The Vermont Senate Committee on Government Operations on May 2 reviewed draft 2.2 of H.474, an omnibus bill proposing numerous changes to state election law, and heard testimony from municipal clerks and election observers on contentious provisions including post‑election audit selection, ballot name order, automatic voter registration, and rules about candidate names and nicknames.

Chelsea McGuire, town clerk in Orange and chair of the legislative committee of the Municipal Clerks Association, summarized a clerk survey and practical concerns. McGuire said nearly two‑thirds of clerks who responded expressed negative views about ranked‑choice voting: "It's a pretty high number. Close to 65% of our clerks feel either very or somewhat negative about ranked choice voting in general," she said, and added that about 38% of clerks favored a study or report from the Secretary of State’s office to explore the issue.

Committee members walked through the bill’s highlighted changes. Staff said the draft received that day is 37 pages (draft 2.2) and that many edits appear in highlighted text. Among the notable provisions discussed:

- Electronic ballots: committee staff noted section 6 — a report from the Secretary of State concerning electronic ballot delivery — was deleted from the draft; senators and clerks discussed cybersecurity concerns and the view that the state is not yet ready to adopt electronic ballots.

- Candidate deadlines and name consistency: the bill moves the candidate declaration deadline to 5 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the primary and adds a requirement that the name a candidate uses on their campaign finance registration must be the name printed on the ballot. Committee members sought confirmation the Secretary of State would produce consistent forms.

- Tallying and write‑ins: the committee revised language about how ineligible write‑ins are recorded on tally sheets so they are recorded in aggregate as "other" rather than as individually listed ineligible names; clerks present said aggregate reporting is adequate as long as totals match the tabulator reports.

- Post‑election audits: draft language restored the requirement that polling locations be chosen at random by the Secretary of State. A proposed second sentence would allow reselection if the randomly chosen set did not represent geographic diversity and sizes of polling places. Thomas White, a Montpelier resident who testified, objected: "If one is selecting for diversity and size and geographic, it's not truly random," he said, urging the committee to retain purely random selection. Committee members discussed audit logistics; staff said the Secretary currently audits six polling places and that conducting more audits would require more staff time.

- Automatic voter registration and DMV data: the bill would make DMV driver’s license and nondriver ID transactions an opportunity for automatic registration if the applicant attests to U.S. citizenship or the DMV has proof of citizenship. The proposal specifies using a 911/physical street address (not only mailing address) and adds collection of phone numbers; the committee asked staff to confirm whether 911 addresses are available and appropriate statewide.

- Ballot order and alphabetization: committee members debated alternatives to strict A‑Z surname ordering. Staff said California randomizes the alphabet order for ballots and that the Secretary of State favored that model over an in‑person lottery; members discussed whether every municipality would use the same randomization.

- Nicknames and ballot names: the bill retains a rule that a candidate may use a nickname on the ballot only if they have used it for at least three years; senators discussed edge cases and current affidavit practices.

- Commingling of school ballots: committee members also discussed requests from some towns to make commingling school ballots optional rather than mandatory, and asked for testimony from school board groups before changing current law.

No formal committee vote was recorded on H.474 on May 2. Committee members identified open issues requiring follow‑up — including audit selection language, use of 911 addresses for registration, the Secretary of State’s rules that intersect the bill, and outreach to school boards — and scheduled further consideration for a subsequent meeting. Staff said written testimony and additional documents were welcome ahead of the next hearing.