Senate committee reviews election-law overhaul, debates write‑in deadlines and electronic ballot return

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on April 9, 2025 heard extended testimony on a miscellaneous changes to election law bill that would require write‑in candidate registration for higher‑level races, order reports on ranked‑choice voting and electronic ballot return, change who may serve on recount teams, and require targeted post‑election checklist audits for towns with split legislative districts.

The bill matters for military and overseas voters, voters with disabilities, municipal clerks and the secretary of state because it would change how write‑in votes are counted, require state reports on new voting technologies, and shift some audit and petition timelines, witnesses said.

Representative Shay Waters Evans, the House ranking member who joined the Senate committee to explain the bill, said the write‑in registration provision grew from requests by town clerks and the secretary of state’s office to reduce counting ambiguity on election night. She said earlier drafts required registration “two Fridays before the election,” but the House later moved the deadline: “It’ll be election day, 7 PM on election day,” she said, noting the change aimed to preserve late, local‑level write‑in options while balancing clerk workloads.

Deputy Secretary of State Lauren Hibbert told the committee the Secretary of State’s Office backs several elements of the bill while seeking clarity on others. “From the Secretary of State’s perspective, there are items in this bill that we were proactively asking for,” Hibbert said. She said the office supports three mandated reports: how to implement ranked‑choice voting operationally, a feasibility report on electronic ballot return, and an audit of voter checklists and multi‑district boundaries. On cybersecurity, Hibbert said, “We are concerned about cybersecurity. That was intended when we included the word feasibility.”

Elections staff described operational reasons for an advance write‑in registration deadline. An elections presenter told the committee that 31 states require some form of write‑in registration and that deadlines vary from Alaska’s five days to Maine’s roughly 10 weeks; clerks use preprinted summary sheets to speed counting and avoid inconsistent treatment of misspellings or alternate names. Committee members raised that an election‑night 7 PM filing would limit those efficiencies and leave many polling places without internet access unable to receive timely updates.

Secretary of State staff and municipal clerks also discussed ranked‑choice voting and electronic ballot return. Hibbert said the office sees ranked‑choice voting as a deliberative priority but wants a detailed implementation plan: the requested report should describe “how operationally we get it to work, what we would need in the state to operationalize it, the processes that we would need to change.” On electronic ballot return, the office asked for a feasibility study that explicitly assesses cybersecurity and funding.

The bill would change recount committee composition to disqualify people with financial interest, relatives or employees from serving on recount teams for higher offices; witnesses said the change aligns recount membership with who may count votes on election night. The committee also discussed language that would narrow some clerks’ windows to process municipal petitions and prepare ballots, provisions affecting constable statutes, and other municipal‑level administrative cleanups in sections 30–36 of the draft.

Town clerks’ representatives told the committee they generally support measures that create consistent statewide practices but warned of operational burdens. Chelsea Maswyer, speaking for the Vermont Municipal Clerks and Treasurers Association, said local clerks oppose an election‑night filing deadline because many polling sites lack internet or cell service and because clerks need time to update summary sheets and election management systems. In a membership survey Maswyer cited, about half of responding clerks said they could perform a required audit of multi‑district checklists only with additional training and resources.

Committee members asked about targeted versus random post‑election audits. One senator pointed to language that removed the word “random” for post‑election polling‑place audits and asked whether that change would permit targeted audits. Hibbert said the intention was not to remove independence from audits and that the office would clarify the language and the policy rationale with the secretary of state’s office.

Senators also raised ballot alphabetization and a series of housekeeping issues the secretary’s office flagged, including alignment between automatic voter registration, DMV processes and statutory domicile definitions after disasters. The Secretary of State’s Office said it plans to produce the requested reports and to work with clerks on operational guidance.

Background: committee members said the bill previously passed a House committee by a 7–4 vote and was discussed on the House floor by voice vote before returning to committee for further changes, according to witnesses. No final action on the bill occurred during the April 9 Senate hearing; the committee recessed and planned follow‑up testimony from clerks and legislative counsel.

Looking ahead, the committee asked the secretary of state’s staff and clerks’ association to provide more detail on implementation timelines, cyber‑security review plans for electronic return, and proposed text that would trigger counting all write‑ins when there is no named candidate on the ballot. The committee scheduled more discussion after a short break.