[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6283523,"mediaKeyId","2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8","parentId",2587612,"title","Secretary of State seeks broader disclosure for public‑question campaigns, including single‑entity spending","audioSeconds",645,"startMs",2757000,"endMs",3402000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8&start=2757&end=3402","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8/thumbnail_2757000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6283523/Vermont/Secretary-of-State-seeks-broader-disclosure-for-publicquestion-campaigns-including-singleentity-spending","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283523-e2afd9415d34cde8ef39b0ecedb06f96/orig.mp4?Expires=1771051332&Signature=auD1PNC-3G-JVRmHdEr49X1aYDwuCZ~cDz8Lz33cLEaOXL221wPGXc9-BptK7x8Mlolry5EEAVms3jp11BwhsGVZ5CNQOMmdF1lFwjIBWAZjrZkV98MbZYAx7WilJuTsqGoFl556URKh7V8RsCsCO5KSzwCImLJteUV9KVhT0JZjQR1McWH6uRTw3HLmUT7mt2k9mFAImsEW-mpDS4uMDJ~IZo9-NjvyNd--Vj7nrdyc7IFS5TGk3DcXRdpyzY2s1u88mQ-TTDJ2trSbNg2byoJwYHrIWyn0THR-yylyYtr7ILz2hoeC9bDsIp~EtTZ9jZlOCnN4-NxgvgJQEeHIRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-03-13T02:40:18Z","article","The Secretary of State’s Office told the committee it supports tightening disclosure rules for campaigns that aim to influence public questions — such as local ballot questions or town‑meeting questions — and proposed changes to the statutory definitions and filing thresholds to capture independent public‑question spending.

Deputy Secretary Lauren Hibbert said the office wants to replace the term ‘‘independent expenditure only political committee’’ with ‘‘public question campaign’’ and to clarify that the definition covers efforts by one or more individuals or businesses that raise or spend money to influence a public question without contributing to a candidate. ‘‘We want this to apply to one or more individuals or businesses so a single entity spending substantial sums must disclose,’’ Hibbert said.

The nut graf: the office seeks to close a transparency gap so voters can see who is funding advertising or other efforts to influence public questions at town and statewide levels; the proposal would lower ambiguity by aligning definitions and requiring consistent reporting of donors, expenditures and committee names.

Officials said the filing threshold discussed in the bill is $1,000 for public‑question filings; they also noted existing inconsistency in what information public‑question committees currently must provide versus candidate committees. The proposed change would make disclosure rules consistent across candidate committees and public-question campaigns and include independent expenditures as defined in 52 USC § 30101 for reference.

Committee members raised concerns about public education and compliance for everyday citizens. Hibbert said the office intends to use materials, clerk toolkits, posters and press guidance to help town clerks and citizens understand filing obligations and avoid ‘‘gotcha’’ enforcement. She said the office’s goal is compliance and transparency rather than punitive enforcement.

Ending: The committee will continue to consider the proposed definitional changes and the administrative materials the Secretary of State would provide to support compliance in local communities.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Government Operations-2025-03-12-9:05PM","oneSentenceSummary","The Secretary of State’s Office proposed definitions and reporting changes to require disclosure by campaigns that influence public questions — including single organizations or individuals who spend above thresholds — to increase transparency about funding for ballot questions and town meeting votes.","taxTitle","Government Operations & Military Affairs, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30955,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6283528,"Secretary of State backs registration process for write-in candidates to streamline results",233,2420000,2653000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8&start=2420&end=2653","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8/thumbnail_2420000.jpg","/articles/6283528/Vermont/Secretary-of-State-backs-registration-process-for-write-in-candidates-to-streamline-results","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283528-d0976c8caf4fbbe91ce6bdf3d7633684/orig.mp4?Expires=1771051332&Signature=S~QNVPE0XdX5jHTK-htw1UTntcSW62FtAwsx39CO3v4uT0aShB49GizQeE36EiWbBcw-bJjSGRo1YvVkXYmrB-vrw~2N-me5vZvR~whwInmv9KW4OiVLFm1B7b9Hk0FUXSdJlgTa~-HYRtk6bJuTlzlKzKA4gE2wpoKU8z9uUCpoFclkHo~-Agtn274vI8ctlIDNANIItvqjwtVF8PadSkriPcZeBtjNSeX3Qluoe8v-B30DjV~s38gmiy8bYA0gAJR~YaEDQ0e50aN-Tj371M0G02Vt0kF8TfAmGjfuPEcRUL7xBNobgnVeyC1g83exGKPrtBzXc5PETQ0wxKr7kA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Secretary of State staff told the House committee on March 12 they support the bill language establishing a registration process for write-in candidates and making the election-night reporting clearer for clerks and the public.

Elections Director Sean Sheehan said the change will create three categories in vote reporting: (1) registered write-ins (candidates who filed consent), (2) ‘‘other write-ins’’ aggregated when no consent is on file, and (3) blank votes. Sheehan said the approach reduces clerk workload and prevents a long list of fictitious or joke write‑ins from being presented as individual entries in the results.

The nut graf: by requiring write-in candidates to file a consent-to-serve form before being tallied as named write-ins, clerks can count valid write-in votes for actual consenting candidates while aggregating all other write-ins in an ‘‘other’’ category; that simplifies reporting without eliminating write-in access.

Sheehan and Hibbert asked for a small drafting tweak to the bill’s language to avoid implying that fictitious names should be counted as write-ins and to align statutory text with existing counting practice. Committee members asked procedural questions about how clerks will handle recounts and phone-based confirmations; staff said procedures would remain and clerks would continue to verify registered write-ins during canvass and certification.

Ending: The committee accepted the office’s rationale for a registration/consent process for write-in candidates and asked staff to reflect the drafting clarification in the updated bill language.","The Secretary of State’s Office told the committee it supports creating a registration process for write-in candidates so clerks can identify valid write-in recipients and present clearer results; the office suggested three result categories: registered write-ins, other write-ins, and blanks.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6283533,"Secretary of State backs collecting candidate demographic data but proposes privacy safeguards",203,2211000,2414000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8&start=2211&end=2414","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8/thumbnail_2211000.jpg","/articles/6283533/Vermont/Secretary-of-State-backs-collecting-candidate-demographic-data-but-proposes-privacy-safeguards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283533-e7bb267f59739e40a4e046af25d17000/orig.mp4?Expires=1771051332&Signature=MGQ6E4MIDQwZYjzJcl1ZeQmSVziOuiWyS6rgDx-Ch-yBIf8VIrfGq3jzNrujJuuzml98VcnJMmQCGKz9bONIRj4mOMWF2QLyApoYT8wSjLOfBhGDrIqN9l~9OEUR2S~53MQ557GdchzYcPUyIay0WHkbP2JxYgWAjkC4WYsTgdwh6jSFJguz9MTS4LsslatwFNvqajtZ6SO5TWIez-8bRtGd21~sqlxYkp1tGS0tBPL5dQEGmwKSDgA0QIVzTBgQvByVVS7Ph69tyOd-WxzLu~qFpn~k4BeNp51qxpnKDhFWRHiy2Ebf-zyVQFrkp1zmgED2dy1nhbi4HZLDVCghsw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Secretary of State’s Office told the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on March 12 that it supports collecting candidate demographic information — gender, age, race or ethnicity — but recommended changes to how the data are collected and stored to protect candidates’ privacy.

Hibbert and Sheehan proposed removing demographic questions from public consent forms and instead collecting the information in the state campaign finance system. ‘‘This would be in a place where we can aggregate it, where we can redact it if asked for publicly,’’ Hibbert said. The office proposed that town clerks continue to file candidate names, street addresses and email addresses with the Secretary of State and notify the office of changes.

The nut graf: the office recommended a three-part approach: (a) require clerks to file core contact details with the Secretary of State, (b) allow candidates to voluntarily submit demographic information in a format the Secretary of State specifies, and (c) keep individual demographic data confidential while publishing only aggregate summaries.

Committee members asked about data security. Hibbert said the demographic data would be stored in the Secretary of State’s cloud-hosted campaign finance system, which the office said is protected by penetration testing, industry security standards and web access controls. She emphasized it would not be an open web form or a public spreadsheet.

Ending: The committee accepted the office’s recommended redrafting for sections 10–12 and asked staff to include language making the demographic fields voluntary and keeping raw data confidential while allowing aggregate publication.","The Secretary of State’s Office told the committee it supports collecting voluntary candidate demographic data in an aggregated, redactable system and proposed housing the data in the campaign finance system rather than on candidate consent forms to protect privacy.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6283537,"Secretary of State seeks later deadline for report on electronic ballot return; cautions on security",0,1646000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8&start=1646&end=1646","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8/thumbnail_1646000.jpg","/articles/6283537/Vermont/Secretary-of-State-seeks-later-deadline-for-report-on-electronic-ballot-return-cautions-on-security","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283537-14ad6df359730954f35032a87e13c15d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771051332&Signature=i84UWJ5vvXi0RWQ6L8ttFE52Sizg-XtglrDHxH284iConyvKognIBVfmT1YvHJdaKVi9L2OK-5ngp~1MRCTvmHVA0og4vPqzBpfIN2W2V2ChWxt2kB-m47wU6zOsLsfK38PnljqXxGm-9dX5x3zu44wExQChI7Og9f6ve55gMKOffNRPN6vk9MNw6-eaf0GKoIoIs7ulN1vRW3vfLvNzz-tt3S35jTsy4hxtGzGXQCFMCM3WmjNuQU8V34-aEw5pdWui-tv2UestVu6yx64Gl1CcCpHC6ZkLGRxdMtw6L9NCzCe7siaHMSFPsqwmjaEK2VzbWTlcCqH85UjUAs4kxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Secretary of State staff told the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on March 12 that they support preparing a report on electronic ballot return but asked the committee to push the due date back one year to allow more time to evaluate security and to coordinate with the Agency of Digital Services.

Deputy Secretary Lauren Hibbert and Elections Director Sean Sheehan said the office wants more time to monitor evolving federal guidance from agencies such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and to work with state cybersecurity experts. “There’s been reports from CISA that identify areas that need to be tightened up before we would be able ... to have full confidence in the security of electronic ballot return,” Hibbert said.

The nut graf: the office supports a study but recommended delaying the report to avoid making major election-policy changes in an election year and to give time to assess federal guidance and technical readiness.

The committee also heard outside testimony from CJ Coles of Verified Voting, who warned against adopting internet ballot return without robust verifiability and security standards. Coles cited several independent assessments — including reports from the National Academies of Sciences, NIST and other expert panels — that have concluded internet return of marked ballots remains high risk absent strong protective guarantees.

Hibbert described two related but distinct concepts: electronic ballot delivery for military/overseas and protected-address (Safe at Home) voters, which the office supports expanding, and electronic ballot return, which would allow voters to upload a marked ballot via a secure portal. Sheehan described a typical implementation as a secure portal that saves a scanned ballot and uploads it into the election management system; clerks would then access the uploaded ballot through their system.

Officials asked the committee to treat the electronic-ballot-return item as a report and to move its deadline into a non-election year (November 2026 was suggested), so the office can incorporate federal security guidance and technical review from the Agency of Digital Services before recommending any statutory change.

Ending: Committee members asked clarifying questions about how electronic delivery and return work in practice; the committee left the report timeline and technical standards subject to further review.","The Secretary of State's Office told the committee it will produce a report on electronic ballot return but requested moving the due date from November 2025 to November 2026 and emphasized security concerns flagged by federal agencies and outside experts.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6283541,"Secretary of State urges study before expanding universal vote-by-mail to August primary",579,500000,1079000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8&start=500&end=1079","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2587612-97dfa78d7c8e13ceb2a3ba4290c1e1d8/thumbnail_500000.jpg","/articles/6283541/Vermont/Secretary-of-State-urges-study-before-expanding-universal-vote-by-mail-to-August-primary","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283541-6091eb79da420338daa3a32f459fcd45/orig.mp4?Expires=1771051332&Signature=dn8I5HajuxNCsCuwoqozlK-dRkq9PeVfmOlZ6M2tTUsYXho2111nM36Rq1-tBG-cz2ZGDhrWSwKk-9QKXZNVutSqOznUrWhBZOdw1UZMh-D155Bv64jDvDTs1Gumau8kaomXXBSz10v0P5BExNidVlZRZZmH5ZohL4Hv0QoWjizBgAXt3SztOGe~g~8Jht4slFZ8eWqWNhEbastXKGKTlyVlaMGxxKsC1DTJAHiObX1IJY2chq-5kdAE9lGSrrNQtC3s9GxH7fNOHG3eFsFCH5FDNWex-6HWcNy7gRhqneSwq46OobgkMo1ailYSXcneIRtxiTo8zZAKJW~2Ounq0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Deputy Secretary of State Lauren Hibbert and Elections Director Sean Sheehan told the House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs on March 12 that the Secretary of State’s Office supports universal vote-by-mail but urged the committee not to move the section expanding it to the August primary this year without a fiscal note and further study.

Hibbert said the office has seen “our highest participation ever” in general elections conducted by universal mail voting and that the practice ‘‘gives voters the opportunity to get really engaged.’’ She and Sheehan flagged two major complications for Vermont: the cost of mailing and the state’s three major-party primary system, which would require mailing three different primary ballots to many households.

The nut graf: expanding universal mail voting to the August primary would make August elections administratively consistent with November, officials said, but it would also add substantial cost and operational complexity because Vermont’s Republican, Democratic and Progressive parties would each require separate primary ballots unless the state changes party-registration or primary structure.

Officials gave committee members concrete financial context: Sheehan estimated the cost of conducting universal mail voting in November for roughly 450,000 voters at about $1.5 million for mailing alone; the Secretary of State’s Office said the additional cost for an August mail election would likely exceed that figure. Hibbert added that printing costs exist regardless of universal mail voting and that the $1.5 million figure chiefly reflects postage and shipping.

Committee members raised logistical concerns from municipal clerks. Representative Morgan and others relayed town clerks’ worries about tracking and curing defective ballots when multiple party ballots go to a household, and about the additional workload of contacting voters whose ballots would be marked defective. Hibbert warned that receiving three ballots could increase the rate of defective ballots and the associated cure workload for town clerks.

The office proposed several policy options the legislature could consider to reduce cost and confusion: adopting party registration so voters automatically receive only their party’s primary ballot (as Oregon does); raising the threshold for what constitutes a ‘‘major party’’ so fewer parties trigger separate ballots; or moving to a nonpartisan or top-two primary format. Hibbert said these are “huge policy decisions” that would have fiscal impacts and therefore merit study before enactment.

Sheehan and Hibbert asked the committee for a fiscal note this session and proposed moving any implementation to a non-election year (committee members discussed 2027 as a possible session for action), so clerks and the state could prepare. Representative Hango and others supported further study and more analysis before acting.

Ending: Committee members agreed to continue the discussion and to consider a fiscal note and additional research before deciding whether to advance an August universal vote-by-mail provision.","Deputy Secretary Lauren Hibbert and Elections Director Sean Sheehan told the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee the office supports universal vote-by-mail but urged a fiscal note and further study because Vermont’s three-party primary would substantially raise costs and logistics burdens.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Secretary of State seeks broader disclosure for public‑question campaigns, including single‑entity spending

Secretary of State backs registration process for write-in candidates to streamline results

Secretary of State backs collecting candidate demographic data but proposes privacy safeguards

Secretary of State seeks later deadline for report on electronic ballot return; cautions on security

Secretary of State urges study before expanding universal vote-by-mail to August primary