Witnesses urge ballot‑access, primary and ranked‑choice fixes in testimony on H.474

Witnesses told the Senate Government Operations Committee on Friday that House Bill 474, a package of changes labeled an election‑law bill, raises multiple questions about party primaries, ballot labels and the definition of political committees.

Robert Brister Johnson of Burlington, who described himself as a published author on ranked‑choice voting, urged the committee to treat three different election types distinctly — single‑winner races, multi‑winner contests and presidential primaries — and to change statutory rules so party labels on a general‑election ballot follow the party’s primary result. Johnson described problems he associates with instant‑runoff/ ranked‑choice tallies in single‑winner contests and proposed a set of changes he said would clarify the role of parties in ballots and primaries. “If you put Republican by your name on the general election ballot, you should run in and win the Republican primary,” Johnson said.

Johnson also urged allowing “fusion” candidates (those seeking multiple party endorsements) to run simultaneously in multiple party primaries so they may credibly carry several party labels to the general election, and said party committees should be permitted to name replacements only when a nominee dies or is medically incapacitated, not after a voluntary withdrawal. He discussed the 2009 Burlington instant‑runoff experience and cited the Alaska example in 2022 as cases where ranked‑choice tallies did not match a plurality of voters’ head‑to‑head preferences.

Sharon Till Morgue, who identified herself as treasurer of Vermont Right to Life and as an experienced PAC treasurer, testified on the bill’s campaign‑finance and committee‑definition changes. She warned that the bill combines the definition of an “independent‑expenditure‑only political committee” with a definition for committees engaging on public questions, which she said mixes legally distinct concepts. “I would urge this committee to keep a stand‑alone definition of an independent expenditure only political committee because that is sort of the—the salient point,” she said. Till Morgue also raised concern that changing the political‑committee test from requiring both raising and spending $1,000 to requiring either raising or spending $1,000 would bring many more entities and individual donors under the committee reporting rules.

The committee’s legislative counsel and members asked for clarifications about how the proposed wording would affect disclosure obligations, mass‑media reporting thresholds and the difference between public‑question committees and independent‑expenditure committees. Counsel explained the bill’s language but witnesses and members said additional drafting clarity and explicit statements about which committees remain subject to contribution limits would reduce confusion.

The committee took testimony and did not take any formal votes on H.474 during the session.

Going forward, witnesses asked the committee to: (a) preserve a clear, stand‑alone statutory definition for independent‑expenditure‑only political committees; (b) retain parity in ballot access rules for party‑affiliated and independent candidates; (c) require a candidate to win a party primary before listing that party by name on the general‑election ballot; (d) limit party executive‑committee replacement power to cases of death or incapacity; and (e) allow fusion candidates the statutory ability to enter multiple party primaries simultaneously if the legislature intends to permit multiparty ballot labels.

The committee kept the record open for additional materials and indicated it would return to the bill at a later date.