Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: We're here live. Hey. We have

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: a good morning. We are in senate judiciary. It's January 15. We are returning to prop four, which is a constitutional amendment. These amendments require two biennial to go through and that we're on the second biennial where we will

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: be in the second phase. It's not an institution.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: She's working on this proposition. The fairness amendment to the constitution. So we have scheduled today to walk through a general overview of what it does and what it doesn't do. And we have Legislative Counsel, Eric to go to this. And the floor is yours, Eric.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Eric Kispatrick with the Office of Legislative Council. As the chair said, here to do a walk through of proposal for a proposed amendment to the Vermont State constitution. This is round two of prop four. I actually looked at some of the YouTube videos of my walk through of this bill two years ago, so to refresh my own recollection. But you may recall that it was actually 04/10/2024 when this committee voted out prop war for the first time, voted out unanimously five zero. It was introduced on the senate floor on May sorry. Actually, it had been introduced in in May 2023, and then it was passed unanimously in the senate on 04/23/2024. It was twenty nine zero because it was one absence that day. But it was passed with the consent of everybody present, twenty nine zero. That was important that had that number, at least as far as being more than two thirds, because the first year of the biennium, the constitutional amendment requires the two thirds majority in the senate.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: It can't just be a

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: simple majority. So we achieved that by far, obviously. Then went over to the house where only a simple majority is required, and it passed the house in 05/08/2024 with a vote of 140 to four. So not quite unanimous, but very close. And then that was the required vote of the first biennial. So the way the constitutional improvement approval procedure works in Vermont, it requires approval by the legislature in two separate biennials. So since that is the first year of the previous biennium, it couldn't be done again during the second year. You had to wait until this biennium, which is why you're here now looking at the trial or again. Now assuming, again, not knowing certain, but based on the votes, it's gonna be reasonably sure that this will pass because it also, during the second vote in the senate, doesn't require a two thirds majority anymore. Simple majority, second time hurdle. So a simple majority in the House again, as it was the first time that that happens in both bodies, then it goes to the voters of Vermont. Simple majority required by the statewide electorate, and that would happen this coming November 2026, assuming that it passes legislature this time, Senator Bills.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I have a question, and it's not because I think this will happen, it's just because I'm curious. But constitutional amendments are not vetoable, are they?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. That's right. It's up or down, and if it passes all those steps that I just mentioned, it must be approved by the governor as well.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I don't think this will happen. I'm just curious.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: That's interesting because the process doesn't happen all the time, and I have to retract my own recollection word as well, so.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And the amendment is not editable at this point. Correct, that's

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: also true. I remember last time, you may recall two years ago, that the version as was introduced was not the version that ultimately, I may originally sort of get into the substance a little bit for a moment, but as Senator Hashim was mentioning, the gist of the substance is that it is a state equal protection clause comparable to equal protection clause that exists in the fourteenth Amendment in The United States Constitution, and equal protection clauses that exist in other state constitutions, but has originally drafted, and in fact, had been introduced once before in 2018. Now, when you look at the language, it's a standalone separate equal protection clause. You may recall that originally, the language was folded into the existing common benefits clause of the Vermont constitution, which that's the clause that the Supreme Court of Vermont has used over time in equal protection sort of situations, but it's kind of a it is a rough fit, and the court has even commented in the Baker decision that established a sort of set fall in motion for the creation of civil unions of marriage equality, the court noted that the common benefits clause wasn't originally intended as an equal protection clause, and I think that's part of the rationale from the way the Assistant Committee heard two years ago and from the committee discussion for the need to have a separate freestanding equal protection clause like you have in the version of the language that you approved in 2024 and what you're looking at again today. So the posture that it's in now only requires a majority vote of this committee, a majority vote on the Senate floor, and as Senator Vyhovsky was mentioning, the language has not been changed and cannot be changed. It is what it was then, and it's the same language that we have in front of you today. We can take a quick look at that, unless there were any more sort of background questions first. So the language has a statement of purpose on the first page. I'm not going to review all that, but really the first sentence of the statement of purpose will lead you nicely into substantive language on page two, states out what the proposal would do. Would amend the constitution of the state of Vermont to specify that the government must not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person's, and then you have the listed protected categories: race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origins. Now you can see those protected classes repeated over on page two when you move on from the statement of purpose to the actual substantive provision. So this is the language that the voters will be voting on. And that starts on, at least in my version, line 10 of page two. That's where it sets out the new article that should be added to chapter one of the constitution article 23. And that begins on line 11.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: It would just be the amendment that would go on the ballot, not the statement of purpose, or does the statement of purpose go there as well? I'm pretty sure that's just the amendment, although interestingly, and

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: this is I thought was either a question that if you want to hear from the Secretary of State's office or I can reach out. But I was looking at the statute of the in the the Secretary of State's statutory language that provide what it is that goes on in the ballot. And interesting. It says that Secretary of State shall prepare copies of the proposal or proposals of amendment and board them with a summary of proposed changes for publication, and at least two newspapers having general circulation to state as a term of Secretary of State. So, it just was interesting. Am not familiar with where that summary comes from. I think, obviously, to come from the Secretary of State's office, but what they use that you're sort of getting at Senator Vasquez, maybe the statement of purpose could be included in that summary. It's not what's voted on. But the statute requires the SOS to provide not only the language itself, but a summary. So maybe their office drafts that and provides it to the voters for purposes of learning, explaining explaining what it is they're voting.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And is that just available on the Secretary of State's website, or is that mailed to every voter with their ballot? Is it available at the polling location? Like, how does the voter get access to this? And maybe this is a question for the Secretary of State, we should bring them in.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: The way I read it, it's published with the language of abandonment. So in other words, if we're I don't I don't it's not necessarily that they they might do this anyway, but the way I read the language, the summary is published in the newspapers along with the the language itself. In other words, not not mailed to every voter necessarily or available at a polling place. Not to say that that would be prohibited, but the language at least seems to require the publication fees that that you see available. Yeah, again, it's subset language again. Secretary of State shall, between September 21 and October 1, in any year in which a vote on ratification of an Article of Amendment is taken, this year in other words, Prepare copies of the proposal of amendment and forward that with a summary of proposed changes for publication in at least two newspapers having general circulation in the State as determined by the Secretary. The proposal shall be so published once each week for three successive weeks in each of the papers at the extent of the state and on the websites of the general assembly in the office of the Secretary of State. So that would seem to suggest that that's where the summaries are as well. And then secretary of state shall come. Ballots be prepared for a vote by the board of state upon the proposal of the Trustee.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: So Eric, I see

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: that I'm working from draft 3.1, and you have approved by the senate.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Don't know. Adopted by the senate.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. I'm not sure if there's a difference. Do we have copies of the

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: What I did, I just grabbed the folders that we have from the lab by any, so I don't know if they you know, maybe that's And I don't know if there's a difference between Just to just to be on the safe side, please. What's the doc number I can

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: the

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: safe copies that you printed for Mattos. Yes, sir. Prayer. Thank you. And if I could also say

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's maybe saying such a thing. But Okay. I mean, in

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: a sense, it doesn't really matter because we're not mocking up or changing anything.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. But yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We'll be getting a fresh balance here. Okay. Great.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Ever, do you want this dog to use this? Or do you have it already? Or

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: have have it do have it do

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: So that's, we've talked about procedure for a moment, right, and the publication of both the amendment and the summary. So the substance of the amendment really is, as I mentioned, it's an equal protection clause. So basically saying that the government needs to treat people equally when they are members of certain protected classes so that the protected classes are identified for purposes of proposal four. We see those. We went through them in a statement of purpose already. So if you look at lines 12 through 15, you see the introductory sentence that the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The state shall not deny equal treatment under the law on a count of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or the national origin. So a couple of points about that language. You see that it's the the first two words of that sentence are the state. Right? So this doesn't apply to private actors. It applies to original constitutional interpretation. It requires state action. Now the private actors would be covered by separate statutes. State civil rights law, let's say, with the life of employment and rent, rent of housing, that sort of thing, but wouldn't be covered by this constitutional provision provision, which only applies data. Also, fact that the protected classes are laid out there is important to keep in mind for a couple of reasons. It's good to know that, for example, the federal equal protection clause does not say anything about any particular protected classes. It's just a general principle of equal protection state government shall not deny equal protection under the law. And so it had been up to the courts over time to determine which classes are perceived sort of protected or heightened scrutiny. In other words, more of a burden on the state to justify testing different treatment on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etcetera. On the other hand, as I mentioned, that's probably in the neighborhood of two dozen other states that have state constitutional provisions already, similar to this equal protection. And the approach of the states has generally been this state specifically what classes are protected as opposed to the federal approach, which is then to lay out the principle equal protection rather than identifying the classes. Then another point about the state provisions, which may or may not be why the classes are laid out specifically is that they are, the federal one is two fifty years old, whereas the state ones are done regularly over time. Some of have been done fairly recently just because of Same.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Me? Sorry. That's

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: fine. I'm just wondering,

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: and I That's fine. Saying. I'm wondering about the placement of that first sentence and the second. So the first sentence says equal protection under the law, which would seem to take in certain laws. Right? And then the second one, as you say, is restricted to the state, shall not do x. Does that first sentence give increased protection beyond just these states?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so. Okay. No. I think that's more of a statement of almost like a not the catch line as in line 11 describing what is in the paragraph, but it is more about that, I think, just sort of a general principle, and then what follows is the operative language as to what's prohibited. That's the way I would read it. Okay. The final word on that is going to be with the Vonta Green Court. I may not be right, but I think that's the way I would read that. Because generally speaking, the constitutional provision requires state of nature. So,

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: sort of a jumping off point

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: to what you're raising though, Senator Baruth, is that a question that you may recall coming up two years ago is, well, what about that list of protected classes? Is that is that finite?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Is that

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: limited in perpetuity because that's the only classes that are lifted and listed. So in other words, let's say there's some member of some other class that's not listed who ten years down the road, if this passes, wants to bring action and say, well, I would deny an equal treatment on the basis of my membership in this class, and that should be a constitutional protection even though it's not listed there. And the answer to that is, although there hasn't been ton of case law on it, there is a Connecticut Supreme Court case in terms of the Connecticut Constitution. So right on point, that exact question. And the Connecticut Supreme Court said, No, that list is not inclusive. It's meant to be an example of classes that are protected, but that in the future, the way constitutions evolve over time and are interpreted, that does not restrict the ability of someone to make a claim based on their membership in a class that isn't listed in provision.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: There's been a couple

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: of years around the committee talked about that quite

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: a bit back then as well.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: And I think the second sentence supports that principle. You see it provides a sort of non exclusivity kind of concept there. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted or applied to prevent the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide equality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination. I

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: remain a little concerned that I'm not looking at what the Americans are. I don't have the approved by the Senate. I thought that was being printed out.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yes, sir. Yes. It was. I have Okay. Gave me a copy. Do you want take a look at it? I'll just scan it on her real time.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yes. I love how you're aware. Oh, that's 3.1. Yeah. Eric is looking at as approved by the Senate. Right. And his line numbers are different. Change that right now.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That was, sorry. I I totally different. Wrong thing. Glad to say.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Do I

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: have your own thing? Yeah.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: I got an extra one here. It might be your if you had the one already. I'll take the answer. Okay. I was looking at page two one. It looks

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: like the the language is the same, but the the page numbers are the line numbers are Right. Makes sense. So

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: just for another minute or

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: two of background, it's interesting to know also that, as I was mentioning, the other state constitutional provisions are oftentimes more recent and involve protected classes that are similar to the ones they're looking at. Some have other classes, some have some in addition or as many as are in the Vermont list, but just as an example, Connecticut's 1974, protected religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, or physical or mental disability. Michigan, more recent, 2006, race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, public education or public contracting. Different states have different classics. Arizona, race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin. So the different state provisions illustrate that I think there have been different approaches taken, but conceptually, it's very much in the lines of what Ramana said, which is to name the equal protection concept and then list the particular protected classes, knowing that in the future there may be claims made that don't fall under one of those. So this is protected class description that could still be at equal protection. The other last point I would, excuse me, mention is that you'll notice that the constitutional language doesn't say anything about a remedy. It states what is prohibited, but it doesn't say, and if somebody violates this, what happens then? That is something that will be developed in the courts, but historically speaking, and maybe I think it's been more able to claim to have been made under existing provisions of the state interim federal constitution, that a person who claims a violation can seek an injunction in court. In other words, an order from the court saying that this unconstitutional conduct must be. Question that is a little less clear is that whether or not that same person could seek a remedy in damages. Could that person also say, I've been discriminated against on the Department Justice, sorry, my equal protection rights could violate on the basis of my particular category you see listed there, Therefore, I'm asking for a claimant damages on the basis of the harm that I suspect. The Supreme Court in Vermont has a sort of a test that's to determine whether or not the constitutional provision necessarily comes with a right to bring an action for damages. I think that would also be developed over time in the course. But I think the committee made a decision that in keeping with the way constitutional provisions are generally written, that the remedy is set up for future cases. I think that's the substance of the walk through. You'll see the effective date. It becomes a part of the constitution on the first Tuesday after the November, obviously tied to the election date. I'm not sure about the election day this this coming November, but it will be the first Tuesday after the first Monday after ratification. And as I mentioned, it's a simple majority, in this committee and on senate floor and in the house. And if that's the case, then it will go to the voters later this year.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Eric, one piece I was hoping you could touch on is the question on what determines whether a case goes to a state Supreme Court versus the US Supreme Court? Right.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Excellent question. Thank you, Senator Hashim. And what's, what's puts a case in federal court. One of the ways that a case can get in the federal court is what's known as a, excuse me, sorry about that, a federal question. That, for example, would be a question of federal constitutional law. So the federal courts, and ultimately the United States Supreme Court, has the final say on interpreting a provision of the federal constitution, for the federal, in this case, analog, the federal Equal Protection Caucus. The last word on that is in the federal court system, and the final word in the federal court system is the US Supreme Court. However, because this is not a federal constitutional provision at all, it's an amendment to the state constitution, There is no jurisdiction in federal courts where there would be a decision from the federal court saying what that provision means, what the interpretation is, what it means. The final say on what the state constitutional provision means is with the Vermont Supreme Court. And for example, if someone had purely a state concept claim under the article 23 for equal protection, and they wanted to bring a claim in court based solely on that, the federal courts wouldn't even have jurisdiction to take that question, assuming that there weren't distance from different states, that sort of thing. I think people are gonna wrinkle to that. But, again, final final word on interpreting what Article 23 and any other provision of the state constitution means is what the Vermont Supreme Court Okay. Found the federal court. I think it's what you're getting at, Senator Chittenden. Senator

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Baruth? Just a little

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: of a follow-up, and I see good you're asking this question a lot lately, and that is and and so there is no interplay in this between the state's Supreme Court and the Federal Supreme Court. So if someone took it to the state Supreme Court, there's no world in which they could get a result there that they didn't like and then say, actually, we wanna take the whole thing

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: to the Federal Court. Assuming it was just a state constitutional agreement that they were litigating, yes.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Could they challenge the state constitutional provision on the grounds that it is not aligned with the US constitution in the federal Supreme Court? There is some history

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: in that, yes, and I can't remember the exact issue, but I do recall, during the last few years, that issue will be coming up in the sense of what takes, what is, what controls, what trumps in a situation of, of a let's say you do have that situation where you have a state constitutional provision that's contrary to to a federal one. Because you could see the argument on both sides of that, right, in a federal system. But if I remember correctly, and I'll look into this a little more, I think the ruling there was that the, that it's a federal provision for the rest of the court.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Was the court have to rule that there in fact is a direct con? Yes. Because I think sometimes when someone looks at the language, they might feel there is, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is. Correct. So that would be the only world in which we would see a state constitutional issue go to the federal level, essentially. Right, someone might argue that the state constitutional provision was somehow Unconstitutional? Yes, not federally constitutional. But as you

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: say,

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: that requires that initial conflict to exist in the first place, which you can imagine ways that this might work, for example, which there might be a different interpretation, doesn't mean that it's necessarily to come. For example, because I think as often said, the federal constitutional analysis under the equal protection clause sets a floor. That doesn't mean that the state can't be more protected than that. It's not a conflict for the state to be more protected. Imagine an example where, you know, just choosing randomly one of the protected classes that are in the proposed amendment in Article 23. For example, sexual orientation is not listed as a protected class in the federal constitution, right? So a person might argue, try to make a claim under Article 23 and say, look, I'm not being treated equally on the basis of sexual orientation. And for that reason, because it's listed, I think that the state action should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. You may recall the phrase, there has to be a compelling interest asserted by the state. A strict scrutiny is the nature of the analysis. There has to be a compelling interest, the rationale has to be narrowly tailored to serving that compelling interest, least restrictive means. So this is very difficult level of judicial scrutiny to reach. For a state constitutional claim, a person making a debates sexual orientation, the court might say, Yes, we're going to apply that strict scrutiny because of the fact that you have this listed group here that you're claiming you were denied equal protection on the basis of. On the other hand, in the federal constitutional case, the Supreme Court or the and I know that sexual orientation at least currently is not a suspect class that gets the most heightened level of prudence. So that would be different, right? If the court but not impermissible and not the constitutional the federal court's set up more, state court could be more protected, but they couldn't be less. That would be if they were saying, you know Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So just to clarify, the the state supreme court could say if they wanted to that they're going to look at a potential unconstitutional law or even say disability, they could say we want to look at that with strict scrutiny or they could say actually we want to look at it with intermediate scrutiny, it's up to

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: the Supreme Court. Absolutely. No matter what, the federal Supreme Court, regardless of what the federal Supreme Court had said was the analysis of this federal prosecution. In fact, sex would be a perfect example because if you've got on line 14, because we already know that sex gets what's known as intermediate scrutiny under the federal constitution. So it doesn't get strict scrutiny, it gets this sort of middle level between rational basis and strict scrutiny, which I think is an important state interest, and called out the impact just sort of in the state of the middle tier, substantially related to an important government interest. Well, that's your middle tier. But someone makes a gender claim or a sex based claim under the state constitution, if this were to pass, it could be heightened scrutiny. This court might say that, no, we're going to give that sort of classification a more rigorous level of scrutiny than the federal courts gave every one hundred and ninety week protection laws. And that would be a conflict. It would just be foolish animals above the toll.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You had alluded earlier to the Baker case, I remember the only question that I got from an early informant was whether or not the Baker case already covers what we're trying to accomplish with this. Can't remember specifically what my answer was, but could you expand a bit more on how this is different from the Baker case? Yeah, can you expand on that?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the Baker case is, as I'm sure that Admiral Cornich was asking about it and you were discussing with him was decided under the Common Benefits Clause, existed at the time, that was, and still exists, which was how the court was looking at claims that were similar to equal protection parties. A member of one class of people is treated differently by the government because of their membership in that class. And the test that the court has developed in Baker and has used in subsequent cases is very different than the sort of standard acts under equal protection causes that have developed over time. So you have, I think, two different, at least two different ways that it would be different in response to what you're saying, Senator Hashim. In the first place, the proposal here, which is not the case in the Common Benefits Clause, specifically lays out protected classes of people. And specifically, so in other words, you wouldn't have to, if you were going to bring a claim to Baker, you would have to first establish that you belong to a class that is getting this constitutional protection. That step is already, in a sense, taken for you by virtue of the fact that the language itemizes the nine or 10 protected classes already. So you wouldn't have that sort of threshold requirement that you would have to establish whether or not that class that you're part of gets some type of judicial scrutiny for whatever state action is taken that you allegedly deny the equal protection. So I think in that case, it more clearly lays out how it is that you would have standing to bring a claim under the Constitution. And so that's point number one. Second number two, point number two is that the

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: strict scrutiny that we're talking about,

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: the intermediate scrutiny, those are pests essentially that have been established by the court for that demand a rationale from the state as to why they have treated people in these different groups. Different. But those can be very demanding, particularly with strict scrutiny. That doesn't exist under the Common Benefits Clause analysis either. So we don't know yet how the court would interpret the levels of scrutiny that would apply to each of those listed protected classes in the proposed Act of '23, because that's just something that's going be developed by the court over time. We don't know. But if you think about how those protective classes have been treated over time by other courts and by the Supreme Court, there's some reason to at least think that some level of more demanding rationale would be required from the state than is required of the it's called it's by virtue of naming these groups, these classes. So I think that's a couple of ways that I don't recall that particular conversation, but I don't know. In other words, it's not already covered because you haven't laid out the groups of people in terms of how that's called Zika and Brina claiming this, and more likely that those groups would have a greater level of judicial scrutiny than current basis. Does that kind of Yeah, help absolutely. Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Mindy, any questions?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: All

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: right, Eric. Anything anything else from you? No. Don't think so. Okay. Not this one. So that sounds good. Our next witness is out of 10, and we're doing prop four. We do we are lining up witnesses for next week, and, you know, we'll just slowly move through this. You know? We can't make any changes as we know, but we'll still make sure to get on the record of all the folks who wanna testify on this. And for folks who are listening, if you'd like to testify, reach out to our committee assistant

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you, Eric. You bet. Thank you. We can

[Eric FitzPatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: go