Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Extradition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Dichery’s March 13 session on S.87 agrees to edits allowing electronic waivers, clarifies wording
Summary
Lawmakers and staff discussed S.87’s extradition provisions on March 13, agreeing to draft changes to permit authenticated electronic transmission of waivers and to clarify language distinguishing separate rights related to warrants and habeas corpus; participants also flagged constitutional limits and Vermont’s shield law as constraints.
Sen. Dichery convened a March 13 session to discuss S.87, an extradition-related bill, and participants agreed to draft edits to allow authenticated documents to be received by reliable electronic means and to clarify wording that distinguishes separate rights to issuance/service of a warrant and to seek habeas corpus.
A legislative staff member representing proponents of the changes told the group that permitting electronic transmission would increase efficiency, allowing pre-signed waivers and authentication documents to be sent by email rather than relying on physical mail and multiple handoffs. “So without clarity on that, we just wanna make sure people can use email to send the pre signed waivers and authentication documents,” the staff member said.
The same speaker also flagged a drafting ambiguity on page 3 of draft 1.1, recommending the statute repeat the phrase “the right” so it is clear that issuance and service of a warrant and obtaining a writ of habeas corpus are separate protections. The participant noted: “The extradition clause makes it a constitutional obligation of every state to honor a petition for extradition,” and said that constitutional limits and existing Vermont law narrow the scope of any carve-outs.
Participants cited U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 (the extradition clause) and discussed Vermont’s shield law, identified in the transcript as Title 12, section 7306 (b)(3), which limits state cooperation in certain legally protected health-care activities. The staff member said those authorities create a boundary for the bill’s reach and suggested further consultation with legislative counsel on the precise scope of any carve-out.
Sen. Dichery and other participants discussed drafting mechanics and related timing provisions in the draft; one participant referenced earlier agreed edits to change a 90-day period and an extension of 30 days in the draft. By the end of the discussion, participants directed staff to prepare language that: (1) explicitly permits reliable electronic means for receiving authenticated extradition waivers and identification documents; and (2) adjusts the statutory phrasing to make the separate rights explicit. One unnamed participant said they would make those changes: “So the only changes I'm gonna make is add the, you know, right, and then the electronic means.”
No formal vote was recorded during the session; participants indicated they would reconvene later and that drafting changes would be circulated for review. The meeting recessed with an administrative break and plans to continue work on the draft later in the day.
