Committee hears S.298 to enshrine voting‑rights protections, add penalties for intimidation

Montpelier — Lawmakers and election officials on April 1 reviewed S.298, a bill that would codify voting‑rights protections in Vermont law, create criminal penalties for voter and election‑worker intimidation and misinformation, and allow the attorney general to pursue civil remedies, including fines and injunctive relief.

Sen. Hinsdale, the bill’s sponsor and the Senate majority leader, told the House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs that the measure was written to “protect and enshrine voting rights for all Vermonters,” and to give state officials tools if federal protections are weakened. “We set out to protect and enshrine voting rights for all Vermonters,” he said, describing the bill as a narrowed, deliberate response to threats he said could arise from pending federal litigation.

The bill would add a new chapter to Title 17 establishing prohibitions on vote denial and vote dilution and create four new statutory sections. Legislative counsel Tim Dublin summarized the bill’s three main parts: a civil enforcement mechanism and remedies empowering the attorney general; criminal offenses for election interference and intimidation; and an explicit campaign‑finance clarification allowing candidates to use campaign funds for security costs.

Dublin described proposed criminal provisions including a new offense, interference with voting (17 VSA §1934), covering refusal to permit a qualified voter to vote or altering a ballot, with civil penalties and possible short jail terms for aggravated conduct. Another section (proposed 17 VSA §2022) would prohibit bribery, threats or coercion that hinder election officers, and 17 VSA §2023 would criminalize intimidation of voters. A narrower offense (proposed 17 VSA §2024) would prohibit knowingly communicating false information about an election’s date, time or place, or a voter’s registration status, for the purpose of impeding voting. Several of these provisions include a limited private right of action for injunctive relief and attorney’s fees, and the AG could seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 for a first violation and $25,000 for later violations under the civil enforcement framework discussed.

Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State, told the committee the administration strongly supports the bill as “boots and suspenders” that incorporates current federal standards into state law, noting that the federal Voting Rights Act is under threat in court and that the bill is intended to preserve protections in the event of a federal change. Hibbert emphasized that the bill, as presented, ‘‘does not change the process or procedures of any election that’s going to occur this year,’’ and she urged renaming the measure the “Voter Protection Act” to reflect its scope.

Advocates from the Vermont Public Interest Research Group also testified in favor. Paul Burns, executive director, and Quinn, a democracy associate, proposed two substantive amendments: adding explicit remedies for vote‑dilution claims (for example, redrawn maps, single‑member or proportional systems) and clarifying a private right of action so affected members of protected classes could seek injunctive relief and attorney’s fees without waiting for the attorney general to act.

Committee members raised several questions. Representatives asked why the bill’s definition of “protected class” focuses on race, color and language and whether disability should be added; they also pressed legislative counsel and witnesses on whether the bill’s private enforcement provisions could expose town clerks and election workers to suits. Tim Dublin said the private remedies included in the bill are limited (largely to injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees) and that the definition of protected class can be modified by the committee. He also urged consultation with the attorney general on technical drafting.

Members sought clarity on what counts as “intimidation.” Dublin cited recent U.S. Supreme Court guidance on ‘‘true threats’’ and said courts will consider whether the communication conveys a real threat of unlawful violence and whether the speaker acted with at least a reckless mental state. ‘‘It will be much more than just…someone’s physical stature or tone,’’ he said, noting that classic examples include brandishing a weapon or particularized threats.

An unnamed town clerk who testified said the bill as drafted felt like an undue challenge to election officials and urged delaying statutory changes in an election year. Sen. Hinsdale and Deputy Secretary Hibbert repeatedly emphasized the bill does not change current clerk procedures and that many more operational ideas will be considered in a subsequent, non‑election year bill.

The committee concluded the introductory session by scheduling further study and additional testimony. No formal votes were taken at the hearing.