Committee weighs draft 5.1 of S.298, shifting voter‑dilution language into 17 VSA and sparking a posting dispute between SOS and Ethics Commission

Tim Devlin, legislative counsel, told the Senate Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee Friday that draft 5.1 of S.298 would rename the bill the Voter Protection Act and reorganize several provisions so that vote‑denial or vote‑dilution language becomes a subchapter of 17 VSA chapter 55 — the statutes that address offenses against the peace of elections. Devlin said that placing the new language inside that chapter would bring it under the attorney general's investigatory authority established earlier this year, and that most edits in the current draft are renumbering or drafting reorganizations rather than substantive change.

Devlin said the amendment package also adds prescriptive requirements for candidate disclosure materials: the State Ethics Commission would make the disclosure form, FAQs and any informational resources available on its website and answer candidate questions by phone or email; the Secretary of State's Office would be required to provide hyperlinks from its site to those materials. "There are two groups of changes," Devlin said, describing one bucket as website and disclosure detail and the other as the reorganization that affects enforcement reach.

Sean Shan, elections director in the Secretary of State's Office, told the committee the office supports the bill language as drafted and stands ready to add hyperlinks and proactively notify candidates once the Ethics Commission posts the form and FAQs. Shan said his office will "provide hyperlinks from its web page connecting to the disclosure form and other materials" and that it will email registered candidates directly with the link. He described existing outreach and training for clerks, periodic office hours, and recent statewide dry runs intended to pressure‑test systems ahead of the elections.

A caller identified as Paul raised a procedural dispute he traced to the Ethics Commission's executive director, who testified earlier that the commission historically provided candidate forms to the Secretary of State for distribution and has not previously hosted the form and answered candidate questions. Paul said the commission lacks the extra staff to take on those duties and proposed a compromise for the commission to post materials as long as the Secretary of State also posts them; he said a new staff position recommended by appropriations had been stripped out by the Senate appropriations committee.

Chair Byron read a four‑point list intended to resolve the issue: have the form and FAQs posted on the Ethics Commission website, have the Ethics Commission answer candidate questions by phone or email, and require the Secretary of State's website to link to those materials. Committee members and counsel said they hoped that appropriation conversations could address staffing if the commission is given new responsibilities. No formal vote occurred; the committee recessed for lunch and scheduled the attorney general's office to appear after the break before a committee discussion and a possible 1:30 p.m. action.

Why it matters: inserting vote‑dilution language into 17 VSA chapter 55 would make it subject to the attorney general's enforcement and investigatory authorities, which alters how alleged offenses could be pursued. The posting requirement affects where candidates find compliance guidance during a short filing window, and the ethics commission says it does not currently have staff capacity for the respondent duties the draft appears to assign.

Next steps: The committee recessed for lunch and planned to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. with the attorney general's office for follow‑up on enforcement and clarification of investigatory language; committee leadership said a possible vote on the bill could occur after that afternoon discussion.