The Judiciary Committee took up H.541 on Jan. 14, a bill that would make it a state offense to intimidate, coerce or otherwise interfere with a person’s right to vote or with the preparation and operation of an election. Legislative counsel Tim Devlin told the committee the bill is intended to fill gaps left by federal law and existing Vermont statutes by reaching third-party conduct beyond conduct limited to polling places.

Devlin said the bill has three primary parts: (1) amendments to an existing statute concerning showing ballots and related conduct; (2) a new section creating an interference offense aimed at conduct that intimidates, threatens, coerces or attempts to intimidate voters or election officials for the purpose of disrupting voting or election operations; and (3) a group of civil investigation and enforcement provisions modeled on existing campaign-finance enforcement language that would be placed in chapter 35 and explicitly applied to offenses against the purity of elections. "A person shall be imprisoned not more than 2 years or fined not more than $2,000 or both" is the penalty structure Devlin described as drafted in the bill.

Sarah Copeland Hanses, Vermont’s secretary of state, told the committee the office has seen threats and harassment directed at election staff since 2020, including a swatting attempt and repeated hostile visits to town clerks' offices. "There is nothing more important and more central to our office than ensuring every Vermonter's right to vote and ensuring the safety and security of the people who are helping to conduct those elections," she said, urging statutory protections at the state level because federal authorities do not always investigate local incidents.

Members questioned the bill’s interaction with federal law and constitutional protections for speech. Devlin acknowledged the new language is similar to federal intimidation statutes but said federal law applies only to federal elections; several members asked the counsel to confirm whether courts have resolved First Amendment or other constitutional questions in analogous federal statutes. Committee members also debated whether the penalty should remain in the misdemeanor range as drafted (up to two years) or be elevated for aggravated cases.

The bill’s enforcement provisions would give the attorney general and state's attorneys civil investigatory tools—injunctions, subpoena power, confidential disclosure rules and contempt remedies—that Devlin said now appear only in the campaign-finance chapter. Devlin and members discussed drafting choices about whether to duplicate enforcement language within chapter 35 or to cross-reference existing campaign-finance language; Devlin said duplication was a drafting decision to avoid awkward campaign‑finance references embedded in those provisions.

No formal vote was taken. Committee members asked legislative counsel to check case law on the interplay between civil investigative tools and criminal prosecutions and to refine penalty, venue and drafting choices; the committee scheduled further testimony and follow-up drafting. The hearing closed with the chair asking staff to work with the attorney general’s office and other stakeholders on alternatives and clarifications.