Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Good afternoon once again, and welcome back to the Senate Committee on Government Operations meeting of Tuesday, 03/10/2026. Up for consideration today is S-two 98, an act relating to creating the Vermont Failing Rights Act. I should mention that we are now going to be looking at draft number 2.5, which is shorter in length than the original bill. Much. And much shorter than the one that we had for only a few hours to consider, which was like a 40 page bill. So this one is now nine. I'll make a suggestion further on that we omit something else that's in But this I'd like to welcome back everybody that's in the room with us, And we're going to hear first from Tim Devlin, will walk us through the

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 2.5. Thank you very much for having you very much for having me. Committee members. For the record, my name is Tim Devlin, Wednesday of the Council. And then you have draft 2.5, which would be a strike all amendment coming from this committee. And so just some quick kind of road mapping. This has three elements to it. First is a general prohibition on both dilution and denial. And to be enforced by AG through civil actions. Sorry. The attorney general's office through civil actions. The second part of the bill has to do with election interference, criminal sanctions. And just to point out, first and second items are largely maintained from the bill is introduced. Now the third element has to do with safety protections to be offered upon request by certain by statewide elected officials, as well as enabling I should say, explicit enabling of candidates to use campaign funds for the provision of safety protections. Right. And that is the It's a quick reminder of what this draft is leaving on the editing room floor from the introduced version. This no longer includes assistance for voters who are either have a disability or who are 65 years plus. No longer includes language assistance provisions. No longer includes changes in electoral procedures and language access to it generally at large districts. And these have the voter outreach funds fund. And let's see. Also, no longer includes the, mechanism for accounting accounting for offenders in the reapportionment process. Senator Vyhovsky?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: May I just point out that it's very unusual for us to be doing an election bill at all in this election year. So I think many of those provisions will be terrific for people to address next year when we take up election bills in the not selection year. So I think those are all things that can be easily revisited in January 2017. Well said. So don't despair people who are worried that we're leaving them behind. We're not, are we, Sean? No, we're not. We're just going to look at them again at the time when we normally look

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: at election laws. Okay. Fair. Senator Vyhovsky.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I thought most of those provisions are currently in practice under the federal Fair Voting Act and that we're not really changing anything by including them. We're simply making sure that they're codified should that be overturned?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, I don't agree 100%. There was one provision that required anyone 65 years of age or over or disabled to be able to cast a ballot by having one person go to their home and collect the ballots. Current statute is two Okay. Each party. So there were some changes to the election procedures. But I think more to the point, and I'll let senator White carry the ball on this, the reason that we have a slimmed down version is both the secretary of state's office and the attorney general's office expressed some concerns about what was in the original 25 page bill. So I'll Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Do. I'm happy to unless we wanted to go through those sections first.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, sure. Because I think

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: what we heard was just what we took out kind of as a note for Gail.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes. Real. By the way,

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so quickly running through this, we have a short title for bill, which is missing for Vermont Voting Rights Act of 2026. We have some definitions, and then you get to the substantive part at the top of page two. Here, we have the general prohibition on denial of dilution, and this will look very familiar. It really hasn't changed much aside from section numbers and your general reformatting. We have next the, sorry, in that kind of similar language having to do with nothing in this chapter shall be construed to deny and peril otherwise adversely affected by to vote or any registered voter. Then on page three, we have civil actions by attorney general. This is some, I'll

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: call

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it basic process, which the Attorney General's office may take civil action, and here we didn't specifically include any violations of the formal language. The civil actions include preventative, really injunctive relief. We have some simple penalties that can be brought forward of $5,000 for a reverse violation, if not more than $25,000 during subsequent violation. And then there's essentially what is kind of attorney's fees or recouping drink efforts by the state if they come out and it's available. So then we go to section three, breaking across the bottom of page four and page three and four, and we have very much the same criminal provisions for interfering with voting or voters in various ways. And just a quick note that this will kind of before this is gonna start into the new section, but this is just gonna reorganize it into the existing title 17 chapter 35 offenses against the purity. You watch it for a similar provisions are already found. So, again, those are interference with voting, intimidation of election officers, intimidation of voters, and communication with false information to eligible voters. And those will be enforced by the attorney general's office and the state's attorneys in various locations, and then if one of those has a civil cause action as well, we have to point out. So then we get to the new language on page seven, where we have safety protections for candidates statewide officers. Section four will amend the definitions in the campaign finance laws, which means our 17 is in chapter, I think it's 61. And we have the definition of expenditure, and then we have a a sub definition of what basically kind of opens up expenditure to include, and we'll add to that list. So now that in fact, expenditures can't include the provision for security for the candidates. Just

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: gonna leave that there. Start our way.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Thank you, mister chair. I do just want to note, for my understanding, in layman's terms, after some back and forth about the discussion of how can a candidate or an elected official use their campaign donations in support of purchasing security systems for their home or other things, it became clear that it's not explicitly something you can't do now, but perhaps some clarity around it would have been helpful. And this answers that for me. So that is the effect that I see of this.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes. So I just wanted to say thank you all that, but it's perfect. What I believe is happening.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, we'll go to that conversation, and then we have a new section five, which will create a new section in Title 20, where we basically have public safety and security measures oriented statutes. And this will be a new 1884, should be titled Provision of Security for Statewide Elected Officers, and in essence, what this means is the top executive elected officials that is governor, Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, Secretary of State Auditor, and the Attorney General, and the state can request, once they're in office, that security provided by the state police, and there are So not on the campaign trails. Yeah, So when you are, if an individual is campaigning, they can use their campaign funds for social security, and then once they enter office, they can request security provided by the state police, and then they're discussing details in here about duration, kind of renewal for those services and what they necessarily need to entail, and I should just point out the C and D on page nine, of gets at least the nature of the provision of security and that the officer is protected at the officer's place of work, any other location in the office where the officer is conducting the official business to the officer's home, if requested protection, there are any transit. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: we don't have a fiscal note on this, I'd say, Joe. No. And the only person at the moment statewide that gets this opportunity is the governor's equity. Correct. Think so. It strikes me this is a huge financial addition without fiscal note. I mean, think at this point, it's a pretty, maybe a heavy lift for us.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I wouldn't have to add an email of the commissioner on GPS and ask, would the cost be, and how would this be implemented? And I hope she doesn't mind that I'm reading the email that she sent back. This is a total surprise to me, and will take time to get you a financial estimate. Money notwithstanding, we do not have the human resources to do this. I'm happy to discuss this with you further, but it's impossible to accomplish contemplate anytime in the near future. So my recommendation will be to strike Section five-zero completely. Okay. Thank you, Jim, very much. I'd like to welcome in the Deputy Secretary of State, Brian Hibbert. You.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: But can we just say thank you, Kim?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Thank you, Kim. Oh, yeah. Could thought say

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Maybe I had to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: feel all the this holiday week.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I know. We did I did. Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: It's been busy was an understatement, I think, too, for the last week.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: You keep it good. Welcome, Lauren. It's great to see you.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Thank you so much. For the record, my name is Lauren Hayward. I am the deputy secretary of state, and I'm really honored to be able to talk to you today about this bill. As you all know, because you are the senate government operations committee, that Vermont elections, local, state, and federal, are governed by local law, state law, and federal law. This the impetus for this bill is really about the Federal Voting Rights Act and the challenge that's currently pending in front of the Supreme Court to the Federal Voting Rights Act. This long standing federal law has provided civil rights protections, and it is anticipated to be struck down by the Supreme Court before the election in this year, in 2026. Without the Federal Voting Rights Act, states need to start thinking of themselves as backup, and that is what Vermont is doing. We, as states, have been operating and making laws, both at the local level and the state level, assuming consistency from the federal law. And that stability and consistency is being shaken. This bill, version 2.3, is an initial first step. And our office always says, please, please, please do not do an election bill in an election year. We still would say that if this was a different bill.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: In a different year.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Well or a different year. Right. If this were a different bill that was changing the operations of how an election was gonna be conducted or if this was a stable year. This is not a stable year. And, really, this bill and its current iteration is the appropriate 2026 step. We know that there's a lot of work. There's been a lot of versions of this bill. This this version, we're comfortable with. And the the pieces that have been taken out, we wanna continue to talk about and make Vermontified, really. The some of the iterations of this bill have been, taken from the federal law and just put into Vermont law. It wasn't going to be a good fit. It wasn't the model that we think is appropriate here, and it wasn't frankly solving the problems that we think Vermont needs to solve. The Federal Voting Rights Act, the historical context is it was designed, developed, implemented, and has been enforced in the context of our history of slavery, Jim Crow, gerrymandering. We don't have that history here in Vermont. That doesn't mean that we don't need to have those in place as sort of our baseline understanding. We do. But we need to look at it in a Vermont context if we're putting it into Vermont law. And we have a lot of stakeholders that we wanna work with. Obviously, a lot of people in the democracy space, our town clerks, our attorney general. That was not possible in this iteration for this bill, this session. So the sections that are remaining, we think are important to have in Vermont law this year, and to everyone who is interested in this topic, this committee, we have a very strong commitment to continue this conversation in a non election year and and have a more substantial elections bill next year, where we really have worked through a lot of these issues with stakeholders over the summer. I personally have made that commitment to many people, and we will follow through on that. It's really important that we always are striving for more accessibility in our elections. Vermont, we have 70% voter participation for the first time in 2024. We're really proud of that. There's still a lot of work to be done, particularly around certain populations. That's why the secretary put in some task forces focused on people who are incarcerated, people with disabilities, people who do not are unhoused, and survivors of domestic violence. So those are areas that we know there needs to be more work on. Language access is another. We don't have a task force group on that, but we do intend to focus on language access. So, because this doesn't change the procedures per se of an election, we feel comfortable with this bill in an election care. So, that is basically the why we are here. The questions going forward really for us are, what is appropriate for Vermont? What will they cost? And who is responsible for implementing them? And how will the parties interact with each other? So those, I you know prefer to have a bill that has thought through all those questions before it gets to you so that I can answer those questions, and I didn't have those answers with this bill. So I feel comfortable that we will have those conversations come to the table with our stakeholders arm in arm or rep or close to arm in arm. Can't promise on the arm. But close to common understanding of how to how to take what I think we all agree upon is really important if it's taken out federal law and ensure that it's here in Vermont law. There are four specific items that I just wanna address in the bill, and I'm happy to talk about anything else that you folks want. The first is voter assistance. This is for people with disabilities. There is already requirements in Vermont law. It's 17 BSA, twenty five sixty nine, that allows any voter who has assistance, not just particular classes of voters, to declare their needs to the presiding officer of the local election and to have a person of their choice or two election officials of different parties assist them in voting. We don't oppose the the federal statute or or being in the bill, and but we really look to let you counsel wanna continue to talk. We don't want to narrow what is currently in Vermont law. Right now, law provides more protection to more people. We don't want to narrow what is required. And we understand that there's a couple of solutions, including adding a purpose finding section, and we just haven't had an opportunity to sit down and talk about that. In terms of where we wanna go, I think we want even more ambitious, more protective provisions added into the election law to go further than what's required of the federal law for people with disabilities. The second is language assistance. So this is another area where a lot of Vermont communities are really exceeding what is required in federal law. That's because it would be extremely difficult for us to get to the percentages of one

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: per

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: population language in any community in Vermont that would require ballot translation. For example, Burlington and Wenwski, they translate election materials. They provide a sample translated ballot, I believe, but we don't have a ballot that each individual gets in the in their language. If this if this body wants to codify the federal language, we would see that as part one, and then we would absolutely support that. We don't have any community in Vermont that needs that at this time. But we also are very aware that crossover is here. We're in it. If that can happen on this body, it could we would support it happening on that the house side. And, again, this is an area where we really wanna engage, particularly with our municipalities that have a larger population of multilingual or non English speaking voters and figure out what is necessary, what should we put in place from the state level. You know, One of the things I'm sorry. I have to take a sip of water.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I wanna give 2.5, which is actually what we're considering. Okay. I don't think it's changed dramatically.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I don't think you see. Yeah. You can definitely see the most recent. Yeah. I've just been in the building of the house. You know, painkiller, I appreciate that. Helped me. And also gave me a moment to drink the water.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So, we also gave a question to Tim, which is what's the big difference between three and fives?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can tell you the difference between four and five. I can't remember three and five, but the it's actually incorporated and it's coming from the attorney general's office. Great. Great. Which we support. So,

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: we would really like to talk about how to provide statewide support to communities around election translation and ballots being provided not in the English language. Right now, municipalities would have to go out and independently enter contracts and and use their own funds. We'd like to talk about having a statewide contract and some pool of money at the state level. I don't know how that all would work, but I know that we can provide better assistance to our locals on this really critical piece of ballot access for people who do not read or speak English. So that is a piece that we are committed to talking about and coming back to in 2027. The third is campaign expenditures. This is a question that we have been asked. It is important from our office's perspective to have it expressly in the law. We concur with Ledge Council that it could be included in personal expenses, but we think some clarity here is important, particularly if you are under stress and thinking about meeting these features, just some clarity and being able to look at the law and being able to say, okay, can do that, I think would be helpful. And this goes right into my fourth conversation point around executive protection. We are just in a new era for elected officials, for people who are campaigning. We have had threats against people across all parties. We've had people be killed for serving in their political offices, and it's just a very different time. So we believe that adding this for campaign expenditures is appropriate. Section five is in the same theme. We believe that there needs to be a state infrastructure for providing coverage to elected officials, not just the governor when there is a threat. I can speak really most about the secretary of state, of course, but in the secretary of state space, that this is I mean, it's almost difficult to talk about because it is so real. There are legitimate, aggressive, daily threats against secretaries of state. It is coming from our president. It is coming from every direction. I'm happy to provide more resources so you can see what's happening. It's happening in Vermont. And so this is not we're not a refuge. We're not a safe space from this. We are susceptible. The infrastructure that's currently in place was not created in this environment. The environment has shifted. It the environment is different than it was four years ago. It's different than it was eight years ago. It's dramatically different than it was sixteen, twenty four years ago. So I know that you're gonna hear about the challenges that it's burdensome. I I I appreciate commissioner Morrison's comments to the chair. What we're asking for is a commitment from this body and from the administration to work on the solution. It doesn't have to be this language in particular, but when we were seeking help in 2024, we did not get it. We had to enter into a contract with assurance. We I don't know anything about creating a contract to provide protection. I shouldn't have to know how to do that. That is what I did. I do not want the secretary of state to fear driving home, to be sleeping in her home. You are going to lose people who want to run for office because of fear for their family. And we have seen people across the nation resign across parties Yeah. Because they are concerned for their families. That is a burden. I'm sorry to be emotional.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I apologize. That's an emotional issue.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: But that is a burden that is inappropriate to put on any individual to to run. And it has a different implication, honestly, if you're a female lobby as well. I know. And so I want to ensure that we're engaging in this conversation and that we make proactive steps. Because when we were asking, you know, who should we hire? We can't give you advice on that. What should we do? Well, you could do a firearms class, but we don't accept. We don't actually think that's a good idea because firearms are used against you. Well, what do I do? Maybe bear a sperm. Like, that that's where we were. And that, frankly, is not sufficient given the where we are as a country right now. And it is heartbreaking as someone who loves this country and is so I mean, I believe in our democratic process so firmly. It is heartbreaking that we are in a place where this the rhetoric is so high, the threats toward democracy are so high, the threats to honestly, it's not just a lot you know, these six elected officials. I think there's credible conversations that need to be had about the threats that were occurring against our commissioner during the height of COVID times. There are threats against many people who serve in public life, and we need to have a solution for how to protect people as a state. And so this language was an initial attempt to do that. I want us to have this conversation. We need to have this conversation. We need to have a discussion because this election is coming and the threat landscape is going to escalate again. Because our president right now has said, if the elections do not go, quote, unquote, the correct way, all Democratic secretaries of state need to be locked up. Jeez. That is that is what he said. And so we need to reckon with that and figure out how to how to address that. So I understand that I just got super emotional, passionate, but that's the lie. I understand that this language may need to come out for this to go to the senate floor. I just am asking that we don't lose it. I would ask that the administration come in and talk about to you about their commitment around this issue because I I think they hear the concern. I just wanna make sure that we all are on the same page, that we're gonna work on this and we're gonna make the situation better. We just need a scaffolding. There is going to be budgetary concerns. But, you know, God help us if all six of our separately electeds have a credible threat against them. The answer can't be we don't have the money. The answer can't be we don't have staff. We need to figure that out. And so I'm I'm that's my plea. That's what I'm asking for.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, Lauren.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We have two more witnesses. One of them

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I actually had a question.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah, are you all Possibly

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: not a question, Lauren. I really appreciate you. And I appreciate your passion on this. And I think that really it needs to be, as you pointed out, more expansive because it currently applies to those six statewide offices. And yet I know more than I've gotten death threats that were credible that were investigated by the FBI. Like, it's it is happening, and we need to keep people protected. And, you know, it's so I just I I wanna really make like, echo your plea that that we are building a scaffolding for this, and that is it is expansive, and it is really recognizing that people in the public eye that are doing political work are in danger. And it is absolutely, and I know that the, sergeant at arms has shared this information, it is absolutely more likely to happen to women, and and it it tends to be more violent, credible threats. It is different, and it is difficult, and we have already had people resign because they simply cannot take it. And it was a long time ago. You know, the person I am thinking of is Kaya Morris.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Yeah.

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

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: And I apologize if you had

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: a question coming in. I'm interrupting.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But I did want to ask,

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: we have so you're kind of in this weird middle tier, for this because the governor has his security.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I don't really know what his It's it's called executive protection.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: He has the executive protection. He's got the people who show up, and they got the thing in the ear. I see them all the time. You don't have any of those folks, but then we have the Capitol Police. That's correct.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So We have buildings and grounds, but they are not law enforcement.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: But could you be rather than the Vermont I'm intrigued that the choosing of the Vermont State Police versus Capitol Police, for example, if perhaps they could have been maybe be a part of the conversation because they certainly have been for me, knowing that I have them has been extremely beneficial, and they're very familiar with the email threat to then coordinating with your local PD or your sheriff. Oh, they've been great. So I don't know if there's if the VSP is a a blood we can't a stone we can't get blood from, I'm wondering if you'd be open to that conversation.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: A part of the conversation, I think, in terms of numbers and size and all of that Oh. And coverage within the state. Yeah. The VSP is a better fit. Okay. But I'm not saying that there are not budget implications and staffing implications. And we don't know what they are, and they they're gonna ebb and flow. And so that is another challenge. But, you know

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: yeah. So Senator Clarkson?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So I actually want to make a recommendation. I would recommend that we actually ask for a report back next year when we will be taking out this bill on the cost and what would be involved in providing protection for our statewide election electeds. I'm not sure it will I mean, I think to keep it alive, as you asked, I think we would have to do that. I certainly think the various facilities for this, I mean, I think it's even different from the auditor. But I think the the secretary of state who has been all all 50 of them have been called out by our rather recklessly by our president. The I think that it might be worth exploring for this year some something from senators. Thank you. I I agree that we need a solution for this year for my office. I think Your office is particular. I think that the auditor and the treasurer and the lieutenant governor, maybe not. But I do think, the very explicit threats that are, well, restrain myself, that our president has made. I think that that is really appropriate for the, for Jennifer, for for Commissioner Morrison to get us a notion of what that would cost for the next months. Senator Vyhovsky.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Certainly appreciate and would welcome a broader reaching report, but I do think that we need an interim solution. And and I think, yes, the secretary of state's office is is under particular threat. But I also the threat is shifting and changing. And I worry about the attorney general who is involved in multiple lawsuits against the administration. I worry about our elections officials. Like, I don't think a solution only for the secretary of state's office is truly meeting the moment and the threat that that is being experienced. And I don't know. I I think we need an interim solution while we figure out what is the long term solution, but I don't know that we can just wait until next year.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. And may I just tag on to that? Tanya, I think there have not and maybe I just haven't tracked the ugly you know, whatever ugly discussion has come from the executive office recently on the AGs, but it's mostly been aimed at secretary of state. But I agree with you. The AG is certainly susceptible given the number

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: of lawsuits that we have.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Well and I think my point is is that the the secretary of state's office is particularly under threat right now, but tomorrow, this administration could decide that it's it's somebody else. And and we have seen that. I mean, this administration attempted to arrest the attorney general in New York City. Like, it's a constantly changing and pivoting landscape. And that's where I think that a more broad interim solution while we figure out what is the long term solution or a more flexible one so that if the threat profile changes, we don't now have somebody else saying, oh, well, there's nothing we can do.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: If I could just say, I mean, I think long term that the word flexible is really key here because it's going to be dynamic, and there's gonna be factors that take that need to be taken into consideration. And what we are asking for is an infrastructure, scaffolding, whatever. Right now there's nothing. There's nothing in the law that requires or demands any of this. There's no fiscal bank to draw on. I I get that. I get why it's hard to provide right now. What we need is the infrastructure to allow for that flexibility to shift and change depending on what the need is for this to be watched by experts who are able to report to you about what are the threats, what is needed, what what do they foresee. But this isn't going to go away. It may change against secretaries of state, but it's not going to go away, I don't think, for

[Rep. Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Bennington-Rutland 1; former Dorset Town Clerk)]: a while.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: At least for three years.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: It's gonna be back.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Thanks again.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I do wanna just point out that the level of threat against electeds and people in political positions has been rising every year for close to the past decade. So it actually has it didn't just disappear and get better when this administration was not in place. So I I don't think we can assume that three years from now everything will be fine. It won't be.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. And once the genie's out of the bottle, it's pretty hard to put it back.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thank you. Also with us today, Sandy Kussamore from the New England Association of City and Town Clerks, the former Town Clerk in Dorset. The bill will eventually, assuming we pass it, go to Sandy's committee. She will have the inside track on some of the things that we talked about today.

[Rep. Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Bennington-Rutland 1; former Dorset Town Clerk)]: Hi. Thank you for the record. My name is Sandra Pinsenals. I am the representative for Bennington Rutland 1, serving Dorset DMV Mount Tabor, Peru,

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: and Landbro. I serve on

[Rep. Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Bennington-Rutland 1; former Dorset Town Clerk)]: the House Government Operations and Military Affairs and I'm a retired town clerk of twenty one years with the town of Dorset. This bill is much better than the first bill that I saw for week after 23 pages. A lot of this stuff is pretty much, as a town clerk I've never, and I don't know any town clerk in Vermont that would ever deny anybody to vote regarding color, race, any of that kind of homelessness, any of that. This is just kind of repetitive stuff. The only thing that really threw a red flag to me was the coverage of the protection. I agree, town clerks are threatened all the time. Can think of a couple of instances where in the lady was, she had to sell her house and move under a different name because she was threatened. Question is, would this, and I agree with Lauren. I don't think this is the year to put another election bill through. This town clerk in every election year there's a change in the laws of how to do an election. It's like, give us a break. Let's not change anything major during an election year. Let's get us on an off year where we can really study and do whatever. But then in this part, I agree 100%, but wouldn't it be more to be a public safety issue and not part

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: of an election spill?

[Rep. Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Bennington-Rutland 1; former Dorset Town Clerk)]: I'm just thinking if we want this to go forward, because it's important, get it out of elections and government and get it into public safety and get them working on it. I mean, as I'm sitting here listening to it, I agree 100%. The threats are real.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Senator Clarkson. I think, Sandy, that the issue is it's crossover, and this is the active vehicle for it. And they senate judiciary hasn't even had an opportunity to look at this, but I think your point's well taken. I may be in the house. They'll they'll and they often do it in the house because

[Rep. Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Bennington-Rutland 1; former Dorset Town Clerk)]: Just simple. Then just keep those things out.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Bennington-Rutland 1; former Dorset Town Clerk)]: I think it definitely needs to be talked about. We're getting to the point where all complex are looking for a police officer to be in their rooms during election time. I personally had somebody come in that was a homeless, well he was retired, was a disabled military veteran who had some PTSD's and came in with a great big knife. This was when Governor Rutland President Trump was his first election, so it was in 2016. Had a Virginia license plate, but his parents lived in town. Like, okay. Oh, was during COVID. Because during COVID, I went inside the building because we were boating outside. I went inside the building with him by myself, which was not smart. But he because I knew him as a kid that grew up with my son. So once I calmed him down, but it was still put myself in jeopardy. But anyways, but yeah, so it's out there and it's not going away. Yeah. So,

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: absolutely a huge issue here.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And I just want everyone to know that it's not just happening to electric efficiency. It's happening to office staff or utilities, to office managers. Walmart happening in of different areas. So, I don't know how our office all this issue together but obviously, we we need to start some dialogue and and start working. We're talking about this today but it it it reaches down. Any other questions for Sandy?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes, fine.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thank you. Tanya, I hope I'm pronouncing that Cashaw or Cashaw.

[Diana Cashaw (President, Vermont Municipal Clerks & Treasurers Association)]: Cashaw, that's it. You got it. Thanks for having me.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Who's the president of Vermont Municipal Clerks and Treasures Association? And I realized a lot of the provisions that were in the original bill are not in there anymore. And the emphasis on how it interacts with clerks may be somewhat different than it was at one time. But I did wanna have you in since you are the president of the clerks, to have you offer any testimony you might hear on, on the revised draft.

[Diana Cashaw (President, Vermont Municipal Clerks & Treasurers Association)]: Thank you. Thank you for having me. I just have one concern about, I'm totally open to having protected groups, members of protected groups, and the one about the language, I don't think that any clerk would knowingly give false information or misinform the voter intentionally. So would we need to have translators in the polls? Would we need to have ballots translated? And who would do that and who would pay for it? And what are the best practices around that? I just want to make sure that we're able to, with good intention, follow the law.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Can you reference where in the bill you're talking about Diana?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's a discussion Diana that we're hoping to have over the summer with a proposal for next year.

[Rep. Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Bennington-Rutland 1; former Dorset Town Clerk)]: Is it section twenty twenty Interference.

[Diana Cashaw (President, Vermont Municipal Clerks & Treasurers Association)]: Interference while voting. I guess I'm on page four maybe.

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

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I thought you are. And.

[Diana Cashaw (President, Vermont Municipal Clerks & Treasurers Association)]: Seven line seven and eight, that that para number three in there?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yep. Knowing a voter cannot understand the language in which the ballot is printed, misinformation misinform the voter as to the content of the ballot for the purpose of deceiving the voter and inducing the voter to vote contrary to the voter's desire.

[Diana Cashaw (President, Vermont Municipal Clerks & Treasurers Association)]: So we can have misunderstandings when we speak the same language. When you add the language change. I mean, it's just, it can be a misunderstanding and an honest mistake. How do we make sure that we are able to correctly inform the voter? Okay.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah, I don't know how one decides whether you knowingly understand that a voter can't understand the language in which the ballot is printed. I see your point though. I I don't know how to fix that. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So it's in that section. Sorry.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I thought Yeah. So let me just go ahead and maybe our wordsmith I guess he's Oh. There might be. It's page four. Yep. It's page four, line seven, eight, nine, and ten. Okay. We'll we'll look at that a little bit more closely, Diane. I'm not sure. Was that the only comment you wanted to make?

[Diana Cashaw (President, Vermont Municipal Clerks & Treasurers Association)]: Yeah, I just hope that we can, well, just wish our country we were able to treat each other better, more kindly, more like human beings. But thank you for your time. I really appreciate you letting me speak today.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Sure. Thank

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: you for your time. Senator Vyhovsky.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, absolutely. I am not I'm going to probably kick this to Tim, or it might be for a different attorney, but knowingly is actually a legal term of art. So it's and I the standard is it known or should have known, Tim? Is that the knowingly standard?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so interestingly, sorry, Vyhovsky, to your point, the mens rea or the mental state that is required for this specific crime is actually embedded in A above intentionally. So you have to intentionally go about essentially willing or wanting to commit a crime or to commit misconduct knowing that you shouldn't be doing it. So there is a heightened awareness that's presumed by the accused or the alleged perpetrator of this. And then, yeah, knowing in purpose, there maybe it would be best to substitute those terms and not confuse them with mens rea, because knowing is actually a lower form of that and having both terms in there introduces issue, I think, to it. And for the purpose of so wordsmithing, it would be appropriate here. And I just wanna point out that the I think the most operative part of 1934 a three is the misinforming the voter as the content of the ballot. So that's gonna be pretty factual, hopefully, where, you know, okay, is the election worker hopefully understands the content of the ballot, things like who's on it? What party do they represent? The candidates? You know, what is the plain language of the like a budget amendment or something like that. So versus something that's more kind

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: of like

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: opinion based, you know, if the so so for example, if the election worker says, you know, don't vote for the budget, it's a waste of money, you know, that's probably frowned upon, that was all over here. This would be like the budget actually says, $2,000 when in fact it's 3 That's thousand really what we're talking about with the content of the ballot. Or candidate X isn't running. Or candidate X is actually this other political party that you think of, something like that. But understanding that there's if there's a want for clarity of remarking this so that I mean, it is a criminal law, so we want clarity.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. That was really helpful. My other sort of two, one is a question, I think, for the chair, and one is just a thought as we talk about language access. Alaska does a fairly good job with language access and translation of ballots because they have to for their indigenous populations. And so it might be helpful as we're having that conversation to connect with the folks in Alaska and learn more about what they're doing and how they're doing it. I had the privilege of attending an elections conference in Alaska, I think, last summer and learning a lot about what they're doing there. So for the future, that will probably be some helpful resources for us. And then my question for the chair, because we are creating a criminal offense here, this going to need to go to the judiciary committee?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I don't know the answer to that, senator. I can see where you could make a case for that for sure.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm happy to connect with the chair tomorrow and take this language and see if we might have time to take a look at it. That way it doesn't have to officially come to us.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: There are also provisions, if I'm not mistaken, that create private rights of action in two instances in this bill. Mhmm. And that also would fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. So, yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'll connect with the chair of the judiciary in the morning when I see him, and I'll I'll bring this up and see if we might have time this week to take a look at it.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Wow. I originally planned to be able to move this today, but I I don't think we can. So there's just too many questions remaining. Why don't we put it on the agenda for tomorrow? And hopefully we can get questions answered and be able to vote out. Because again, this is crossover week, so by Friday, if we don't do something with it, it won't happen. Is there any way?

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So at this point, I have no further amendments to the bill that I would like to offer. I know shocking. Saving him some time. But I do really wanna hear from VSP if we can because that seems to be the one piece where yeah, it would be nice to hear from them, especially to Senator Clarkson's idea. If we aren't going to put something in the bill that makes for implementation, what would be amenable to them? And then I really have no one else that I think we need to hear from to pass it, because we've now heard from the Clerks, we've

[Rep. Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Bennington-Rutland 1; former Dorset Town Clerk)]: heard from the President and the Clerks.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah, and the Secretary of State.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Oh, and the AG, I knew there was one other person.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, thought that's what we were waiting for, for two point six was something else from the attorney general.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Yes. I think at this point we're but I'm not going to be making any recommendations at this point for the

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: for the for for

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: say hello to us tomorrow.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Did we invite them and they couldn't come?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thought we had them in early on on the original bill, but I couldn't even state it.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: And well, Tim was like next door, or is that the state's attorneys? No, the state's attorneys haven't.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I'm the state's attorneys.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And I'm fine having the state police come in, but part of the issue from the commissioner's email, even if we put it back in the bill, they literally don't have the personnel in place. They'd have to hire more officers in order. Because the bill, if you read it, it includes at home, at their place of 20. Well, don't know if it's 20, but it would involve a lot more than just, for instance, the Capitol Police when they're in this building. It enlarges it a lot. If I'm remembering correctly, the governor's detail takes him home every night, him or her, drops him or her off, and then leaves, and then comes back in the morning, and they reunite. And then there's they spend the day with whoever the governor is at the time. The governor could sneak up at night to go to the grocery store without calling him back, I suppose. But

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Well, if I understand the proposal correctly, it's not to have a full detail for all of these folks, but and maybe I misunderstand the language. But my understanding is it's, let's say I'm the treasurer and someone calls in a serious threat, and that and I live in Rygate. Rygate might not have the police department ability to respond in the same way, but I'm still at my home and in a dangerous situation. So having the Vermont State Police have some kind of requirement to respond or be supportive of specific threats whether it may be happening.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. So they have to ask, right?

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Well, I think the answer is we saw they didn't actually when there was threats against statewide officers, if I'm understanding what occurred in the past.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Go ahead, Lauren.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Maybe that's the question for that.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: If I could just say Lauren Hubert for the record again, the state police absolutely do have a requirement to respond if there's an active threat, but there's a lot of places in the state where the state police cannot respond within any fashion time.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: But we heard that already.

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yeah. And and the other thing is that the way that standard law enforcement is set up, and it's just historically the way standard law enforcement is set up, they respond after a crime has occurred. Not they're not there to prevent a crime, and that's the key distinction. I mean, commissioner Morrison probably can say that in a much more articulate way, much more police law enforcement specific way. But executive protection is there to prevent a crime from occurring, and that's the piece. If there's threats in the in the landscape, that's what we're asking for, is that infrastructure to prevent the crime from happening. Right now, law enforcement would respond with varying response times and capabilities depending with where you are in the state after someone has come into your building into your home.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'll just note on page eight, if you just wanna follow-up Line on seventeen through 20, commissioner shall ensure security is provided to the officer for a period of six months or until that officer informs the commissioner that the security is no longer needed. The officer may, for any number of times, request the security be extended for another six months. Commissioners shall ensure that in the provision of this security, the officer is protected at the officer's place of work, any other location the officer is conducting official business, the officer's home, and if requested, during transit between any of those locations. So it sounds pretty detailed to me, and I think that was the reason that I got the response I got. Think going back to the reviewers, Senator Vyhovsky, you gotta give them seven days before they even

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, mhmm.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Designate something. Oh. So yours is different, but you were saying, you know, like, there's an emergency going on now. So

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Well, I think there's a difference between an emergency and a threat, and I think what they're asking for is if I if I experience a threat at my home like, me as a state senator, I call the Capitol Police, and then the Capitol Police go, we'll talk to your local PD, and they can suss it out further. It doesn't sound like the sussing it out work is necessarily happening because they don't feel that that's their responsibility beyond a certain point. But I'm very in favor of this language as it stands, and I don't think the problem is going away. So even if the Vermont State Police came and said, This is impossible for us to do this year, I'd like to hear them say that to us Okay. To explain what do they offer now? What can they offer potentially? And in the vacuum of this not happening, what are the expectations for our statewide officials when they do have threats against them? And would and can the Capitol flee? I mean, I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: What might they recommend for an interim measure to go to Tanya? I think I think it would be helpful if the DSP come and testify about what we might be able to do on an interim basis and if they would be willing to convene a conversation and make recommendations.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'm certainly willing to provide those recommendations.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I love that. What's next? Sorry. Morrison.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Jennifer Morrison. She's the commissioner of the public safety.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Yeah. And it's

[Lauren Hayward (Deputy Secretary of State)]: a great day to it

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: away, I would like to Alright.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, good work, gang. It's been a full hour with this bill, and we will, postpone it until tomorrow and then see where we are at the end of further testimony tomorrow. Okay. And we'll take a five minute break and then take up our next bill. Thank you all.