Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Good

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: afternoon, and welcome into the Senate Committee on Government Operations meeting, Tuesday, 02/24/2026. Up for consideration first this afternoon is s two ninety eight. We have already walked through this, and we are gonna be working off the bill as introduced today. So let me ask legislative counsel, Tim Devlin, to join us at the table and very quickly refresh our memories about some of the provisions contained therein.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you very much for having me, Chittenden. For the record, my name is Tim Devlin, legislative counsel. The committee may recall that there's actually six main subjects in this bill. The first is let's see. The bill provides language assistance for voters as well as assistance for voters who are CC finders of the waiver and voters with disabilities. Let's see, it will create a certain kind of prohibitionary window for changes to certain election practices, having to do with the boundaries of rewarding election district, globalized type of election system of people who are at large systems. And that would be for sixty days, and then also, those types of changes are warranted. There's an involved public notice and public hearing process, as well as a parallel route for municipalities to seek a certificate of essentially compliance from the attorney general's office. An alternative, It's let's see. We'll also create a receptacle for voter outreach funds and introduce various voter and election interference laws. There's some penalties in that will go into that fund. And lastly, this will affect how offenders, so this people are convicted and are incarcerated in the state, are counted in reapportionment for legislative districts for ten years. Did the committee have any specific questions or would you like me to kind of go through the bill again with the top or The latter. So starting on page two, we have the Vermont Voting Rights Act. This is the next few sections here. So we start off with a definition and then rights of voters within declaring the section two here, which will relate as 28 or two. Definitions. The most important definitions will constitute covered practice. We'll get into this substance later on. But, again, in essence, it's changed from at large election system or converting one or more seats to a single from a single member of letting to either a hybrid member districts or an at large chance candidate. It also has the coverage practice will sorry. Covered practice will occur if in the reapportionment efforts on local levels, if there's a drop in certain proportionalities having to do with protected classes and for certain races or language language people speak a certain amount of people speaking non English than this. Then also, there's the broader any changes to boundaries of election districts or wars. And then So any changes that was the ability for a person to receive interpretation services, really language assistance services that we'll get into later on. Senator Wyman.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering, since I know we had some discussion about the different drafts and we're returning to as introduced rather than I think some conversations about amendments in 1.1. I'm just wondering, I'm having a bit of trouble following even this version of the bill and understanding what is already covered under federal law and what we're kind of expanding into out of concern that there might be removal of those federal protections. So I'm just wondering if as you're going along, Tim, if there's things that we kind of already have come to expect that we're codifying. If you could explain that as well is what is differentiating between existing

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Current existing federal law and existing state law.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. Because my at least my personal goal with this Mhmm. Is to protect as much possible in the instance the federal government rolls back those provisions. Anything around that would be very helpful as we've done. Would

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: it be helpful for the committee to kind of get a quick thumbnail sketch of what the Federal Voting Rights Act is? Or I don't diff yeah? Sure. Where we differ if if there aren't. So the Federal Voting Rights Act came to effect in that October. It was one of the landmark enactment of legislation was the civil rights, same kind of civil rights act. And this largely swept away certain kind of lingering elements of Jim Crow, like literacy tests, and then in efforts to create efforts to try to prevent discrimination of the polls in various forms. There are kind of three overall I mean, there's numerous sections in it. The most recognizable ones will be section two, section three, and section four and five of the voting rights. Section two permitted any voting scheme which resulted in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote, including vote dilution, a dilution that is. And it's good to note that it was amended a few times, really to kinda get the really the facts or the results of certain state based legislation. So like a whole tax. Considered.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Like, Texas companies? Yes.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Although, that was taken care of at a company before this. There's some lingering things. But really, it had to do with racial chairman management. Right? It's the quickest way to sum it up. And you'll see kind of the echoes of this when it comes into I'm maybe kinda confusing my conversions here, but low dilution. I'll kinda point those out where I get the thyroid there. And then certain other elements. I'm sorry. So you're kinda jumping back in the summary here of putting right side. Let's see. It's good to note that it did provide for a right of action to private citizens for the federal government, but there's a lot of case law here that negated various elements of the Voting Rights Act over the years. So the point of war, section two, it's leaning to a lot of k. Anyways, suffice it to say it's

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: It's some

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: complex now. It's evolved history, but kinda happy to either produce some written materials for the committee's consideration if they want a more in-depth look at it. But I should also note before moving on from the federal PRA that section three provides bail in provision And The what's provision? A bail in provision. So, essentially, if there were

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Bail in? Yes. Like Bail, b a I l? Yes.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And so if there was a misbehaving district politely that essentially, if they're sanctioned by the court or found to have committed some sort of Yes. Or just the franchise memoir and proper racial gerrymandering or something like that, they'd be kind of put on watch, and they'd be instituted a brief there in scheme, where if they wanted to make any changes, they'd have to go to the AP's office to follow-up for, basically, review and then authorization prior to any of the decision making of that. And that's that kind of leads into sections four and five of the VRA Yeah. There as well. And also, should note that the preclearance sections in four and five, they were nullified by the Supreme Court. Okay. So 13 and Shelby County, the holder. And that was because the coverage form was deemed constitutional, not necessarily overall arching. But, anyways, the so there's similarities here in Eastville overall. There is the consideration of kind of redistricting and ensuring that certain groups of people, protected classes of people, that is based on race or language, assessed speaking languages. Here are sorry. We actually define protected classes as groups of citizens protect from discrimination based on race or color or membership in the minority group. Mhmm. That was the term of race, no sign of fiction for. That these groups of people are not disempowered in this best way of more having their, the value of their vote, diluted by either packing, cracking, and at least your kind of terms of fear of all that's essentially gerrymandering with race and movement into war, now with lingering minority groups in mind for the purpose of disenfranchised slaves, really watering down the effectiveness of certain people's boats, even though they're still overpowers to cast votes. Also, some of the kind of voter interference and voter indentation, things, will make your mind a notch out of interest.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Well, thank you. That was helpful.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: So, food and protection It does still address voter intimidation and interference. It does. Yes. Well, our bill does. Yes. Yes. But as does the federal still. Yes, and it's good to remember that the there's kind of a delineation in who can the state versus federal governments enact legislation on pipes. There's the election plus the US constitution, grants administrative control over elections reserves outright to the states. And then the federal government really gets involved. We went in legislative for federal elections in particular or civil rights, which is the need of the VRA. So here we have application of some of those principles to state elections where they're not coinciding with the federal elections, so we could town meeting day and things like that. But then then certainly, if the Supreme Court does go the US Supreme Court that is right now, there's a case in Louisiana versus Callis. Sorry. Yeah. Think can say Callis. And that's looking to perhaps negate or invalidate certain parts of section two, which has to do with the constitutional constitutional gerrymandering, or, it has to be speaking, very broad strokes. So that would be eliminated. This would, have certain kind of parallel provisions that would be quicker necessarily, but would stand alone perhaps in practice at the end of the day. So moving on to, let's see, the straight prohibitions on vote denial or dilution, we found on page four here in section 28 of two. So we're going back to the bill? Yes. So we're on page two? Four? Page four, as introduced, and section 2,802, titled Votinav or Dilution, and he said that the winter prohibitions under activities, no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard practice or procedure shall be imposed or applied by the state or municipality in a manner that results in a denial or abridgment. By the way, any citizen in The United States can vote based on the race of color or membership in a language minority group. And then, you know, the city can have some how that has to be determined, and, breaking across the page five in subsection b, it should be judged on fatality circumstances, and then, you know, some you know race based no race based clause in subsection c. We move on to impairment of voting rights of registered voters in twenty eight zero three. Again, we have kind of a state of prohibition. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to deny, impair, or otherwise adversely affect the right to vote of any registered voter. And then we move on to the next subchapter, which has to be with assistance and voting in elections. Yeah, we're dealing with three different categories of voters. We have individuals who are English language speakers. We have individuals who are CC five plus and then individuals who are physically disabled in a manner that prevents them from getting caste. And so first part we have is section two eight point one, comma five. This is the language assistance in learning collections. And so we have And that unfolds over the next few pages here, that empowers the Secretary of State to designate certain languages in certain locations, municipalities, as to when and at what frequency or threshold demographic information for the trigger designation. You can see that subdivision two, and then we have a definition of what is a limited English proficient individual. And then it's there's a requirement at four that the secretary of state shall annually publish in his website, which is based on alternative analysis.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So, Tim, this gives the secretary standing behind you, the ability to designate one or more languages in in specific areas or statewide because, obviously, the language needs are different in Winooski than they are in Woodstock. These are localized determinations. So it can be determined local. And how local is the determination? Voting. By voting district.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: No, it's fine. You just tell me. My tell, okay. Right. Good. Thank you for all I want to make sure. I just wasn't clear on it. Okay, great. So we move on to what the assistance of voters entails, and that's so we're starting on page five in terms so we have, like, two from line six there. Secretary shall provide the competent assistance in each designated language, and then that really sets up materials in English and other designated languages for various elements of the election process from registrations to forms and ballots being utilized, and no other related information as well. Then we have a review process on slide 18, subdivision, subsection C here, provides a, I believe it's a request, essentially, it's on public view for the assessment period, and the secretary is charged with developing the process for reviewing those processes. Then we go on to a right of action to be provided in the people who feel they've been agreed to not receiving proper language assistance. We have the subsection d on page eight. And then we move on to page nine, new section twenty twelve. Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Is on is d? The public private private right of

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: protest.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay, but you still have a

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Private right of action.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah, if you are in a situation where there is some kind of discrimination against you in this scenario. Like if you write, like don't you have the ability to do that now as a citizen? If you're

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: a citizen who doesn't English as a second language and need assistance, that you know, I'm not sure off the top of my head what language assistance is required by statute or provided in practice. What your litigation rights would be. I'd have to take

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: a look

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: at But I think,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: oh, generally, in Vermont, our consumer protection laws do have private right of action.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: You're thinking your senate economic development hat right now, but I'm thinking of the language of the house. All all the ways. For

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: all things, we have a do we have

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: a private right of action and particularly in this case?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: When you just talk in the language Yeah.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I was using the language a bit. I would say nothing's coming to mind Okay. That we have. I would have to look

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Like, I thought you could like, let for example, if I'm someone who is blind, I know that you do have the right to request a a ballot or assistance at the polling place, and if you were denied, that could be a violation of your rights. We

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: do have certain provisions for accessible voting machines, so like, know there's that, and you certainly do have the right to vote, and Yeah. I'm not entirely sure off the top of my head if you've got Maybe we sued for some sort of to compel municipalities to provide access for it. And I'm thinking maybe something about ADA or something.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. That might be a slightly different yeah. Maybe I save I'll save my question on that for the secretary of state maybe on that. Okay.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Now we move on to page nine where we have the new section 28 to 12, Assistance for Certain Voters and Adolescents. This has to do with the voters who are 65 years of age or four and voters who are physically disabled. And this enables them to request, and that should be handed a printed ballot by election of concern outside of the polling place. So essentially, somebody can kinda come to you. I know the last time we're speaking about speech, This is not exactly the same, but the idea that somebody providing balance of the baby's Are you difficulty It's nine. Page nine. I was gonna say it. For me, for various reasons, I prefer to stay in the car. I

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: would just flag, mister chair, that I do think I would like to look at this section and see if we can make it closer for, and I'd like to hear from the clerks, because this is, I think, the most substantial change that they foresee to really would have to do.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Already noted. Great. And let's see. Similar provisions for the voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of disability or inability to delete or write. And the process designates officer election to assist in voting, and then has requirements for that individual's requirement. It's providing them assistance. And then we I'll just skip down to the penalty on the next page. Section eight. This is under section five. Sorry. Patient 11. Okay. No. I'm wrong. Apologies. And here we have social. And, hopefully, maybe it's a better way to do that. It'd be more violent for criminal law and safety. It violates these license assistance provisions. Shall be approved for not more than six months, apply not more than $2,000 or both. Then we move on to subchapter three, changes to election practices, and this is where we'll kinda pull in that divide term for the first section. This is what the cover practice. And this starts off with under 2821, like a prohibition. There are certain terms that we have no change in the local election district board or polling place shall take effect within sixty days preceding any general election. So turn off all the place where nothing's changing six days out from the election. Then we have if the municipality does want to change the election apparatus in some way, they're considered an election to cover practice. There's two paths to accomplish it. First is a there's notice in public hearings review for second notice. Assets. That's the first part of it. The second one is obtaining stat certificates of, you know, objected from the strictly general's office. Although when we get to that, I'll just come to the week of those. They will move on the clarity, certainty, and maybe the need for clarifying if there's strictly two different paths or if they don't have to be changed. Is page 12? Not sure. Splitting between page 11 and then giving you a preview of page 13, I guess. So going back to page 11 and going down the first route of the notice public hearing provision, second public hearing. We have A1, which essentially requires forty five day notice period. Then we have a public summit period for additional thirty days, and that's in two. Then three provides for the municipality to take account of the proper comment and revise revisions, and notice those for fifteen days. And then b one

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Can I ask an example, then?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. Senator Weiss.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Just an example. So the town of Hartford has decided to move our town meeting from the gymnasium, where we normally host it on Saturday for the auditorium in the same building.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: In

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: this instance, my understanding is they just recently decided that if we passed this, they would have to alert the town people thirty days before and also solicit comment from this within the select boards realm if we moved it, is that the kind of decision we're talking about?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Start from if we take an analysis, so we cover practice and we'll be relocating polling place, which is for all of us. And we go through, okay, is it within sixty days of the election? If it is, can't do it. Oh, okay. And can't change anything.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: In this bill, but now In this this Okay. Right. In this

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: bill. Bill.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And then Unless there's

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: an emergency, think we've made some qualification cases that are symptomatic. We have that, actually, no. Thought you would discuss that. It's in the other provisions, which you bumped out further. As long as it's this, I'm worried. This is, I guess, I'll stick, rigid. If the committee wants to introduce emergency exceptions to that, I would recommend changing Okay. Any two of these to one. It could put all our that's causing for it. Sorry, was trying to keep upstate the various versions in my mind, but I think it's unfair. So, again, we have forty five days of this period for want to change, then we give public comments, period, thirty days, then revision of period fifteen days, then re notes it, We have about thirty days in v one, and we follow page 12. Then we go over page 13 where we have a private right of action, the v two, and that would be asking for injunctive only to prevent these can't go into effect. And then there's various reasons why individuals can bring in such a suit, which really kind of limit the nature of the quality of the claims, and so it would have to the proposed change to this, the covered practice, would have to have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of color, race, or membership in minority group, or resulting in retrogression and the potential to reduce the duration of practice with respect to their effective exercise of a withdrawal franchise, it's another way to say that the treatment.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay. So probably not an example of a suitable related offense if they did move forward with this, if we passed this bill to move from the gym to the auditorium because it would have a specific effect on a certain group

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: protected. The first impressions. So that would prevent an individual from bringing injunctive relief or a claim to stop it. They still have to go through all the notice requirements.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Oh,

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: you. Regardless of whether it's tied up in denying our original rights vote based on color, race membership in the language group. But it depends on what the covered practice is. Some of those covered practices are more, some are just kind of neutral, like moving a polling place or reducing the harm. We shouldn't say neutral, but others are more explicitly race and language related. So the cover of practice.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So the provision regarding the plates to vote is separate from practices. Is that what I'm understanding? You can't change the place where you're going to vote within sixty days of the general election. Beyond that, the practices about voter qualifications, etcetera, etcetera, in standard practice, then you have

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: to go through this hearing process. Yes. Saying that. Yes. So Okay. Reviewing it, so no change in any local election district or polling place shall take effect within sixty days. I apologize. I think I too luckily complained in something. Yeah. Okay. That. Yep. These are about Yeah. Any change in election district, ward, or polling place. Now I'm kind of double hedging. So we have the polling place, but you could change a district or a ward. It can affect the boundaries of that. So, yes, it's geographically related, but it's not exactly only in place. You know, it could be in a sizable town like Burlington. You know, changing the districts of Ward 8 and joining the other ward that is or, yeah, something of that nature, for dissolving a district. Okay. If you were to dissolve all wards, the districts leading to an at large system, that would qualify here as well. It's nuanced, yeah, I got it.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I feel like I need some examples perhaps to I'm fully understand trying to conceptualize it, so maybe at another time we could get some more specific examples, but I understand the So

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: that way you can go to the second path throughout is bottom of page 13, section c. This has to do with the attorney of showing the case in certification of no objection. So if the governing body and I would actually recommend the committee change that to the legislative body. It's proper terminology in the state. The municipality seeks to administer or implement a government practice in lieu of the following provisions in subsections a and b, that is the notice provisions. They may submit the proposed cover practice to the Office of Attorney General for issuance of certification and full protection. And this is the slightly, I'd probably rephrase the next sentence a little bit of further consideration, it says. The practitioner will not be given effect until the attorney general has issued the certification. I think it's probably probably enough to most people that, okay, we're ready to go with the other sentence preceding this that we have two routes, and that if you do go the route to seek certification in chief's office, you have to wait for them to issue that, except for where it defaults to after seeking this is auto. You can see that 95 of age. Then we move on to traditional requirements in 2023. And that really just says that it's been published in newspaper monitor, general circulation, collection district, a change. Then it will also require notes to be mailed to registered voters within those affected areas at least fifteen days prior to the election. So there that will be another characterize it as those layer of notice or individuals, the vector that we're seeing between the prior statutory sections. And then also, see, there are provisions for maps and data, detailing changes to go to the secretary's state, and we see that in subsection c at the top of page 15. So now we move to subsection four, having to do with at large method of election, and duty created sections twenty eight thirty one, the at large method of elections, limitations, violations, and remedies. And, essentially, it just prohibits at large method of election, including hybrid ones where you have district and border based compliance of those. And should not be imposed or implied by the legislative body for the Justice Powell in a manner that prepares the ability privacy protected class to lead off candidates for this choice. There's a qualifier there actually. Yes, Senator Whitaker.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay, I'm trying to give an example so I can wrap my head around it. So Hartford has, and I know this is an interesting conversation because we don't have many communities with board. There's not a lot. Hartford does have two state rep districts though in Hartford that are all under the same tech. So let's say they moved the state rep district to the auditorium, and they moved the other one to the gym. Would that fall under changing like, let's say the gym was, much further away and, you know, it had created some difficulty for that group of people. It still wouldn't qualify though because there isn't a high number. It's it's not based off the protected class status that they are separating out those two locations. I guess I'm gonna try and think of an example and

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: struggling. Sure. We're gonna talk about the at large subject, right? We're talking about

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: So what is at large versus, I'm thinking at large Protected is in like class. No, what is that? I thought a state rep was an at is that at the

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: So an at is, so let's say we have, at large would be

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Wouldn't it be a state Well,

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just kind of framing it in municipalities.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Oh, okay.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: It was really good. Contemplate The selection. Yeah. One district, everybody votes for the same candidates no matter where you are at the town, because the similar, we could have, let's see, we could still have some sort of at large districts in a larger place where you'd have, let's say, has four districts, and wards as well kind of superimposed that are overrated. If we have, let's see, multiple multi member districts, could be at large if you have, so, okay, everybody, no matter where you are within a district, you're voting for the same people versus, okay, different boards are running for joint campaign. This is this is best way to kind of think about that.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: So a so a state rep district isn't wouldn't fall under this?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: This is yeah. Because the municipalities really have control of the most of the boundaries of state rep districts. Okay. And the polling places within it, which are other covered practices, could be

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Or even the timing. You could say, oh, actually the West Hartford District is only open from Sure. Yep. 7AM to 8AM, and then the one that's for wife, Rejunction is Mhmm. 7AM to 7PM. So okay. I think I'm sorry to understand, but really the only places that this would truly affect would be, like, Burlington. Rutland has wards.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. But People there

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: are elected at large.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: So So this

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: regardless of the ward that you live in, your ballot for mayor is for every or the other board of Alderman

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: is Yes. For I understand. Okay. Complex.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay. Thank

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: you. Let's see. So so these it's subtracted for a large method of election, from age 15 to twenty eight thirty one. We have the conversion to an at large system if it impairs the ability of a mostly protected class to elect candidates of choice or ability to influence their outcomes. Then, again, second qualification as a result of that is between the improvements of the rights of members of class. That is provision of that. And then we have b describes exactly creates a test for how to determine whether that the violation of such as incurred, and then c grants a private line of action three, four, three by magnitude, or address it before us. Then, let's see, we have open ended provision to decode courts to implement appropriate remedies as they see fit, essentially, all hires that that are tailored to remedy the fact that. I'll just note for the committee that's rule bank. So then we go to chapter five, voter education outreach, and this will create a fund where all the penalties draw with the election interference. That's some of the penalties, which should be election of their appearance. Infractions that we'll see in the next few sections will be deposited into. Then the treasurer can make expenditures and disbursements from the fund. So it's sort of signed by the sector of state, and those monies can be used, really solely used for purposes of educating voters and persons qualified to be voters and the rights that are pursuant to federal, state and constitutional statute of laws arise along with that. So now we turn to subsection six, election interference. We have four new offenses. Subhas come with a single cause of action as well. The first having to do intimidation of election officers. The second having to do intimidation of voters, and there's a simple cause of action in swamping. The preliminary one having to do communication false information to registered voters. And let's see. And then we have with voting. This is the final one. Would you like me to drill into those or just kinda keep going? I think just push it along. Yes. And then subchapter seven, we have enforcement and we have civil actions to be taken by the attorney general, such as any violations of this chapter. And then we have move on to a distinct element of the bill having to do with funding offenders, the reapportionment, reapportionment toward the legislative districts. It was not like, well, was saying there was some conforming amendments, and then we went about the effective date, which is January. Know I uncovered a lot of ground quickly, so we need any more flights, so that's good.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thank you, Tim, very much. I don't know where the secretary's leg left, but She's She's up next. There she goes. She's up

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: It would

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: be great, Jim, if we could lend itself to it, to have a chart of the federal voting rights act, the state laws, how they differ, and then what we're thinking. I mean, because all we're doing is underscoring up in large measure what we already have

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: or what we assume. I can divine blood as mental health. You know what I mean? Would be great.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Would be, I think,

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: John, can you walk up that little tube? Someone went and looked for the Secretary of State, but I will as well.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Taxi. Also, what is this weird thing here? Did she disappear at all? What is that? It's very interesting.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: don't even

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes. She did. I mean, she's not here.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: No. No. No. I