Committee reviews bill to add ‘affirmation’ option across Vermont statutes

The House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 7 heard from Janet Harvey of the Office of Legislative Council on H.28, a 66‑page draft bill that would expressly add “affirmation” as an alternative wherever statutes require an oath or swearing in Titles 1 through 10 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated.

Harvey, legislative counsel, told the committee the bill is intended to “add the affirmation option expressly” because, while an affirmation option is implied in some places by existing Title 1 language, it is not explicitly stated throughout the affected statutes. She said the draft covers about 103 statutory sections and is being presented in chunks rather than attempting to amend all affected statutory references in one omnibus change.

The bill would revise Title 1 provisions so that statutory language reads, for example, that “oath shall include affirmation in all cases and sworn shall include affirmed,” and would add “or affirmed” where appropriate elsewhere. Harvey said the draft also uses non‑gendered language, clarifies older ambiguous cross‑references, and makes minor technical edits for readability in line with legislative drafting conventions.

Harvey noted exceptions and limits: interstate compacts that require exact uniform language would not be changed, and the bill contains interpretive language directing that its technical amendments be supplemental to—rather than override—substantive changes made by other bills in the same biennium. She also said the committee could choose to take the bill in smaller pieces and that some sections flagged for substantive updating (for example, an archaic reference to a “tagliabused pyrometer”) were left for separate review rather than included in the present draft.

Committee members asked about practical effects and next steps. Harvey recommended the committee consider inviting representatives of the courts and the Secretary of State’s office as potential witnesses to identify unforeseen implementation issues: “You might want to hear from the courts … perhaps the Secretary of State’s office,” she said. Members also discussed floor amendment rules and whether substantive edits unrelated to affirmation would be considered germane when the bill reaches the floor.

Harvey said the committee will hold a deeper walkthrough of the 66‑page draft later (a Friday walkthrough was mentioned) and offered to answer questions offline.

Why it matters: the bill would make explicit an option that modernizes statutory language and can reduce confusion for people who prefer to affirm rather than swear. The change is technical in form but affects many statutory cross‑references; the committee discussed outreach to courts and executive offices to confirm the practical implications.

The committee did not take formal action on H.28 at this hearing and directed staff follow‑up and a more detailed review session.