on the calendar until probably Wednesday.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Senator Rutland? Will we be voting this afternoon? Sure. Why not? So we should get like a we can do a voting sheet.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. That'll be good practice. So let's go offline. I'll go over the agenda for next week while we're waiting for Rick to do his magic, and we'll be back here in ten minutes or so, Rick. It's fifteen.