Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Hello. For the record, Rob Rutland. Yeah. We're back. So welcome back

[Speaker 1]: to the Senate Committee on Government Operations meeting of Tuesday, 02/24/2026, and we're still on bill two s 98. We wanna welcome Rob from Snow in to what testifies. Thank you. And for the record, Rob Roper from Snow here as a concerned citizen. I got to admit my testimony's a little convoluted today because I saw the printing of 1.1, and it Oh, doesn't just consider adjusted So I'm going back to my original my original testimony. Your original testimony. My original testimony. On the original, though. So I had a couple of specific concerns, then and then one was Quest. And I guess my principal point that I'd like to make to the committee is, as you're considering this bill, the language to put in or take out, is to keep in mind that an illegally fast vote disenfranchises a legal voter every day as much as that legal voter can physically or otherwise prevent it from voting at all. So disenfranchisement happens both ways. The language that concerned me was subsection 2,852. I forget what changes on because it took the page 17? Oh,

[Speaker 2]: no. 16. I apologize. Yeah. The seventeenth.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Twenty eight fifty two. The senator White. Intimidation of voters, civil cause of action. Any person who intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce a voter to the curb. This tough language preventeth a voter from shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $2,000 to vote. Okay. I I would encourage you not to go down this route of criminalization of of participating in elections, but I I understand that preventing somebody from voting is a crime. But it should be if you're gonna go down this route, there should be a flipside amendment to this, making it a similar prime with equal penalties to intimidate, threaten force or mislead or attempts, etcetera, to coerce a non eligible voter to register an illegal vote, such as a noncitizen or a nonresident of the state or a district in which to vote if a meeting has that means.

[Speaker 2]: I knew. I was like, what is the angle gonna be? Okay. I understand. Okay. I understand. Okay.

[Speaker 1]: And similarly, similarly, two eight or five four subsection, Interference with voting 16 a, any person acting under the color of law. So I'm this means an election official, or contrary to official policy or procedure fails to permit or refuse to permit a qualified voter to vote, or who willfully fails to refuse to tabulate, count, or report the vote of a qualified voter subject to a civil penalty in the amount of not more than a thousand dollars for a defective voter. Now, again, if if I'm considering running for JP or town clerk, that's gonna really discourage me from wanting to participate, if I could be civil and face face a penalty. But, again, similarly to my first question, my first point, should you decide to go down this road, there should be a flip side of them in saying any person acting under the color of law who permits an unqualified person to vote or willfully or negligently tabulates counts or reports a valid cast by an unqualified person is subject to civil calamity. An amount

[Speaker 3]: of Well, I have lost you where? It's 19.

[Speaker 1]: Oh, okay. 19. I did have one question, and it's not a I'm not sure I understand it, so this is more of just a red flag than me voicing it of a real concern, is twenty eight forty one, voter education and outreach funds, hereby created to state treasury, the special non reverting fund known as voter education, blah blah blah, getting down to this public or private source of direct directed to the fund. And I just wonder if the private opens the door to sort of a Zuckerberg's type scandal where you have well, that was where Mark Zuckerberg gave a lot of private money to local local public outreach efforts. But the criticism was from folks on the right side of the aisle that he was only doing it in areas that would lead to blue hiracy turnout in states like Pennsylvania.

[Speaker 4]: Wait. So what did he so

[Speaker 2]: he pay he gave money to who?

[Speaker 1]: I wish I did.

[Speaker 2]: Like, he gave money to a town to help them vote to have, like, better tabulators kind of thing?

[Speaker 1]: No. To get the vote get the vote out. It was education on getting the vote out, and it was supposed to be civil vote campaign. A get

[Speaker 2]: a vote campaign five.

[Speaker 1]: Educating you know, so so the language here is, you know, is it you're educating voters on the process, is that they get out voted, and you're gonna have a private. So as I said, I don't understand it. It's just a flag that you might consider. I don't have an answer for you. I don't pretend to understand exactly what it means. One thing that somebody raised to me was the assistance for certain voters, NEH over 65. It says in the original language that one person should go out. Again. And I think you've talked about this. We have. So okay. Your honor, don't need to hear from me. Page nine. Yeah. Yep. So I'm back. And this brings me to my my my final request, and that is to please consider a discussion about incorporating voter ID into this provision of the bill because, when we move from showing up to the polling place, showing your smiling face to a clerk or a JP who recognizes you and crosses your name off the list to mail and provide ballots out to everybody on the checklist. It was done, in my opinion, without putting any security provisions in that would prevent somebody from getting ahold of my ballot or an unwanted ballot or a ballot that's sent to the wrong place. Sign the name of the name of the person on the envelope and send it in. And as I said, a fraudulently cast ballot is disenfranchises somebody every bit as much as if I knock you on the head and tie you over in the basement until the ball is closed and you can't get there. Of course, that's more frightened. Yeah. But the effect is the same. And I would actually argue that it's that fraudulent votes that disenfranchise somebody is worse because if I not get rid the head and tie you up, you know a crime is committed. You know something's happened. Or if if you can't get to the polls, you know something's happened. Or if you don't have a ride. Whatever it is Or

[Speaker 2]: they say you're not on the checklist.

[Speaker 1]: Or they

[Speaker 5]: say you're yeah.

[Speaker 1]: You can remedy it. You can remedy it. But if somebody passed the project, well, you have no idea. You just put your iVogue sticker, and you go out and think and think that you're you're both counted. In case you missed the story on CNN, it was a couple of weeks ago. They did a they did a report on pew polling going back in 2018. 83% of Americans report requiring voter ID for for casting a vote, and that number has only grown. Since, 2018, they went back five years. It was 78%. Now it's 83%. Gallup had a similar poll. They said 84%. Crasmussen has one. That's 87%. It's just it's not one poll. This is this is something that most everybody supports. It's common sense. Vermont is one of only 14 states that doesn't have any voter ID provision in it at all. And I will point out to the polls, you know, this bill, you're trying to protect minority rights, and I think that's extremely valuable. And respect for minority rights when it comes to voting is terrific. 80% of my people who identify as people who support voter ID. So if you're trying to respect their positions, then I would encourage you to start by respecting your position on voter ID. That is all I have for you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Committee? Okay. Another one. Well, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your invitation. I did see the secretary of state. In, man, briefly.

[Speaker 2]: I was on the list. Oh. I couldn't go really quickly.

[Speaker 3]: I mean, I

[Speaker 1]: Okay.

[Speaker 2]: And then I can print the seat

[Speaker 3]: for wrong. Okay. Well,

[Speaker 5]: too. The secretary

[Speaker 1]: I can watch you guys from the from the video, and the secretary can have the seat. Go ahead and point you guys. That's okay.

[Speaker 2]: And she can sit next. I mean, I I just I don't think I have too much to say, but I'd like to just 47. And go. My two year old with

[Speaker 1]: Yeah.

[Speaker 2]: A lot with Okay. Who I trust. You know? But but I should get back

[Speaker 4]: to her.

[Speaker 1]: Thanks for Thanks for this.

[Speaker 2]: Thanks for all. Hope we're still live. So for the record, senator Keisha Robinson still the sponsor of this bill, I wanted to I think what I wanted to articulate most of all is I'm not sitting before you as the senate majority leader. I'm not sitting before you as a democrat. Voting rights is should be and have been in Vermont a nonpartisan issue up until this point. We have several republican co sponsors of the legislation. I talked to the minority leader about this piece of legislation and, you know, helping to ensure that Vermonters see as this goes forward that it's a bipartisan effort. I think that would mean a lot to Vermonters as we hear thinly veiled national threats about intimidation at the polls. We have we have had those concerns before, and we have stood up for people and made sure our secretary of state's office was empowered to with every tool in their toolbox to ensure voter intimidation did not happen, to fight back ID requirements in the past. I first ran for the legislature as a senior at the University of Vermont. I now sit before you as somebody who got married and changed my last name, and these voter ID laws are are not designed to further enfranchise people to vote, frankly. And we have to be really, really clear about that. In fact, I mean, could take somebody's ID, you know, as opposed to the system we have in Vermont where many of us know and feel comfortable with and trust and are on a first name basis with our town clerk or the person who's signing us at the polls. And I don't think we wanna lose that. That's the spirit of local government and local democracy. This bill is is simply about protecting people's right to vote as they see it as they see their ability to exercise it right now. And that is under threat. And I should hope that we continue to see this as a as a bipartisan issue. I know there's some question about this version and, you know, a subsequent version. Obviously, you know, this is what I helped to author. This is what I was the lead sponsor of. I've I've heard about some of the requested changes, and I think they even might speak to some of the previous gentleman's concerns about not over criminalizing these matters because, you know, it can be used against against people maybe too heavy handedly. But at the same time, you know, I just wanna say I think this is a very solid start. I I don't I don't know exactly where the, you know, second draft may have become kind of the vehicle for conversation, but, you know, I I just appreciate the chair and the committee taking time on this important matter. And I think this draft is pretty good, you know, and you may not have time to look at that other draft that doesn't Yeah. Well, I say we.

[Speaker 1]: The decision was made to stick with the original.

[Speaker 2]: Okay. Yeah. I just

[Speaker 1]: Just ask, the effective date. I was kinda curious. Normally, it's July 1 of that year or on passage, but this is January 1. Was there a particular reason?

[Speaker 2]: That's drafting question because I just I wonder if someone felt like we would be interfering with this year's election.

[Speaker 4]: That's what I was wondering. I wonder if

[Speaker 3]: it was intentionally set because evening out because it is an election year. You don't typically do elections bills in election year that that was a solution by putting it out past this election. Okay.

[Speaker 2]: It was did I ask for that? Or I mean, for

[Speaker 1]: it yeah.

[Speaker 2]: For it's not like I don't remember that being a clear policy choice that I made, but I I think that's it was probably so that

[Speaker 3]: we weren't worried about. That's the assumption I made.

[Speaker 5]: Okay. Senator Clarkson. But we are. Yes. Yeah. So I am very interested, and thank you. When we got to this discussion. I am concerned about this election. I am concerned about the election from all the rhetoric up here in Washington. And I I my understanding was that the reason we're actually taking this up and the chair is generously agreed to take it up is that this is the oh, we don't generally do election bills in election years, but this election is different, and this election is more threatened than any other election we've had in many years. And I think that start date needs discussion. Oh.

[Speaker 1]: Well, I know. Okay. I get

[Speaker 5]: Well, I think it I mean, I think that's the whole reason we're doing this.

[Speaker 2]: I I would I mean, I would say there are parts of this bill that will take longer to implement. Right? They are about enshrining future access to voting rights in law into perpetuity. But we could have sections that are factual. Things things that people are specifically worried about around voter intimidation, etcetera, you may you may wanna look at that. I mean, now, that's something the secretary of state saw that could say that they feel like they have enough tools

[Speaker 3]: Okay. For November 2020.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you, senator. We appreciate

[Speaker 5]: your time.

[Speaker 2]: Alright. Thank you. I'll get the secretary for you.

[Speaker 5]: She's been texting her several times. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: I've seen more people. We need to take a break and

[Speaker 5]: Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]: To the next event. Okay.

[Speaker 5]: Well, let's see if she's right there.

[Speaker 2]: Here. She's flat from her mouth. Okay.

[Speaker 1]: Welcome in, madam secretary. We have

[Speaker 3]: On again. On again. Ten minutes before

[Speaker 1]: we have to move to the next event.

[Speaker 3]: That is wonderful, mister chair, because I can talk fast. Sarah Oakland Campus, Vermont Secretary of State. Very happy to be here talking with you about the Vermont Voting Rights Act. And I know that you all have been diving deep into this so far this afternoon. So I just wanna give you some very high level observations of the bill, and then also a couple of recommendations of other folks you might wanna hear from on future days of testimony. So, you know, this is an elections bill in an election year, which often brings people to say, well, wait a minute. I thought we didn't change election law in election years. And I think it's really important for people to understand why we don't change the rules and procedures of elections in an election year, because it really, to use a sports analogy, feels like changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game. And I don't know how the players would know how to adapt, how the referees would know how to adapt to a change in rules in the middle of game, and how the fans would appreciate that. And so you can plug yourself in as fan, or player, or I feel like I'm the referee. However, this bill, as introduced at a very high level, takes what we have already been operating under in terms of the Federal Voting Rights Act and brings that into state statute. And so we feel that this is very workable for us to be able to say this is a continuation of the way we've we've done these operations. This is not a change in procedure in in the middle of an election year. And also, I just wanna point out for a minute that we're living in really unprecedented times, where expectations that we have counted on for many years from the federal government are being shifted and changed very rapidly. You've already heard little bit of testimony from legislative council about provisions of the Voting Rights Act on the federal level that have been struck down and others that are likely to be struck down. And I think it's really important for Vermonters and for Vermonters' access to elections that we bring the provisions of the Federal Voting Rights Act into state law so that we are holding ourselves accountable to making sure that our elections are free, fair, and accessible for generations to come. So all of our election laws in Vermont are governed by local ordinances, by state law, and by federal law. And and, you know, this includes the important civil rights provisions and protections of the Voting Rights Act. If those are weakened, we want to ensure that the existing structure that we have in Vermont continues to exist, And we think that because this bill is introduced, takes those federal protections and puts them into Vermont statute, that it is the right time and the right moment to do that. This is also the litmus test on which, you know, we we need to evaluate whether a bill can be passed in this year, if it is consistent with protections that are already afforded by the Federal Voting Rights Act and that have been in place. So, our goal is always free, fair, and accessible elections. And our goal is for everyone who is eligible to vote, to be able to cast a vote. And, you know, we we're working really hard to remove systemic barriers to voting. We we launched a task force last November to focus on barriers that are experienced by certain groups of Vermonters so that we can work on chipping away at those. And I think that this Voting Rights Act is really very much in the spirit of that. We want to make sure that people who have physical mobility issues or have other disabilities don't have systemic barriers in front of them. We need to make sure that people who don't have a home or a roof over their head know how to register and vote. We need to make sure that people who are in our safe at home program and address confidentiality program are able to vote Yeah. Financially and and in every election that they wish to vote in. And we also need to make sure that people who are currently incarcerated are not given significant barriers in in front of their ability to vote. So those are the four groups of people that we're focusing on in our task force, and I think the Vermont VRA is very much in line with the work that we are already doing. We're doing a great job in Vermont. I I want people to know that I think that our elections are free, fair, and accessible. We have over 70% of Vermonters have voted in the last few presidential elections, which is wonderful and higher than many states across the country. However, it still leaves 30%, almost 30% of Vermonters who don't participate in elections. And so we need to be very mindful that 70% may look good compared to other places, but that still means a third of our neighbors chose not to participate in any given election, and we need to keep working on that. So we recognize that many people come with ideas for improving our elections, and may in fact be proposing ideas to you right now. Just want Just to have one proposed. I just want to reiterate that you know, there is a significant difference between laws that preserve the status quo and take the federal law and bring it into state law as opposed to proposals that change the way that we do elections, change the procedures, change the rules, because, again, we are using that game analogy, and we should not be changing the rules of the game. But we are very welcome to come back and debate any and all ideas in the twenty twenty seven election or excuse me, twenty twenty seven legislative session. So in summary, our office supports enactment of the Vermont Voting Rights Act in 2026. We're happy to dive deeper into the specifics of this bill in the coming days. I know that your your days before crossover are numbered. We understand that there may be two additional proposals to add to this bill, and I just wanna flag them now because I'm not sure that I will get back to speak to you all in committee. But there's been a proposal floating about to allow candidates to use their campaign funds to enhance the security of their home or any other security that they might need. Our office supports that. We are seeing across the country elected officials being targeted for, you know, for everything from gun violence and assault to doxing and swatting and other forms of online hazing. And I think it's reasonable for someone who is receiving that attention because of the fact that they are a public servant to be able to use their campaign finance funds to to enhance their security. We'll also be supporting the notion of extending executive protection to statewide elected officials upon request. Currently, only the governor is afforded executive protection, and that means that if there is a threat to the secretary of state or the attorney general or treasurer, we would have to figure out how to pay for that either out of our personal finances or out of the budgets within our office. And again, we are not being targeted because we are individual citizens who are being targeted if it happens because of the office that we hold, we think then the executive protection unit should should extend coverage to those folks. We'd also like to just in closing, and I I see senator Vyhovsky has a question. We would like to recommend that you also hear from the attorney general's office on the Vermont Voting Rights Act. You know, if we look at this as an analogy to the federal law, the federal department of justice, of course, does have a role to play in enforcing the federal Voting Rights Act or at least it used to. And so we would suggest that you hear from the Vermont attorney general. And then also, if you are if you find yourself in need of someone who's an expert in the Federal Voting Rights Act, please reach out to me offline. I can recommend a couple names to you because I know that it is it is a level of acrobatics and gymnastics of our alleged counsel to ask them to both be experts in state law and in federal law on all things. And so I'm happy to help identify someone who can

[Speaker 1]: Senator thank

[Speaker 4]: you. I have just a couple of questions. One of them is going back quite a ways from when you were speaking with the task force around voter access. I love that in presidential elections, we have 70% participation, but

[Speaker 3]: I wonder if that task force also looked at ways to to build participation in municipal elections and off cycle elections as those tend to be quite low and are actually the things that most impact the day to day vibes of our voters. Yes. You are absolutely right. Municipal issues and school budget issues are can be the most impactful to everyday Remantras. We are focused on the elections that our office has control over. We we have jurisdiction in state and federal elections. Municipal clerks run municipal elections, and municipal select boards appropriate the money necessary to to support those elections. And so while we have plenty of ideas and suggestions of ways that we could do a better job of breaking down barriers to people being able to vote in municipal elections, that is a much more complicated conversation because it's not as simple as saying, you know, appropriate us this money, and we will break down these barriers because it really is those are decisions and and changes that need to be making made in 247 different towns and cities.

[Speaker 4]: And the other part that was the opposite, the non presidential elections.

[Speaker 5]: Mhmm.

[Speaker 3]: The ones that were gonna happen 2026. Yes. Did it task for us to look at ways to help build engagement in those? Yes. Absolutely. The, you know, the twenty twenty six midterms may not get as much excitement and traffic as the presidential election year does. But we also know that people tend to vote in elections when they have the knowledge and the information that they need to feel empowered to make that decision. And so we hope that with the provision of our voter guide, which will be mailed to every household in Vermont, It is. That people will then have the information about the candidates or the issues that are on the ballot in front of them and will feel more empowered. Wonderful. And then

[Speaker 4]: my other question. So in a lot of instances and

[Speaker 3]: this is a little bit of a tricky one because it's not dealing with candidates, but it is dealing with campaign funds. We currently allow people to use leftover campaign funds to do constituent outreach and things like that.

[Speaker 4]: Would you also support using allowing electives?

[Speaker 3]: Because I I hear you, and as someone who's gotten Democrats, like sad. That's great.

[Speaker 2]: Well, love it to the end.

[Speaker 3]: You know, I hear everything you're saying about candidate safety, and I think that's really important, I also think they need to be having a larger conversation probably, affects these people once they are elected statewide, again, all. Yes. I I would definitely support that conversation. Okay. I I, you know, I remember what it's like to feel walking out of a public forum as a state representative and walking out to my car and wondering, is this the day that my tires are gonna be slashed Or worse, is somebody who was angry at me going to confront me on my way out to my car? So, I would certainly support having that conversation. I absolutely welcome that. As we know, you know,

[Speaker 4]: we have seen threats on statewide officials' lives, you

[Speaker 3]: know, threatening the pandemic of mayor or governor Whitman. Yeah. Yeah. But we there's the two instances in which we have seen most recently lawmakers who were barred and murdered. They were state representatives. Exactly. Senator Bucks. So

[Speaker 5]: Brian and I both have the same question, which is the effective date. If we're concerned about this election, which I think many of us are, given the rhetoric that's coming out of Washington, The effective date is actually next year. And would you have any objection to making key provisions of this bill effective July 26? So or effective upon passage.

[Speaker 3]: Here's how I think of that. The way we operate elections right now in Vermont complies with all of the provisions of the Federal Voting Rights Act. Right. In the event that at some point in the next Three months. To thirty months, you know, some portions of those voting rights provisions are are removed. That's not gonna change anything that we do if functionally in Vermont.

[Speaker 5]: So we don't see any action before this election Yes. That would threaten. That's any Supreme Court action that might be or an executive order that might interfere with the elections this year.

[Speaker 3]: No. I don't I don't see any Is there I don't see any need to rush the effective date of this because what we are doing right now is complying with federal law as it is right now.

[Speaker 5]: And But federal law might change in an instant with an executive order.

[Speaker 3]: Right. But that that simply means that if there was a violation, the federal government wouldn't enforce that violation. It doesn't mean that a violation like that would necessarily happen in Vermont. And I and I'm telling you that we are going to operate as if the provisions are all intact.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you, madam secretary.

[Speaker 5]: You're very welcome. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Was so

[Speaker 3]: nice to see you. Yeah. So fun to be in and out. Good.

[Speaker 1]: I did see senator Harvey put her head in, but I wanna get the committee a five minute break. Please limit it to five minutes so we can take up the next city. So