Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Good afternoon, and welcome in to the senate government operations committee meeting of Friday, 02/06/2026. Two bills are for consideration today. The first is s two ninety eight, an act relating to creating the Vermont Voting Rights Act. We're joined today by legislative council, Tim Dutland, who's going to at about a 30,000 foot view, walk us through the bill. It's a very thick bill with, I think, 25 or 30 pages. So I'll let Jim walk us through it.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Well, thank you very much for having me. Members of the committee.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Yeah. And remember, she sees you if you look here.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Right. I'll keep an eye on that. For the record, my name is Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel. Indeed, before you have the bill as introduced, is S twenty two ninety eight, the voting Rights Act of Vermont. And indeed, this is a bill. And, but I can kinda describe it as a subject material following me to six main areas. The first would be language assistance for voters. Second would be assistance for voters who are 65 years or older and voters with disabilities. Third would be changes to electoral practices, boundaries, and voting systems, that is at large systems, and the process about which to go through those at the local level. And let's see. Fourth would be voter outreach funds and a mechanism to support that. And fifth would be series of new criminal and civil measures or prohibitions on election interference. And then lastly, sixth addresses is the idea of how offenders are counted in the reapportionment process. So The Reader Assistant headings are really kind of divided into two different parts. The first being the Mont Blockey Rights Act, which is five, six of it, and the last part being the county offenders and reapportionment for legislative districts. So starting in the Vermont Voting Rights Act, section one will create a new chapter in Title 17 as well as the election provisions are out. The first subchapter is definitions and rights of voters. I'm gonna skip definitions for now and return them if wanted to provide 14 filings in the Sicilate Rommel. The other half of the subchapter has to do with essentially broad camera and speed on the right of voting, and we see that at the bottom of page four, Sexuality. Correct. So we have voter denial or dilution, essentially, process statement is preventing those, or guaranteeing a right against us being infringed upon. Then in 02/03/2008 I'm sorry. 02/08/2003, policies, through page five, we have a prohibition on pairing the rights voters registered. So we'll turn now to subchapter two having to do with the assistance in voting and elections. And here we have provisions Getting to a few different categories of individuals who will receive assistance. One is first based on language. So you have a mechanism for determining which languages will kind of be selected for enhanced assistance. And that's a process that goes through the Secretary of State in selecting those. There's some definitions in as well. And the findings in Secretary of State, which we published annually. And then we see the assistance to voters actually having on page, like page seven, where it begins in earnest. And that is where the secretary of the constitution. How these described are selected by the secretary? Acted into a system that's selected to give them a path. That review process. We have also shown now preventive action here in subsection D, as on the bottom of page eight, and that is where residents who are qualified to vote, any of those individuals were aggrieved by a violation of the language services provisions, and bringing action, civil action, superior to the court. And I know I'm breezing through a lot of this. So if anybody wants to move south, just ask for me to fill it out. Happy to. I am very much

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: to talk

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: May I ask about non Sure. Non section data. Thanks, Brian, on the right of action, don't we currently have that? And doesn't every citizen have right to action at the moment on this? For

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: I don't think so in this regard. So right here, we're talking about the a new kind of duty that's being imposed on the Secretary of State to identify certain what the term here is with minority languages, and then basically assist municipalities where they may find themselves short of resources or capabilities in assisting those municipalities in providing assistance to return to those individuals who may speak with minority languages. And then really, if those municipalities aren't following through on them, generally the Secretary of is properly following the process detailed here, individuals who are agreed by that and say, yeah, didn't actually receive those, but this is making my life much more difficult to vote, because have greater proficiency in the English language, then they can bring action really to compel Okay. To very sensitive. So there's nothing really, in my mind, in 17, Title 17, that is, that covers the same kind of conduct, mostly because this is It's such a basic right, I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: would have assumed we had free courts always, no matter who you were.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Sure. I mean, depends on the type of vote in conduct we're talking about, but here is essentially a new kind of service being provided. And so with it, there because social distancing doesn't exist today, there's no real anything to go on really after that actual action. But other types of infringement on the right to vote, We do have certain criminal provisions on our as far as, like, criminal threatening, stuff like that, that do have kind of an enhancement in for, you know, election context, but nothing really in this kind of Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Well, great. Thanks. I'll just feed the the last. Okay.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So we're on page nine, and now we turn to assistance for certain voters. Those certain voters individuals who are 65 years of age or older and voters who may be physically disabled. And so here we have the assistance taking form of, let's say, not necessarily having to enter the polling place, but if they are within under 50 feet of the entrance, a Yeah. Poll official can essentially come out and have info there and then turn the ballot. Let's see there is, see B gets into the individual with disabilities and more and more than able to read and write. Senator Thank

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: you, Chair Collamore, and sorry for coming in late on this. Very interested in this bill. So we did get an email from a woman who represents the GOP down in our area in Ludlow who had some questions about this section, in particular, like the chain of Chain of custody isn't the right word, but like the pathway of if you go or maybe it is the right word if I see my my judiciary friend nodding along, where if someone goes out, gets the ballot, are they how are they verifying that this person is 65 years or older? You know, do they need a license? You know, how how would you know? Mhmm. And then on top of that, would that person then be taking it? And my initial reaction to that email was, well, right now we sent two justice of the of the peace to people's homes, for example, if they're unable if, for example, in our town, if we do it every year for a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: woman who is blind. Sure.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: I guess I'm wondering when you look at that language, what would your response be to, like, how that potentially could be implemented, or suggestions of Google potentially would be the right Well,

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: I will say that the process is rather silent. So, you know, there's nothing here about voter checklists or just announcing to it. Could that be added? Absolutely. But as far as chain of custody, so that's just one of, okay, who is this person voting? Yep. Same chain of custody. So the voter marked a printed ballot in the presence of the officer by the secret manner, and just during the voter's vote, and then returned to the officer, who then in turn immediately returns to the polling place. That's really it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Okay.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So the ballot doesn't really leave the presence of the officer, there's only one person, unlike the justice and justice scenario, but it's too. And it needs to be modified. I

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: think there would just be a flag. I think if potentially we wanted to add language where it's the same process you have when you go to someone's home, for example, like a ballot, that might be. But I would ask that we potentially invite the elections official, Sean Sheehan, to come and speak to us about that. Sure.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Let's see. So now turning to some neighborhood assistance for certain voters. Subsection b addresses, let's see, qualified voters who require assistance to vote by reason of physical disability or inability to read or write. And they may request assistance in voting, and they would make designee officer election or the person to assist the voter. And there it is. Much process over there. I'll just kinda skip that for right now for expediency sake. Happy to return to any of this other than twenty years. Let's see. And then subsection c, we see if a voter requires assistance in language learning different English, does not designate a person to assist them, the election is in election option basis. So Yes. And essentially that we see here, grouping for kind of party preference that is absolutely first one. So that can be kind of replicated by section 10, but there's some worry about some features and partisanships. But we see slightly different process for each of these kind of categories of individuals to be assisted. And then we see d from the next page is where we have the penalty provision. And so a person who willfully violate violate subsection b or c of this section should be imprisoned not more than six months or violate not more than 2,000. Again, this is really geared toward the people who are violating assistance, so just election workers. Okay, We're there's a nice call down right there. Let's see, now we move to

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: And can I just, on this point, I know that we do have criminal, this is a criminal charge? This is not civil.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yep. Okay. Yeah. Can just Yeah. Just a note for the community too,

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: the mandatory waiver or the follow-up line of the crime.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Willfully, that's not typically a term of use. The months that you're saying it can be intentionally or something like that. Or the committee can calibrate up or down depending on the level of thought that the individual could go up into, whether that be purposefully at the top or language. It's sub subchapter three. Can you

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: speak Question to about the

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: willfully language, Tim, would the language we would more typically use in Vermont lobby knowingly?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yes. It could be, more intentionally, or there's various rounds going up and down the men's rate ladder. So that's just a policy choice to be made by the community members.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Yeah, leave some late. Wants to make it? One didn't wind itself. Oh, that's also just winding. How about opening the other one? The other one on the top. Other one on

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: the top. Yeah, the person.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Right. Thank you.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So this is one of the places in the field where we kind of change gears a bit, we move That's on to the one. When, essentially, municipalities are looking to change the mechanics of bowing. And we have that term being covered practices. This is here where we turn to our definitions back on page one through five, and covered practice is the second one in there, and really means changing election system to an at large, a local way of electing candidates, changes to municipal, election district boundaries within twelve months of the election. And that is for the qual on whether it reduces by more than five percentage points, proportion of municipalities voting age population is composed of members of a single racial minority. Let's see, any changes to boundaries of elections, districts, force in general? Let's see, any changes that would restrict the ability of a person to provide interpretive services or materials in any other language for the assistance of voting. Any efforts to consolidate or relocate polling places. And then that's largely it. So when a municipality is considering doing one of those things I just listed out, there are essentially two routes that can be taken before this can be enacted. So section 2,822, that is covered practices and actions required prior to enactment of administration. The two routes being they can either have a involvement notice and review period, or they can go to the attorney general for a certification, sorry, certification of no objection, and kind of cut through some of those type constraints and kind of get the ukamore stamped over Google May to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: May. So Tim, I can't remember if we allowed municipal for a natural disaster too because some, you know, we've had flooding or something that would mean we couldn't vote in that place or in that. So do we allow for natural disasters to affect? I can't remember correctly. I

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: would have to reexamine some of the details here. I think there's some things in there.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Anyway, a flag for us to go for over to to have in in case

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: things happen. I believe there is some sort of extra circumstance. Apologies, I would take it. That's okay. Social My third quarter. How about So we'll start off first of that, kind of first round. That is the dose and review. So first So are we on to page 14 with notice requirements? Oh, sorry. We're on page 11 right now. Okay. You're still on. Okay. Yes. So Ms. Mallard will have to, if you want to, make a change in any of those covered practices, they would have to provide forty five days notice and And then they can revise any proposed changes based on feedback from the public, and then they renotice for an additional thirty days before they take effect. And here again, now, see under c two at the top of page three, there is a private practice action for injunctive relief. If individuals who are subject to or affected by the covered practice, being challenged in Superior Court, oh, and then I should say, there's actually limited reasons they can be challenging. One is covered practice has purpose or effect of denying or refusing the right to vote on the basis of race or color of membership and electing the minority group, or second, if the covered practice results in the retrogression in the position of members of a racial or ethnic group with respect to their effective exercise in complete withdrawal franchise. So, Tanya Vyhovsky.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: Thank you. I have, I think two questions. One is going back to that forty five day notice period. That, I believe, aligns with when ballots go out. So is that correct that ballots go out for a male election forty five days before?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: That sounds roughly correct. I'd have to go and take a look at it.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: If that is the case, I'd wanna put a flag on this because I would imagine we'd want notice before ballots go out, not aligned with when ballots go out. The other question I have around the the private right of action, the burden of proof for proving that the action was taken to limit voting based on a protected class would be on the person bringing the right of action, right?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yes. I'm trying to think if certain kind of groups whose membership would decompose those individuals could also have standing. It would certainly be at least individuals. I'd have to think more about Absolutely. And also, I should also note that on page 11, we created section twenty eight twenty one states that no change in any local election district nor the polling place shall take effect within sixty days preceding any election. So that's actually bumps that out further than the forty day forty five day possibility.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: Okay, I just, I heard forty five days in there somewhere and we don't have to dig into all the fine details right now. Just wanted to double check that piece.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: It's in section A1. You're right, it's right there on the line four, three.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So let's see. Okay. Now for the second round, which the municipality can implement a covered practice. So in lieu of those other kind of notice and renoticing revision provisions in a and b, in c, we have municipalities are unable to go see Are

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: we at page 13?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yes, page 13 at the bottom. Apologies. Let's see. So the municipality may submit a proposed covered practice to the office of the attorney general for issuance of the certification, no objection. Again, that's not defined in first stages of and really what's important to note here is that they can summarily agree or deny it, but they do have, after sixty days, a default to approval. So the incentive on since the age age was passed. Then we'll move on to notice requirements, additional notice requirements, and there's requirement to publish in newspapers that general circulation, the area of the changes to be made, as well as a requirement for mailers to go to register voters for attending the districts that are being affected. Those are supposed to go out at least fifteen days prior to the general special for primary election. So this is best understood as those changes have been essentially approved, are gonna be taking effect. These are secondary kind of reminders to the voter before they actually are expected to vote that, hey, there's a change. You're going somewhere else. Exactly.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: And I just put page 15, lines four through seven? Yes. It would be up to the Secretary of State to cover the costs of creating a GIS map. Let's see.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So here, for context, municipalities are to send in GIS maps to the secretary of states detailing the boundaries of any change in awards or districts, and the municipality does not state any municipality does not have such capabilities, can request the secretary of state's office to do that on their behalf. And so presuming that the municipality doesn't have the capability, and secreters didn't do it on their behalf, they would, in that instance, yes, cover the cost. So now we move on to the sub chapter four. We're halfway through page 15. This is the at large method of elections. So section two, page three one, at large method of elections, limitations, violations, remedies. So in essence, what we have here is kind of a general prohibition on changing to at large method of elections. And here, I should say that includes one that combines an at large election with districts or board based elections. So kind of a hybrid method, not just strip this at large. And can we put out the info impose or apply in any manner that impairs the ability of members of a protected class or to elect candidates of choice or its ability to influence the outcome of election as a result of the dilution or abridgment of voters, rights of voters, or members of that particular class. I shouldn't say it's a prohibition. I mean, correct myself. It's fair to characterize that it's prohibited if it impacts detrimentally certain protected classes of voters. And who would determine whether that is an impact on some of it? And then I see, Jonathan, you can ask a quick question too. Sure. Let me see if we actually

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: charged any later than being left to the courts. I

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: presume that it would be left to the municipality to judge that they are adhering to the other rule of law. And then if they straighten that, we'll see in the next page on page 16, any voter who's a member of the protected class and who resides in the municipality where violations section is alleged can initiate a cause of action, security of the quorum. Right. And then the court amends discretion of law for a private plaintiff, unreasonable attorney's fees, and we can do that. And then the court shall have appropriate remedies that are challenging them to be violations. So say who determines it would be the judgement municipality and to be correct, the complaint president, it sounds like. Yes. Yeah. Senator Vyhovsky?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: My question was very similar, and it was about sort of who has the duty to prove that someone was harmed or who had you know? So really just thinking about are we once again asking someone to have the money for legal fees, be able to sue and having a completely complaint driven system to that you then have the burden of proof to say I was discriminated against.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: And I should state that probably with more thought, I believe that this is one of the categories of covered practice. So, so if you're purchasing boundaries, which certainly could happen in moving to an at large voting systems, or, oh, there we are, A at the top of page three, any change in method of election, duh, by adding seats elected at large, I can vary by more seats elected from single member districts who would want more apt on Texas. So this would have to go through that kind of preapproval process. So municipality is doing this, so you would, again, either have to go through the involved notice and revision and renoticing, or go to the attorney general's office for that certificate of no objection. So I shouldn't say that they're just letting the courts do it, although the courts are certainly a backstop here. They would be under the intention of either the public or the attorney general. And I apologize, Senator Vyhovsky, does that address your question? Answered my own question there.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: I think so, thanks.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So, we have now, I'll just move on to page 16. Halfway through, we have subchapter five, voter education outreach funds. This will create in state treasury special non reverting funds to be known as the voter education outreach fund. And just called the funds throughout this section

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: here. But And

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: all the bits and charges directed to this fund by chapter seven later on, and it should have been better than this. The important civil action will be by the attorney general, so violations of this act. Penalties and other files from public private sources would be directed to the state. This one let's see. Interest provisions as well as okay. Direction for the money is found on page 17, starting on line two. And monies in the fund shall be used solely for the purpose educating voters and persons to all fine to be voters on the rights insured to them pursuant to the constitution and statutory law have remedies as well. Yes. We'll see if there will. Okay. Moving on to subchapter six, this is where we have the election interference provision. So we have four new offenses. Intimination of election officers, the intimidation of the voters, and false sympathizers back in there, communication of false information to registered voters, and then interference with voting. The first one, intimidation of the election voters. Any person who by bribery, intimidation, threatens threats so let me start. Person who, by bribery, intimidation, threats, coercion, or other means and violation of the election laws will play, again, those events were handed, hinders or prevents or attempts to hinder or prevent an election officer at any polling place from holding an election. She'll be imprisoned not more than two years or found not one in two thousand. So, again, this is your election. Senator White?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Thank you, chair Collamore. I'm wondering if you could provide some examples of this because Okay. We've certainly had situations where we've had it it's never occurred to them for my understanding, but there was a rumor that during the twenty twenty sixteen election that we were gonna have poll watchers from this national organization that was, I would say, right wing is the proper terminology for them. However, they may not call themselves that. And they never showed up, but they were going to be standing out in front and taking information of people going in the polling place was kind of the rumor. So then we had another group that came in case they showed up to protest them being there. So the protesters for them did show up, but the people actually who were rumored to be coming didn't. But I guess in either scenario, I mean, could someone who is taking information about someone entering a polling place or recording who's going into a polling place, could that be considered a type of intimidation? Would would yeah. Because what we were told is we couldn't the reason the protest occurred was because we were told, well, they can't tell them to leave if they showed up and started doing that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Or taking pictures. Mean Or taking pictures.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Yeah. We were very concerned. So

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: it's an interesting question, and it raises First Amendment concerns, surrounding the rights of speech and things like that. One of so and there's you know, the question here is, okay, where is that line? Yeah. When we're talking about political speech, which is very much protected. There's something called true threats in the true threat doctrine. This is a carve out from protected speech. Not all speeches actually protect it on a person never write. So some can be criminalized, so we think of defamation. Oh. We think of fraud. We think of obscenities. And true threats are one of those. So typically hear people saying, like, you can't shout fire in theater. Yes. Like that. You can't threaten to kill people with certainty. Strangely kind of a nebulous. That's not correct. So the Supreme Court, in a case called Colorado v. Encounterment in 2023, looked at this question and really kind of said, okay, what is the men's rate? He's been producing that chart plot today, but it's just again, in criminal context, what level of, I guess, intelligent thought that the alleged perpetrator, you know, bring to the situation, you know. That level of thought was said to be, because they have to be, at very least, reckless in how they conduct themselves. So really just knowing that there was a risk that they could cause psychological harm by themselves, And harm they just didn't care and they went ahead and did it anyways. And that would be, you know, the, it's very a threshold for having a true threat. So something like waving a gun, you know, it's very reckless. You know, something like shying, fructose information, that's a little bit harder to tell. Okay. If Shouting certain things like bad threats or something like that, it's a lot clearer. That could be certainly a true threat. But, something that may be unseemly, like, you know, throw the expletive or using slurs, that would be pretty good.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Okay, let's say the group was only taking photos of people of color who were entering the polling place. Is that kind of would that tip it over? Like, if they were clearly or they were taking photos and taking names of people who they believe to be immigrants?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: I can't say for certain. These situations are always very fact driven in court cases, and so we have general rules within such a limited option. Let's not suss out where these lines are on a case by case basis. Okay. So maybe that's answer.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Well, appreciate your legal, being a lawyer today, Perhaps.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Exactly. Depends, right?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Anyway, but, so here we have, again, bribery, intimidation, threats, coercion, and or other means of violation of the election laws.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: But don't We always already have that in our voters' oath.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Voters' oath.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Well, this

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: is contemplating third parties, not necessarily Oh, right. No. It's gonna be something that just shows up as doesn't vote. Or But if I You're right. The vote is out of the specific

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: to you. You can't Right.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: And I should say that there is a per an entire chapter. I think it's, 17, maybe 35. It's, Offenses Against the Security of Election. And we have about 10 statutory sections on there which get to misconduct by either voters, so things like voter fraud, or election officials themselves are tampering with checklists and stuff like that. We don't really have anything currently on the books about third parties trying to interfere with elections. I referenced earlier that idea about criminal threat kind of the closest thing we have. We also have, like, no guns near the polar places. That's kind of good right now. Got

[Alana Pearson, RepresentWomen]: it right.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: This I I believe this is the response to because I could

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: have prompted this still.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: This is in part in response to a conversation we had where at the Springfield polling Place, there was what I felt to be an extremely intimidating man who was fully dressed in an American flag outfit and then swinging a giant American flag in front of the polling place in a way where he was also shouting things that were for one candidate. Obviously, a candidate I was not in support of. But that felt intimidating to me because he had a very large I mean, we're talking as big as the quilt waving it around. And I also felt that the lighting was very poor, so is it nighttime. So I I I'm just wondering kind of in your I I don't know if that would be considered intimidation, but if they if he had been yelling specific breaths, don't go in there, you know, don't go vote, that would probably cross the line, but perhaps not the use of the flag as, leaving

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: thing. Again, this can be fact exclusive. So is he swinging and missing it? Is he blocking people from getting in physically? Yeah. Is he making it very difficult to do something?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Blocking access at Yeah. Is sort

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: of Yeah. They kind of have a like, you have to go almost to, like, a gauntlet, which I do think is is intimidating as

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: a I think the gauntlet on the whole with all of us

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: there is intimidating for voters.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: I I think the whole Springfield voting spot needs to be revised, period.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: But I guess would this have any onus on the polling place to make changes, to make, like, better lighting or like, would they have any responsibility on this end?

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: I think each municipality has the right to implement their own rules with regard to polling places. They can, for instance, in Rutland County, there are some towns where you have to be a specific distance away from the entrance. Some don't allow you to stand there with your lawn sign.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Some do.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Something. Some allow you only if you, the candidate, are opposing and

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: not You can't stick it in the ground and leave. So I think that may fall in. If he's, whatever the distance is, 40 feet away from the polling door, he can wave it all he wants, and he's not violating any polling environment.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: I you're right to say there's certain prohibitions on collection hearing within certain productivity or inside. There may be I think the I'm not sure exactly how much it allows the statutes to get local localities and adjusting those. There may be just difference in enforcement or something like that. So it looks somewhat different if you're there. But, anyways, those the electioneering provisions are not clear. Oh, okay. So, you know, if the person was wearing a candidate's hat and got within x feet, fancy to tell. Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Yeah. I was told because I was a candidate, I could not use a restroom at a polling place because that could have been considered electioneering.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Sure. Actually, I've I've never had that because they always have a place where we are. Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: That's Not not at this particular polling place.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: And Yeah. I guess it must.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Yeah. I know. I was like, okay. Fair enough. I'll go somewhere else.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So Okay. Okay. Next here, we have on page 17. The next offense is twenty eight fifty two, intimidation of voters. So we're moving from election officials to voters here. Also, there'll be a subclass of action. Any person who intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to do so. You mentioned that same language and sound in the election. Any other person in getting the person's vote or ballot or who intimidates or courts in their attempts to do so, a voter to deter or prevent a voter from voting shall be imprisoned not more than two years or not more probably not more than $2,000 both. So the operative language there aside from the kind of conduct they committed in the front line court or attempting to do such would be giving the person's vote or ballot training to vote or just voting to prevent the vote from voting, is voting to chance. And I shouldn't say we already have on the books undue influence for having the voter vote a certain way. Strangely, we don't have preventing voting, but we do have where somebody is either bribing somebody or coercing them to vote A instead of B instead of A. So some of the stuff. It's And then there's a private guard action embedded in there too. Next offense on page 18, we have twenty eight fifty three, communication of false information to registered voters. It's only unlawful for any person to communicate to a registered voter by any means false information, knowing that the saying is false, intended to impede the voter, exercise the voter's right to vote. And then shall apply to information only about the date, time, and place of the election. So it narrows itself immediately. And that is an additional carve out for free speech. There's a state interest in, a valid governmental interest that the courts have held up in making sure that the logistics of voting goes on without a hitch. So you've probably heard something similar in this in the context of s 23. Yes. And so the idea of the robocalls where somebody was persecuting by and say, Hey, vote this other day.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Yeah.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So that's the kind of stuff that's captured right here, only that was the pretend person that this would still come to that. Oh, I agree. You could determine who it is, right? Anyways, so yeah, update, time, and place, really the mechanics of voting, warranty, registration process as well. So how do you vote and where do you vote? Essentially. No misinformation on those. Then anybody violating that shall be imprisoned not more than six months, will find not more than a thousand dollar divorce.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: So, Tim, can I just make sure I'm understanding Sure? Misinformation can include only those categories of where the polling place is, the date, time of the election,

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: or Yeah. Award. Time, place, may not kind of like that. Okay. Yeah. So if you say that, you know, the candidate has a different hair color, it's not gonna matter. Or if you say something like, I mean, could be more extreme, less silly too, right? But it may fall into all the other categories, know, if it's, know, you say that

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Your voting doesn't matter. It's not important. There's nothing important on the ballot, maybe?

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Well, can't That's

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: not But, yeah, that's what I'm saying. That wouldn't

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. 100%.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: It's it it I guess. But we've had already two big postcards in our district that are full of false information. What would we do about that?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Oh, oh, you mean related to legislation, but not to actually

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Senator X said this on issue, you know, It's

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: a lie.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: It doesn't matter. Yeah. This is not gonna prevent that.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Voting speech. Yeah, okay. But this is just about the voting place, means, and We're all

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: in the conference committee I on 20 brought up, and you'll see if it passes the House and gets over to us again. One of the things that we were at one point at odds with with the other chamber was whether it was an individual or a political candidate. And the individual example I used was if Taylor Swift came on and said, hey. There's a ballot item in South Burlington about a new pool. Yeah. Vote no on it. It's a horrible idea. You shouldn't do it. That's not part of s 23 because that's not misinformation. If she came on and said, hi, Taylor Swift and blah blah blah, and by the way, you can vote on this, and she gave a date after the the election had already happened, that's misinformation.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: This would include registration too. So if I've heard, like, scams of, you know, someone will get a text and be like, you can register to vote by following this link. Yeah. And then they're actually not registering to vote properly. They're just giving private information to some scammer. Would fall under the staff.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: That's fast.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: This is really preventing them from registering the vote.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Is such a good

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: that's such a good one.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Let's see, then in addition to the, I'm looking at subsection C here now, data 15, another, federal fiber reduction, yes, exactly. So that's You're fine. And there's That's okay. Some differences between these, but the committee wanted to Right now, their assumptions replicate it in each sections, but they could be pulled out and then sent to apply to XYZ. And, yeah, it's fine with us either one. Let's see. And then next offense, and this is, it's the last one. Fourth, interfering with voting. Interference with voting. 2,854. Any person acting under the color of law who, contrary to an official policy or procedure, fails to permit or refuses to permit a qualified voter to vote or who willfully fails or refuses to tabulate, count, or report to the vote of a qualified voter subject to a civil penalty in the amount of not more than $1,000 for each affected voter, then they have to pay them

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: as the fund. And let's see. What exactly is the color of white? Sure.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So if you're sitting there with a vest that says election official, really anything you're doing is gonna appear to a regular person, and so you're doing it as an official duty Yeah, to call okay. So it's, it may It's a term of life. Stray from what your duties actually are, but it's closer to what a regular layperson would think, oh, well, if they say it, you know, it's I should probably follow-up.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Okay, so it's a term of life.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Okay.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Thank you.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: It's kind of undefining duties of the appearance of undefining duties on the outskirts of official duties.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: If I wear

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: my Justice of the Peace name tag.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: That's that's what we have. We don't have vests. We have some name tags. They're JP. That would be when I'd be under this. Yes. Yeah.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So if you take that out and be like, I'm not gonna bring this back. You know, that's that's one of these. Or if you you know, if you're qualified, don't know, and you're thinking about yourself too.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: If I saw them on the checklist, but then told them they weren't on the checklist Sure. And told them to go away, that would be

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Yeah. That'd be exactly right. And then b one says any person who furnishes a ballot to a voter or that person, starts or who that person knows cannot understand the language in which the ballot is printed and misinforms the voter. This is the content of the ballot. Will get attempts to deceive the voters as attempt language act Yes. And induce the voter to vote contrary to the voter's desire, shall be imprisoned not more than six months or fined an amount of more than $1,000 So this will apply to some of the language assistance, I'd actually kind of stack, I would say, on some of the language assistance provisions earlier. It would apply to both election officials who's assisting. It would apply to any private individual who would detonate to assist English Hello? Individual voting. And, yeah, those are probably the two categories people. And so for violating let's see. Six months not more than six months, filing a one in the thousand dollar poll. And then see if we have b two and three as well. Any person who changes in ballot of a voter to prevent the voter voting as a voter's sire shall be a cousin not within six months. Mhmm. Fine. More than more than a thousand dollars. Just handle that. Okay. Primaries would work. Right? You give somebody another ballot or, again, language ballot. It's a little bit rough. Maybe those see if it's following along. Three, the subject applies to any elections, any method used by a political party for selection of its nominees and for selection of delegates to its conventions and meetings. Tanya Vyhovsky?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: So to that last point, if we had a I mean, that could cover any, like, Democratic party meeting. Yeah. We did because we send folks to the conventions. This would also cover if someone felt that they were inaccurately given information about voting for those candidates going to, like, if we were going for committee men or committee women to the DNC, the Democratic National Convention in Vermont, and that person, this would also cover

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: all of that.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Actually, I know. I have

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: to think more about the pop up

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: this thing. So this is to be read with one and two, B1 and two. So we're talking about furnishing balance, then different language for switching out invalid maybe for a date invalid

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: And for

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: primary valid, but it wouldn't work in that setting. But, yeah, something where it's I'm trying to think through a cover like voice or something like that because we're talking about balance, the other two, but I can think a little bit more.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Okay. Yeah. Because I certainly I think it is important that they have equal you know, we have good regulations related to those types of meetings, but I'm not totally sure how this would play out in reality. Mhmm. Because usually we have a big meeting. And I think they do paper ballots, but I've also I feel like I've done an online ballot too. I don't know

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: if they're allowed to do that.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Know that certain local parties or local primaries. Yeah. Digital. Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Okay. Okay.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Now we move on to so chapter seven. Eight four. Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: So just curious. I think these are all offenses that are worthy of the actions we're in enforcement. Of course, you know, how we get them before it's all in the question. But they're inconsistent penalties, and I think they're all egregious. Why why do we have one, two that are at a thousand, two that are

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: at 2,000? Just want to speculate that, this portion of the bill was based on Virginia's laws. Okay. And so those penalties were, I think, brought over.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: And these are what, currently at Virginia law? I

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: believe so. Yep. Yeah, well I think it was the case. Yes. I'll double check that. Yeah, it just seems

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: odd to me that we are not consistent.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Well, they can be made to whatever.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Absolutely, I'm just flagging it. So,

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: enforcement. So we're on page 20 now, and let's see. To be added section twenty eight sixty one, civil action by attorney general. And whatever the attorney general advisable cause to believe that the violation of this chapter has occurred and that the right and, therefore, the rights of any voter or group of voters have been affected by such violation that can bring civil action in the Superior Court, the accounting for its alleged conduct occurred. Civil actions in such civil action may award preventative relief, including permit or temporary injunction, restraining orders, on the border against the person responsible for violating. So, again, injunctive relief is just a reservation letter with those terms. Alright. And then we get to the civil penalties. We see in b two, and it can be assessed at amounts not more than $5,000 to your first violation and the amount of not 1 to $25,000 for each subsequent violation. So second, third, and fourth, and will go into that voter education outreach fund mentioned before. Then there's some reliefs about attorney's fees going to places that they win. And let's see. Court or jury may award such other relief to the grieved person if the court deems appropriate, including compensatory damage and punitive damages.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: So does this section supersede the penalties already outlined earlier, the monetary penalties in the section. It seems like we were saying $2,000 $1,000 and now we're saying $5,000 or $25,000

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So they're parallel, although not too formal, too parallel. Because there could be a criminal action, those who we just saw, those are criminal provisions. So AG or more likely state attorneys would go after the criminal, depending on their faith and evidence, maybe, because we have a higher standards there for finding guilt. They may either opt for a civil action instead, or where there's lower threshold for eviction, you know, perhaps the left a criminal on the first and then simple action subsequent. That's possible as well. But generally, I'd describe that in general. Criminal, civil, both, actually. And then I guess this would have part of civilized response. Very damn, physically, and junkyard will be baked into as well. So the attorney general's office has various tools in the toolbox. So it

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: would be up to an opinion at the Attorney General's office whether to go along with the monetary guidelines already outlined earlier in the chapter, or to take full advantage of the

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: 5 and 25,000. Or you could have two different parties. The state's attorney could be pursuing the criminal.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: And the AG could be doing the civil.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Exactly, the AG's office could also be doing civil. Okay. They'd have to agree amongst who's gonna bring forth the criminal provisions. Yes. So now we move on to, shifting gears to counting offenders and reapportionment of legislative districts. So, just quickly, what these new statutory sections are aiming to accomplish is that if anyone is incarcerated, essentially, at the time of when the Census Bureau is counting individuals, the populace, that instead of counting anybody who's incarcerated in a location of where they are currently incarcerated, it will default to where their last address was conception, unless they're serving a line of arrest.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Yeah, I was gonna say some people will be there for the election. Yeah. And because we do elections every two years, you could be in there for five years and not a life sentence and still be voting there. So I I I think this is a Well, it's a challenge for being the proportionate, though, as well. So I appreciate it. We reapportion in census is taken in the even deck decade year, and then it takes us a while to to draw the lines. And but then once we've counted them, let's say we counted them in '20, then we're drawing the lines in '21, ready for the election in '22. They may still be in jail. I I I don't think life in prison is the only sentence at which I mean, any anybody with a sentence of two years or more could still be in the same place. Sure.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: If that address was out of state prior to them being incarcerated, would that put them in jeopardy of being able to vote?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: No, it wouldn't, well, I shouldn't say it. So they, for the purposes of reapportionment in the state, if they have an out of state address as their last address, they wouldn't be counted at all. Right. Out of stages aren't Only certain states allow individuals to vote if you're incarcerated. So if you're a Vermont resident, you can. And then we're from the other ones. So everybody else can speak.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: Thinking of someone who lives in the state of Vermont prior to when they are incarcerated. For apportionment, they're counted where they lived, and presumably, if they have to, I don't know, pay property taxes, that's where they lived, not where they're incarcerated. And we allow university students to choose if they will vote where they lived or at the university that they're going to.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: So it

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: seems to make sense to me that regardless of where the facility that they have no choice in where they're sent to, that they would be able to vote where they live.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. That's an interesting question of whether somebody who was out of state can redeclare the residency to be that of where they're incarcerated and whether then they could vote in whatever election, you know, actually, they find themselves in that district. You know, I haven't thought about that. I have to think more, and it seems well, I shouldn't speculate on it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: You're about to Danger. Danger will

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: probably But I think it could you could make the sort of argument in kind of both directions that some, but that the person incarcerated should get to choose if they're going to vote in the district they are incarcerated in or the district they live in.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Right.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: If they can vote in both of those places. If they are eligible. That was Tim's other point is like, we you can vote here.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Right.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: But if you're incarcerated and you're from another state, but you're I don't know if we incarcerated. Do we have any out of state folks being incarcerated in Vermont other than we've moved a few ICE detainees process through our facility? Yes. I believe we have kids.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: I a picture

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: of We do. So there are folks who are charged with crimes are in Vermont.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Yes. We're going to leave some. Interesting. We have some drug offenses where people are from out of state who are in our prison. Well,

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: the other question this raises for me is what about someone who lives in the state of Vermont, thus it has the right to vote, but we are incarcerating in what is it, Mississippi right now?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Yes. They're voting. They are able to vote, I believe. I think

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: they But

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: are they voting in Mississippi elections, or are they voting where they came from in the local election?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: We we should ask secretary of state and DOC. We should have those that them in. But I believe they are they get they get absentee ballots.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, Vice Chair]: So why is is that what we're allowing for so if if I am an individual and I live in Essex and I happen to be incarcerated at the women's facility in South Burlington, Do I vote in the Essex election or the South Burlington election, or do I have a choice?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: I think we should be asking DOC and as Secretary of because they'll have an answer on that. Okay.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: I think there's an answer to that. I just want to move things along if you can. Have

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: We have some witnesses here, right? Yeah.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Let's see. So would you like me to go into detail on these provisions and see exactly how the mechanics work? I don't think that's interesting. But, yeah, suffice it to say that when the state is redistricting and looking at various populations in the February of the census block, They will be taking that information from the census and then taking a look at who's incarcerated at that time of kind of snapshot and then gathering there's some information requirements in here from Department of Corrections and how they're supposed to communicate that to the legislative portion of the board and that's the legislature itself. And essentially somewhat modifying those numbers to be taken into consideration when those new political districts are drawn. Okay? Any questions about this bill? Sure we're looking for everything. There's a lot I of think we have a lot of questions now. Fair enough. So White.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Thank you, mister chair. I just had one note of follow-up, which is I know that we had some numbers of potential changes already to this initial draft. Right. And I'm just wondering how you wanna proceed with those with him. You know, do we if we have specific changes that we'd like to recommend, do you want us to propose them here and then have him draft them? Or is it alright for me to have already I mean, I'm asking for forgiveness after, not permission.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: But I already sent him some stuff that would change the bill, I think, in positive.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: And the secretary of state also has some amendments I made to this bill that we knew about. I think I don't assume we would look at all amendments you need

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: to Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: Well, I I guess I was asking. Yeah.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: I would certainly in order to speed the process up, you could deal with the right. Thanks. So okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Quickly. We're beginning to get a lot of emails about embedding voter ID.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Correct. I've been getting a lot of them.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Yep. I have to.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White, Member]: I'm not doing that.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: I think

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: there's a lot of sentiment about that, but I just wanted to say it is not in this bill. And at the moment, we are not contemplating that.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: I just want to say that publicly.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: I'm not contemplating it. Yeah.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Yeah. Do we still have witnesses that were I had on my list

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: We have a a bunch. Is it Alana Person, Ben Williams and Denise Miller? Marissa Marissa Bright, Rose Riley?

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: No. I think those were

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: What happened?

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Deleted. Oh. They couldn't test by today.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Oh, okay. Well, let's

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Okay. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: There we are.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Scheduled to go until about 02:25 with this. So if you could each take maybe five to seven minutes apiece. And I don't if it doesn't matter who So leads

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: who do we have? We

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: We're gonna identify them. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: I see a lot of us.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Do you

[Alana Pearson, RepresentWomen]: want me to go first? My colleague Ben from a partner organization. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Your name starts with A, so get it. There you go.

[Alana Pearson, RepresentWomen]: Fabulous. My name is Alana Pearson. First, I just wanted to say good afternoon to the members of the Senate Committee on Government Operations. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of S0298, an act relating to creating the Vermont Voting Rights Act. I'm the communications lead at Represent Women. Represent Women is a national nonpartisan nonprofit that has spent more than a decade tracking the systems and structural levers that increase women's representation in elected office. We are expressing our support today for the Vermont Voting Rights Act. State voting rights advance represent women's mission to increase women's representation in elected office by addressing the systemic barriers that prevent fair participation and representation, particularly for women of color and other historically excluded communities. I want to be very clear at the offset. Represent Women strongly supports the Vermont Voting Rights Act, and we believe that this bill is critical to protecting not just the right to vote, but the right to be meaningfully represented. For nearly sixty years, the Federal Voting Rights Act has served as a cornerstone of representative democracy, ensuring that communities, regardless of race, color, or background, have the fair opportunity to elect candidates who reflect their interests and lived experiences. That promise of fair representation has never been automatic. It has required vigilant enforcement and sustained commitment. Today, those protections face unprecedented challenges, placing increased responsibility on the states to uphold and strengthen voting rights through state level voting rights acts. These laws are essential to safeguarding against vote dilution and ensuring democratic systems function as intended. Vermont has an opportunity to lead here. From Represent Women's Research, one conclusion is unmistakable. Voting rights protections and representation outcomes are deeply interconnected. When safeguards against discrimination, vote dilution and exclusion are strong, women, particularly women of color and members of language minority communities, are more likely to participate, to run for office, and to win. When those safeguards are weak, the effects ripple outward, narrowing who has access to political power. This bill directly addresses those structural barriers. We support this bill because it takes a comprehensive preventative approach addressing discrimination, vote dilution, transparency, access, and enforcement together rather than in isolation. When we talk about vote dilution, I represent women. We are not talking about whether people are allowed to cast a ballot. We are talking about whether their votes have a fair opportunity to influence the outcome. And vote dilution occurs when election structures allow people to vote, but consistently prevent certain groups of voters from translating their shared preferences into representation. This can happen in systems like at large elections or winner take all single seat districts where a cohesive majority can elect every seat, even when a substantial portion of the community votes together for a different candidate. Over time, those voters may participate fully and still never see themselves reflected in governing bodies, not because of lack of engagement, but because of how systems operate. The Vermont Voting Rights Act is so important because it recognizes that discrimination and vote dilution do not require malicious intent. Even well intentioned election practices can produce unfair outcomes over time, and that is why we strongly support the bill's clear prohibition on vote denial and dilution and its focus on impact and results rather than intent alone. We also support the bill's limits on at large election systems when they impair the ability of protected classes to elect candidates of choice, as well as the requirement that remedies be tailored to address the underlying harm. By strengthening protections against vote dilution, establishing a transparent pre clearance and public notice process for election changes and preventing last minute changes to districts or polling places, the Vermont Voting Rights Act ensures that election systems cannot be quietly altered in ways that undermine fair representation. And importantly, this bill does not mandate any specific election system. Instead, it preserves the ability to consider proportional remedies, including multi member districts paired with ranked choice voting perhaps when necessary to provide a proven dilution and discrimination as a remedy. So from our research at Represent Women, these types of remedies are among the most effective at increasing women's representation, particularly for women of color, because they expand opportunity rather than restrict participation. And they allow votes to translate more fairly into seats. In these systems, women are more likely to run, and they are more likely to be recruited, and they are more likely to win and properly represent their communities. The last few things I will say is that this bill also recognizes that representation doesn't stop at casting a ballot. We strongly support the bill's language access provisions, which ensure voting materials and assistance are available where there is a demonstrated need, as well as its protections for older voters, voters with disabilities, and voters facing intimidation or misinformation. These barriers disproportionately affect women, especially caregivers, older women, and women in language minority communities. When participation is limited, women's leadership is the first to be excluded. So these provisions ensure participation is real and not theoretical. So from our full representation perspective, these protections matter enormous enormously. Our research shows that when election systems fairly translate into seats, governing bodies become more reflective of the communities they serve, including greater gender balance and racial diversity. Preventative system level harm remedies, rather than relying solely on litigation after harm has occurred, are amongst the most effective tools we have to strengthen our democracy and advance women's representation. We've seen what's possible when voting rights protections are paired with systems intentionally designed to prevent vote dilution. I'll just note that in Portland, Oregon, for example, reforms implemented as a remedy to have led to the most representative city council in the city's history, with women holding half of the seats and women of color holding seats at elected levels at historic numbers. Out of the six women, four are women of color. And these outcomes are not accidental. They are the result of intentional design that values representation. The Voting Rights Act honors the legacy of the Voting Rights Original Act, and it's a legacy that's been built through generations of organizing, sacrificing, and leadership, particularly by Black women, while recognizing that democracy must be actively protected and updated meet today's challenges, which is what I am very pleased to see Vermont is doing. So at Represent Women, we very much urge you to advance the Vermont Voting Rights Act to ensure that Vermont's democracy remains inclusive, fair, and representative for all, especially women and minorities. I'm happy to answer any questions or send along additional research to back my statements today, but thank you for giving me the time to speak.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Thanks a lot. We appreciate it.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Thank Ben Williams from Thank Bayard

[Ben Williams, FairVote Action]: you, Mr. Chairman, and I don't want to get in the way of a Friday afternoon, so I will keep my remarks

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: We have we have another we have another bill.

[Ben Williams, FairVote Action]: Oh, you have another bill. Then I should be extra fast. So so the I'm with, Fair Boot Action. We are a national organization that supports reforms that improve our elections. We're nonpartisan, and we have many topics that we work on. One of them includes state voting rights acts. Just to give you four quick points. First is that as the federal US Supreme Court has taken steps to limit the scope of the federal voting rights act, states have stepped forward to pass state voting rights acts to ensure that robust protections remain in place for their citizens. This is alluded to in my testimony, which, should be with the committee. Also, the state voting rights acts that, have passed in the nation and you're considering right now often have broader protections than the federal voting rights act. So this is a chance to ensure that Vermont voters have broader protections than they may have had previously while safeguarding against decline in federal rights. And I think I'll just emphasize that meaningful participation in the political process shouldn't just depend on whether you speak English fluently, shouldn't depend on the color of your skin, shouldn't depend on whether you are elderly and able to enter a polling place. It should depend on whether or not you meet the qualifications to vote set by your state. And the Vermont Voting Rights Act would help ensure that that is the case in Vermont. I will just close by saying I know that there have been some amendments that have been floated around. I would encourage the committee to seriously consider those. And so with that, happy to take any questions.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Okay. Yeah. Could you just could you just tell us the name of your organization again? Fair? Fair vote. Fair Vote, right. Yes,

[Ben Williams, FairVote Action]: Senator Clarkson, Fair Vote Action, which is our C4.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Great, thank you.

[Ben Williams, FairVote Action]: Of course, thank you. And thank you for the time today.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Sure, thank you for taking, yeah, thank you for bearing with us.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: So our final witness, I hope I'm not mispronouncing your first name. Is it Venice Miller? I know Miller's right, right?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yes, hope it is.

[Venice Miller, Election Law Clinic (Harvard Law School)]: That's absolutely correct, Venice.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Okay. Who is that? Venice. Venice.

[Venice Miller, Election Law Clinic (Harvard Law School)]: Okay. Answer to it all. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Venice Miller. I'm the manager of outreach at the election law clinic at Harvard Law School. I'm here to testify in support of SB two ninety eight and provide some background on the growing movement to pass state voting rights acts across the country. The Election Law Clinic trains the next generation of election lawyers that will help voters build power. Much of ELC's work centers on state voting rights acts. ELC has written about state voting rights acts and how they can help achieve the important goal of fair representation at the local level and have represented plaintiffs in federal VRA and state VRA litigation. We thank you, the legislators of Vermont, taking on this important task in your state. By taking this pivotal step, you join the ranks of a host of states, including California, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, New York, Connecticut, Minnesota, and most recently Colorado, who have all enacted state VRAs. Other states such as Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Texas have made progress towards enacting similar legislation in recent years. The election law clinic at Harvard Law School is one of many national groups joined by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Campaign Legal Center, Latino Justice, and Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund that very recently drafted a model state voting rights act to provide guidance to legislators and organizers across the country as they seek to respond to shrinking federal protections for the right to vote. A state voting rights act at its core provides fundamental protections for voters that guard against discriminatory voting practices and policies. This model bill was designed to provide a consistent baseline and power building tool for states to use. The Model Voting Rights Act is a template and highly flexible and adaptable. It's meant to be tailored to the individual needs of a state like Vermont. The model bill was developed through many years of work by our coalition of national voting rights organizations in speaking with lawmakers, community groups, legal experts. It was recently made publicly available on January 23. I understand bill sponsors are considering raising amendments that would bring the Vermont VRA in alignment with the model state voting rights bill. I understand that the amendments do not change the intent of the original bill, but simply make it more effective in advancing Vermont voters' right to vote. These amendments are important to bring the Vermont Voting Rights Act into congruence with the model state voting rights act and strengthen and expand the scope of this legislation. The amended Vermont Voting Rights Act will offer three key protections. First, it will provide for coalition claims, including Middle Eastern and Northern African or MENA voters. This allows minority voters whose voting is aligned with another minority group to join together to create a claim for access to a voice in their local political system. Second, it will create a private right of action. This allows local voters to go first through a problem solving notice letter process with the local election administrators to ameliorate voting access concerns before a last resort of litigation. And third, it ensures language access. The Vermont VRA requires that language assistance must be available for voters with limited English proficiency, so every eligible voter can participate effectively in democracy. Crucially, it centralizes those efforts in the Secretary of State's office, reducing the burden of this new policy on local election officials. State Voting Rights Acts provide essential protections to promote fair participation and build a multi multiracial democracy that works for everyone, which is more critical now than ever. By enforcing comprehensive clear standards, state voting rights acts prevent discrimination and expand opportunities to people disproportionately impacted by voter suppression and dilutive practices. I applaud the committee for taking up this important legislation for consideration and strongly urge the committee to adopt forthcoming amendments to bring the bill in line with the model state voting rights bill. As one of our coalition partners, Adam Lihovsky at the Legal Defense Fund recently said, state voting rights acts are a powerful, practical and popular tool for protecting voting rights. The Vermont Voting Rights Act will make it easier to ensure that everyone has equal access to meaningful political participation at this crucial moment. We thank you for your leadership on this. Thank you and I look forward to any questions.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Thanks a lot, Denise. We appreciate your taking time out. Not sure if it's any warmer where you are. It's pretty cold here

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: in ocean. She's She's warm.

[Venice Miller, Election Law Clinic (Harvard Law School)]: We still have about two feet of snow on the ground,

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: but yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Oh, poachy poachy. You have the ocean to be nice and warm.

[Sen. Brian Collamore, Chair]: Thank you, one and all. We appreciate it. I'm gonna take a five minute break, and we have a final bill number S291 to take up, and this was sponsored by well, main sponsor, Sandra Vyhovsky and Tim Delan is the drafters. So when we come back and please be as prompt as you can. As long as there's three people, we're gonna get through this class. Oh, if who? Send you all home. Well, I know when we sometimes when we take a break Oh, okay. That's good. More punctual than others. So we will take a five minute break and be back in just a second.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson, Member]: Before