Vermont committee hears how legislature and courts are preparing for new federal web-accessibility rule

The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee on April 10 heard briefings from legislative counsel, General Assembly IT and the Vermont Judiciary on how state websites and apps will meet a new Department of Justice rule on accessibility.

"It is the new federal rule on web content and mobile app accessibility," said Rick Segal of the Office of Legislative Counsel, summarizing the regulation he identified by its full title, "Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, accessibility of web information, and services of state and local government entities," which he said was issued April 24, 2024. Segal told the committee the rule points agencies to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 AA standard and that the rule covers web pages, documents, mobile apps and third‑party platforms used to publish official information.

Why it matters: Segal said the rule applies to state and local governments under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and that noncompliance could lead to civil penalties and remediation obligations. He walked members through commonly discussed exceptions in the rule — archived content preserved without changes, certain preexisting conventional electronic documents, third‑party content not under government control, individualized password‑protected files, and preexisting social posts — and cautioned that archived material loses its exception if it is altered.

Legislative IT’s approach: Kevin Moore, director/chief of General Assembly IT, described a two‑part strategy: automated, periodic scanning using industry tools and manual remediation by staff. "We use a suite of tools, both free and paid," Moore said. "Automation flags issues, but we have to fix them." He said scans can be run on a cadence the office sets, and that fixing a single replicated element (for example, a header or footer) can improve scores across thousands of pages.

Moore reported that, after adjusting to WCAG 2.1 AA, the General Assembly site measured about 89 out of 100 and the Joint Fiscal Office site about 83 out of 100. He cited an industry benchmark of roughly 84.8/100 and said the practical AA target for a dynamic public site is effectively 100 percent, though continuous content changes make that difficult to maintain.

Complaint response and priorities: Moore said the office is operating on the rule’s complaint‑response timeline — "somewhere in the 48 to 72 hour range" — and that the General Assembly aims to turn around minor accessibility fixes within 48 hours. To reduce repeated work, staff will prioritize fixes that yield wide benefits and provide guidance and training for internal content creators.

Handling public submissions and PDFs: Witnesses flagged PDFs and poor OCR scans as frequent barriers. Moore said the legislature is evaluating an upload tool (commonly referred to in testimony as the "witness document upload" or "w drive") that could run an accessibility check at submission, flag problems to committee staff and allow documents to be returned for remediation rather than publishing immediately in inaccessible form.

Judiciary status and vendor dependence: Joseph Papen, IT director for infrastructure and technology support services at the Vermont Judiciary, said the courts control most public‑facing content and currently stand at about a 94/100 compliance score. "We can control the content on our public facing sites," Papen said, while noting that some portal and e‑file systems are vendor‑maintained (including Tyler Technologies) and that the judiciary is coordinating with those vendors on remediation schedules.

Members pressed on the meaning of "substantially compliant" for vendor products. Nita Moloch, general counsel for the Vermont Judiciary, said vendors have told the judiciary they expect to be compliant by the deadline but that the courts will continue to engage vendors to confirm timelines and technical details.

Exceptions, undue burden and enforcement uncertainty: Segal and other witnesses said the rule allows an "undue burden" defense but that showing undue burden requires a high bar (for example, costs that would fundamentally alter an entity’s operations). Witnesses also acknowledged uncertainty about the U.S. Department of Justice’s enforcement posture in practice.

What’s next: Committee members and staff discussed further testimony from executive‑branch technical staff and third‑party providers. The committee did not take any votes or formal actions at the April 10 session and adjourned after scheduling additional witnesses.

Ending note: Witnesses urged improved authoring practices, vendor coordination and continuing training to reduce repeated remediation work and keep public content accessible as it changes.