Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oaths And Affirmations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee takes testimony on H.28 to add option to "affirm" throughout statutes
Summary
On Feb. 14 the committee heard testimony on H.28, a bill to add “affirmation” as an explicit alternative to swearing an oath across state statutes; supporters said it is largely a statutory cleanup but will require updates to many forms and IT systems.
On Feb. 14, a legislative committee took testimony on H.28, a bill that would insert an explicit option to "affirm" alongside swearing an oath in many state statutes. Representative Ella Chapin, a co-sponsor, and Deputy Secretary of State Lauren Hibbert testified in support of the measure.
Representative Ella Chapin, who identified herself as representing East Montpelier and Middlesex, said the measure began after she found that some statutes did not include language allowing an affirmation and that the omission appeared inconsistent across the code. "I thought that was sort of strange given that I sort of understood it as anytime somebody needs to give an oath, there's also the option of affirmation," Chapin said, adding that the bill is intended to "fix this across our statutes to what I think our culture now expects to have both option to either swear an oath or affirm under penalties of pain and perjury." The draft circulated to the committee covers the first 10 titles and runs about 66 pages, Chapin said; she described the work as the first of several bills to correct the rest of the statutes.
Lauren Hibbert, deputy secretary of state, told the committee the office "supports this wholeheartedly" and said her office has already been offering the choice between swearing and affirming in practice. "I don't think people have been violating the statute," Hibbert said, noting there is language in Title 1 that treats oath and affirmation as interchangeable but that the change would make the option explicit throughout the code. "This is just including that language throughout instead of having somebody not necessarily able to look in Title 1. So we've been following the law."
Hibbert warned the committee that implementing the change will require operational work, including revising numerous forms and making IT updates. She estimated the secretary of state's office would need to update roughly five IT programs and flagged that other state agencies could face similar work; she suggested a six-month implementation window could be prudent. "There will be a cost," Hibbert said, adding she had not scoped the amount but characterized it as something her office would pursue "regardless of an appropriation." Later in the hearing she estimated the cost as "de minimis" and "under $10,000."
Committee members asked whether an affirmation carries the same legal force as a sworn oath. Hibbert said that under the statutory language the office has interpreted an affirmation to have the same force and full effect as an oath. A staff member from legislative counsel confirmed for the record that "there is the language in Title 1 that says both includes affirmation."
Witnesses and committee members also discussed constraints where federal or uniform interstate laws may require specific wording. The committee was told that compacts or uniform laws that must be adopted verbatim could limit where statutory language may be changed.
No formal vote was recorded during the portion of the hearing in the transcript provided. Committee members asked staff to research comparative practice in other states and to confirm any places where federal or interstate obligations would prevent substitution of "affirm" for "oath." The committee also flagged the need to coordinate updates with town clerks and other offices that manage sworn or affirmed statements.
The committee recessed after the testimony; no final action on H.28 was recorded in the transcript.
