Vermont committee weighs fast-track vote on disclosure bill for AI-generated election materials

Deputy Secretary of State Lauren Hibbert and a representative of the attorney general’s office told the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee they support legislation that would require disclosure of the source of electioneering materials, including those produced with new technologies.

“We support this bill, [and] look forward to its passage,” Lauren Hibbert, deputy secretary of state, said, adding that Vermonters should “know the source of their electioneering materials, particularly right close to an election.”

The Nut Graf: The committee heard testimony from state election and legal officials who urged prompt action so the state and voters can begin education and enforcement work before the 90-day pre-primary period. Committee members split between those who want to vote this week to give the Secretary of State time to educate officials and the public, and others who want to wait for technical feedback from outside experts requested by the committee.

Todd Delos of the Attorney General’s Office said the state is “headed in the right path with this kind of legislation” and characterized disclosure requirements as a stronger legal footing than an outright prohibition. “On the spectrum of options, disclosures … seems on firmer footing from a defense of the statute standpoint,” Delos said.

Committee members repeatedly noted calendar constraints for an August statewide primary: the 90-day pre-primary period starts in May, and several members said if the bill is delayed until next year it would be difficult to complete education and implementation before the primary. Hibbert said that even with a rapid process, an effective date could be as late as March, leaving limited time for candidate and public education before the primary season.

Members who favor immediate action said having a statutory baseline now would allow the Secretary of State’s office and local election officials to begin public education and enforcement preparation. “We literally have nothing,” one committee member said, urging passage to create a starting point that can be amended in future sessions.

Opponents of an immediate vote said the committee had asked the outside experts who briefed the committee to review the bill language and return with suggested changes. Several members said it would be reasonable to wait for that feedback before final action. One committee member said they would vote no if the committee voted tomorrow because the presenters had been asked to provide language-related feedback that had not yet been received.

Members also raised policy and constitutional concerns, including First Amendment implications, and cautioned that rapid technological change will require repeated statutory updates and ongoing legislative attention.

No formal motion or vote occurred during the discussion. Several members discussed scheduling a committee vote as soon as the following day so the bill could clear committee before floor deadlines; others asked staff to arrange a return briefing by the outside experts and for the AG’s office or bill sponsor to provide statutory drafting suggestions.

The committee heard that federal legislation under consideration could include a provision that would preempt state efforts; both Hibbert and Delos said they thought the federal provision faced a difficult path in the Senate and that having state law in place could leave Vermont better positioned if federal preemption were enacted. Delos said the AG’s office had opposed that preemption provision in House language and would assess preemption questions if needed.

The afternoon ended without a scheduling decision; several members said they would be willing to report the bill if the primary bill reporter could not return in time, and one member volunteered to serve as reporter if necessary.