Senate committee hears testimony on ranked-choice study and multiple election-law changes

Senate Committee on Government Operations members heard nearly two hours of testimony April 9 on a House bill (page 474) that would require studies and technical changes to Vermont election law, including a report on whether ranked‑choice voting should be used in the presidential primary and several changes tied to audits, ballot handling and campaign‑finance reporting.

Supporters and longtime election integrity volunteers testified that a study could help Vermont address logistical questions and reduce what they described as “wasted” votes when candidates drop out before the primary. At the same time witnesses raised security and statutory concerns about audits, ballot counting procedures and several draft changes in the bill.

Chris Saxman, a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates who described his work on nomination methods in Virginia, urged the committee to study ranked‑choice voting. “That’s why I think ranked choice voting is a tool in the toolbox. It’s not for every occasion, but it can be very useful when you need it to,” Saxman said, characterizing the system as able to change candidate behavior and, in his account of Virginia’s experience, reduce negative campaigning.

Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), said his organization supports the bill’s request for a ranked‑choice voting report while flagging other items for further scrutiny. Burns told the committee he favors requiring campaign‑finance registration for all candidates regardless of spending and said he had no objection to a study of electronic ballot return, but that national cybersecurity concerns mean that topic should be examined carefully. “I’m among those who had serious concerns about the issue of cybersecurity,” Burns said.

Thomas Weiss, a Montpelier resident and longtime election‑integrity volunteer, focused his testimony on audits and statutory language. Weiss said he was disturbed that the 2024 post‑election audit did not use random selection of polling places and said the process excluded polling places that had been audited in prior years. “They removed 51 polling places and that’s 15 to 20% of polling places in the state of Vermont. I find that unacceptable,” he told the committee. Weiss also recommended statutory changes to align audit procedures with current Secretary of State rules and urged retention of safeguards adopted after the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

Witnesses and some senators discussed how the bill compares with a more directive measure that passed out of the Senate last year but did not become law. Committee members noted the current draft calls for a study rather than requiring immediate implementation; Paul Burns and others described a study as a practical step but acknowledged it would not by itself change law. A committee member observing that stronger language could speed implementation said the bill as written was less prescriptive than the version that previously passed the chamber.

Other substantive bill provisions discussed at the hearing included:

- Campaign‑finance filings: Burns urged that all candidates register regardless of spending level to increase transparency and support enforcement.

- Electronic ballot return: Witnesses said a study is reasonable but flagged growing cybersecurity concerns and recommended consultation with technical experts.

- Audit procedures and random selection: Weiss described the evolution of post‑election audits in Vermont, noted the 2014 introduction of ClearBallot high‑speed scanning for audits, and recommended that statute explicitly allow the county audit method in use today while preserving random selection of polling places for audits.

- Statutory wording issues: Weiss identified several sections in the draft bill he said contain internal contradictions or vague language — including a subsection he said appears to require election officials to determine whether an unregistered write‑in candidate receives more votes than any candidate “without counting the number of votes” for the write‑in, and other provisions affecting municipal petition language, the definition of a “public body,” and authority for a legislative body to correct a “technical error” on a ballot.

Committee discussion touched on implementation timing: several senators and witnesses framed the study as a step toward possible implementation for the 2028 presidential primary while emphasizing that any actual switch to ranked‑choice voting would require further legislative action and detailed logistical work by the Secretary of State and local clerks. Burns noted that over the last three presidential primaries Vermont had more than 10,000 ballots cast for presidential candidates who later dropped out of the race, a statistic he said supports analyzing ranked‑choice voting’s impact on voter participation and ballot use.

The committee did not take votes on the bill during the session recorded in the transcript. Senators asked for further technical clarification on specific statutory language and audit procedures; witnesses said they would provide suggested language and additional expert contacts for cybersecurity and ballot‑counting logistics.

The committee’s next steps were not recorded in the transcript. The bill, as drafted, would prompt the Secretary of State and other officials to create written reports on topics including ranked‑choice voting and electronic ballot return; any change to election law would still require subsequent legislative approval.