[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6092006,"mediaKeyId","2856987-ba13593b2d02c64a82df1581e3603e69","parentId",2856987,"title","House clerk and counsel tell Senate committee H.1 would fix separation‑of‑powers problem in ethics law","audioSeconds",3645,"startMs",5276000,"endMs",8921000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2856987-ba13593b2d02c64a82df1581e3603e69&start=5276&end=8921","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2856987-ba13593b2d02c64a82df1581e3603e69/thumbnail_5276000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6092006/Vermont/House-clerk-and-counsel-tell-Senate-committee-H1-would-fix-separationofpowers-problem-in-ethics-law","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092006-dc20c8be2426520912d83f2bf37ee359/orig.mp4?Expires=1770724989&Signature=ZcE1ALkHu~l3ZxY5mrH62P2ArT~Cp46BLGBynsJObC0lI3TFNsTMxIzyPRcSaImRYKC7cwseOQ3-9wIIEsspP1P4H0UBo7aNqLylJOVbNwAW27UCfe3eE5ENnn5qVpz7BJxN7e3iLhV7bPM4pMggcnOCcI5NC9jzu54AQ~eF8p3xm-NKlKwWNC6yyoJYNFSwgD90pV4LRcCK5td5JInd4zhJmHOLRWoqujsAkLGAqxSR5b8gaedPBVPw3c3efcDJ6NEWuv0KT3Eau7IgvWBvVnzxGqVhNIkB6YcBSFf1uXeV10sfmgLufp6aZXYyoUwpI~YAaJEOnTZGxtnTWOcxOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-03T04:12:29.113Z","article","The Senate Committee on Government Operations on April 2 heard testimony from Betsy Annresk, clerk of the Vermont House, and legislative counsel explaining H.1, a bill intended to modify how the State Ethics Commission and the Legislature’s internal ethics panels interact. Anresk told the committee, “I believe it corrects an infringement on constitutional legislative authority,” referring to a consultation requirement enacted in 2024 Act 171 that becomes effective Sept. 1.

Why it matters: Witnesses said the 2024 law created a statutory procedure that, in their view, would require the legislative and judicial ethics panels to consult with the State Ethics Commission in writing before making final determinations on complaints the commission referred. Anresk and other counsel argued that statute cannot compel a chamber’s internal procedural exercise of its constitutional authority to judge member qualifications, and that H.1 offers a constitutionally safer alternative.

What H.1 would do: Under the version presented to the committee, when the State Ethics Commission refers a complaint to a legislative or judicial regulatory entity, the commission would provide, at the time of referral, any application of the state code of ethics and any recommended action. That shifts the consultation to an ex ante transmission of the commission’s analysis rather than a statutory requirement that the panels wait to consult with the commission before issuing a final determination.

Legal concerns and context: Counsel cited Brady v. Dean (Vt. 2001) and other court reasoning to show that the Vermont Constitution grants each chamber exclusive authority to judge member qualifications — a constitutional power that the courts have declined to construe so narrowly as to permit outside entities to determine conflicts in voting or similar core legislative functions. Witnesses warned that requiring panels to consult with the commission before issuing final decisions risks creating a statutory procedural constraint on a constitutional power.

Concerns about the Ethics Commission’s new powers: Testimony reviewed other changes enacted in 2024 that expand the State Ethics Commission’s investigatory and enforcement authorities effective Sept. 1 (for example, investigatory subpoenas, the ability to hold public hearings and issue warnings or reprimands). Witnesses said those powers raise additional clarity questions when the commission and the chamber panels have overlapping subject matter, and they argued H.1 would let panels see the commission’s legal view upfront while preserving the panels’ constitutional authority to make final decisions.

Committee reaction and next steps: Committee members asked for comparisons of the different legal analyses presented to date, and several asked for additional written materials and cross‑references. Witnesses offered to return with further materials and to coordinate with the Senate’s clerk and counsel. No committee vote was taken at the April 2 meeting; members scheduled more testimony and legal follow‑up before deciding how to proceed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Government Operations - 2025-04-02 - 1:30PM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Committee on Government Operations on April 2 heard testimony from Betsy Annresk, clerk of the Vermont House, and legislative counsel explaining H.1, a bill intended to change how the State Ethics Commission and the Legislature’s ethics panels interact. Anresk said, “I believe it corrects an infringement on constitutional legislative authority.”","taxTitle","Government Operations, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",38232,"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},6092011,"Senate committee reviews H.474, a 33‑page 'elections miscellaneous' bill covering ranked choice, electronic returns, write‑ins and audits",5254,2000,5256000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2856987-ba13593b2d02c64a82df1581e3603e69&start=2&end=5256","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2856987-ba13593b2d02c64a82df1581e3603e69/thumbnail_2000.jpg","/articles/6092011/Vermont/Senate-committee-reviews-H474-a-33page-elections-miscellaneous-bill-covering-ranked-choice-electronic-returns-writeins-and-audits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092011-aa6625d38e7257ca76cf59785177d907/orig.mp4?Expires=1770724989&Signature=UPkzFObdA8kluSO4BDmw-Hhph4HbxhcDFJEAdkXNlNkLJ4Y05IMkzOYPbzif00ZqkipAbToJJStkoIECfNN9-eMnxEpcaBZpeWP9qbGqdw-j5GGUZDxIq0ow1eFlMRwQbgLSCz1UdNYYJTIJG8U0ZAXmxccmIvWTGqP56ILxkONGWZ~db-LzSA8~L0Mv-uarWHeKXbuHe8DZJ-RHQWbKTt82Yqz5DxeRJa0NS0ZWoQuduv0fy3P1xeVhoOYbmkiNOhH8dAv6V0lQ9ESMpWoRVtcIhqwEzAt4By81XKdhGzYHg7O3SBo-rg8b-1AjN8fD3566KqAAXMbbp45~5uP1Vw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Government Operations on April 2 took its first, detailed look at H.474, a 33‑page House bill described as a miscellaneous elections package. Representative Jane (Shay) Waters Evans, the House Government Operations ranking member and bill reporter, briefed the committee and said, “the secretary of state's office is gonna gather information on how to implement those programs, how much it's gonna cost,” referring to ranked choice voting and electronic ballot return studies.

Why it matters: Committee members said the measure addresses a range of election‑administration issues — from how ballots are delivered and returned for overseas and disabled voters to how write‑in candidates are handled and how local voter checklists are audited — changes that could affect ballot access, ballot counting and clerks’ workloads across Vermont.

The bill would require two feasibility reports from the secretary of state: one on permanently introducing ranked‑choice voting for presidential primaries, due Jan. 15, 2026, and another on permitting electronic ballot returns for overseas, military and certain protected‑address voters, due Nov. 15, 2026. Waters Evans said the electronic‑return study will examine cybersecurity concerns and costs and noted that current law already permits transmission of ballots to some voters but not their electronic return.

A substantial portion of the bill would bar candidates who lose a major party primary from appearing on the same general‑election ballot as an independent or as a nominee of another party for the same office and election cycle. The bill also addresses when independent candidates may file and includes alternatives that were discussed but not adopted — for example, amendments that would have moved an independent filing date after the primary were proposed and withdrawn.

Write‑in rules: H.474 would require write‑in candidates for state and federal offices (not local races) to register by the close of polls on election day in order for votes cast using the write‑in name to be counted for that candidate. Waters Evans described this as a compromise intended to let last‑minute write‑in candidacies be possible while signaling to clerks which variant spellings or nicknames to look for. The bill would also raise minimum thresholds for winning as a write‑in in primaries so that a write‑in must receive at least the number of votes equivalent to the signature threshold for ballot access (committee discussion noted that thresholds differ for House and Senate races).

Voter‑list audits: The bill directs town clerks and boards of civil authority to perform targeted audits of voter checklists in representative and senatorial districts that split municipal boundaries or have other potentially confusing lines, with written local summaries due to the Secretary’s Elections Division by Aug. 15, 2025, and a statewide compilation to the Legislature by Sept. 15, 2025. Sponsors described the provision as a focused response to past problems — including a Bennington‑area race where voters received ballots for the wrong district after redistricting — and said it is not intended as a routine purge but a boundary‑clarity check.

Campaign finance and political‑committee definitions: Committee staff and counsel walked members through changes that would narrow some definitions, create a new category described in the bill as a “public question campaign,” and require broader registration and reporting mechanics that apply when candidates or committees expend funds. Witnesses and some members raised practical questions about enforceability (for example, how to determine when a candidate has “spent” money if they reuse signs) and suggested possible follow‑up with the Secretary of State on implementation details.

Other changes include expanded voluntary collection of candidate demographic information for local races (kept confidential and published only in aggregate), changes to nomination and petition review timelines, and several technical clarifications to local election law.

What lawmakers said next: Committee members asked for clarifications from the secretary of state's office on program definitions, implementation costs and how the proposed write‑in and audit changes would affect town clerks’ workloads. Counsel Tim Devlin provided a structured, section‑by‑section overview during the meeting; Rep. Waters Evans said many of the bill's provisions were shaped by compromises and by recommendations from municipal clerks and the secretary of state's office.

No final committee vote on H.474 was recorded during the April 2 meeting; members discussed follow‑up questions for the secretary of state's office and for municipal clerks before the committee’s next consideration of the bill.","Lawmakers reviewed House-passed H.474, which would require two reports from the secretary of state, change write‑in and independent‑filing rules, expand candidate demographic reporting options for local races, and direct targeted audits of voter checklists in split or confusing district boundaries.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House clerk and counsel tell Senate committee H.1 would fix separation‑of‑powers problem in ethics law

Senate committee reviews H.474, a 33‑page 'elections miscellaneous' bill covering ranked choice, electronic returns, write‑ins and audits