 Good morning. You are with the Vermont house government operations committee. We are meeting this morning to consider a few amendments to S 348. That will be up on the floor of the house later this morning. We've got to get right to it because we have a long list of folks who are with us today. And so I'd like to go first to Scott Beck. I'm going to go first. I'm going to go first. I'm going to go first. I'm going to go first to explain to us what his amendment does. And then we'll hear some different perspectives on that amendment. Thank you. So my amendment, I'm sure most of you are probably looking at it right there. But what it effectively does. Is it. For the 2020 general election. The Secretary of State makes a decision to do universal mail in ballots. The, my rationale for doing this has nothing to do. With the conversation that occurred on the floor on Wednesday. Wednesday, it's not about voter fraud. I don't think there's much likelihood of voter fraud occurring in November if we do universal mail-in ballots. It has nothing to do with ballot harvesting, which I realize is legal in the state of Vermont, even though my personal opinion is it's unethical, but I don't challenge that. My reason for submitting this amendment to this bill is purely based in health safety wellness and epidemiology. It would be highly irresponsible for the state of Vermont to send out universal mail-in ballots to everyone and then allow hordes of political operatives to go door-to-door in neighborhoods and apartment buildings and complexes where they have no idea who the people in those complexes are that could be infected, they have no idea who the people in those complexes and homes might be that might have underlying conditions that make them vulnerable to the COVID and then to interact with them and move on to the next door and the next door and the next door and who knows how many dozens or maybe even hundreds that they might get to. So this amendment is purely about health, it's purely about safety, it's purely about an environment where we may be in a worse situation than we are now with the potential of the second wave. And I just, if we're gonna follow the science and we're gonna be looking out for the health and safety of Vermonters, we cannot allow hordes of untrusted people to canvas neighborhoods and apartment complexes and risk the spread of this disease. This would not preclude trusted people from collecting and delivering a ballot for an individual that can't do that on their own, would not prevent friends, coworkers, colleagues, family members, clergy, the postman, the board of civil authority or town clerk from collecting a ballot from an individual and getting it to the proper place. And of course we have the last line of defenses that as I understand it, if we were to do this, everybody will receive a stamped envelope. So all they have to do is put it in the outgoing mailbox at their place of residence and it would get where it needed to go. I think I've said everything I need to say, but it's available for questions. Committee members, do you have any questions for Representative Beck on the content of his amendment? Jim Harrison. Thank you, Scott for joining us this morning. You know, I guess we might have been looking at it from a little different vantage point, but now that you bring up the health concerns, which is the whole reason for mailing out ballots in the first place, you've convinced me that I will not go out and collect ballots. Thank you. John Gannon. Thank you. Scott, now this I think would prevent justice as a piece from going out and doing their functions under the law, which is to help people get their ballots because they're on ballot. John, I missed the first part of your conversation or your first part of your comment. So my question is justice of the piece. They're on the ballot. So they would be prevented from doing their job of going out with another justice of the piece and assisting in returning ballots as they are allowed to do under the law. My interpretation of that, it would be that if that justice of the piece is operating in their official capacity as a justice of the piece, and if they are asked to go out and collect the ballot from somebody who could not find any other way to get a ballot in, that that would not trigger a violation of this statute. There may be people that have a different opinion of how the language reads, but that's my interpretation. If somebody's acting in their official capacity, whether it's a postman, a town clerk, somebody if they're operating in their official capacity, not on behalf of a political group or any of these other ones that I list here, then that they would not be subject to. So what if I'm chair of my democratic town committee and my neighbor asks me to pick up his or her ballot and deliver it to the clerk? Is that a violation of this amendment? I would say no, because in that situation, you are not acting on behalf of the democratic party in your town. You are acting as a trusted person that was contacted by a friend that trusts you and asks you to do that. I would not view that as a violation of this idea. Well, I guess that leads me to my most important question, which is how would this be enforced? I mean, because in that instance, if I'm chair of my democratic town committee, I could be acting on behalf of that committee or I could be just collecting ballots from my neighbors. I would suspect it would receive about the same level of enforcement as almost all election law is in Vermont, which is that there is very little enforcement or capacity to do that, but we set the rules out and we tell the people that are running and the people that are part of the process, these are the rules and you need to follow them. And if you don't and it's discovered that you didn't, then there are repercussions, but I would imagine it would be just as enforceable as all other election law in the state of Vermont. So you have a long list here of people who can't return ballots. Are these people less healthy or more dangerous than people, other people who may return ballots? No, they're likely not. I can't think of any epidemiological reason why those people would be more vulnerable to COVID than anybody else. The difference though is that if they're acting on behalf of their political committee and they're going door to door, there's a very high likelihood that they have no idea who anything about the people that live in that domicile, whether they're infected or whether they have underlying medical conditions that might make them vulnerable to COVID and they shouldn't be doing that. The direction right now from the Vermont Department of Health is that you shouldn't be interacting with anybody that's not trusted, that you don't know and you don't know anything about them and effectively in most cases, people that are working for campaigns or on behalf of campaigns or political parties, they're by nature in a medical sense are untrusted because they don't know anything about the people they're going to be interacting with. And I think that is the direction right now from the Vermont Department of Health. Don't have gatherings, don't interact with people you don't trust and you don't know them. All right, thank you. Mike Marwicky. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Chair. I have a few questions. Now, I know our connections are not always that good but I believe I heard the word hordes, H-O-R-D-E-S. Is that accurate, Representative Beck? I think it can be depending on what town you live in and how competitive the race is. So do you have evidence that there have been hordes of ballot collectors? In my community, there are people that actively go out and are looking to collect ballots. They get the list of ballots that have been mailed out and who those people are and they do go around. I can't speak for every other city. Sure, for now. You can only speak for one. And does that constitute a horde? I'm looking for a definition of horde because I have in my mind a large number. I don't have a number, but I can tell you that a number, a large, I mean, dozens of people will go out there in my community and do that. Whether you call that a horde or not, I don't know. But there are people that are going through communities, whether it's one or a hundred, I don't think it matters a wit that are going to doors, seeking ballots and returning them. And that, you know, like I said, I realize that's illegal practice in Vermont. I'm not gonna weigh in on that. I'm just saying that whether it's one or a hundred, if people are going through a neighborhood and when we're in the middle of a pandemic, not knowing anything about the people they are interacting with and then going on to the next house and the next house and the next department building, that there's a health and safety issue there. Thank you. Bob Hooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative, I am very sympathetic to what you're trying to do here, but I can't get behind this language. It seems to be excessively broad, aside from the point that John brought up about the JPs doing their job. It seems like it would scoop like AARP and Cove and a bunch of organizations that are gonna be assisting elderly people, who we really don't want on the street to do their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. I have no idea what a lobbyist employer is, but this just seems to be a little vague and reaches pretty far. So that's... Well, I think I would certainly be receptive to if the committee wanted to fine-tune the language, but I think in the environment that we're in, it's necessary to err on the side of safety and I'm being conservative. And I think there's a big difference between somebody and maybe the language needs to be tightened up a little bit, but I think there's a big difference between an elderly person that says, you know, hey, I don't have anybody that I trust that I can collect this ballot from. I can't figure out how to put it in the mailbox, even though there's a stamped envelope there. And they call the AARP or some other group that assists our elderly and says, hey, I can't figure this out. Can you send somebody to help me? In my mind, I don't think that that would violate the statute because this is not the AARP going to people and collecting, this is an individual that is reaching out and trying to find a trusted person to do this on their behalf. And maybe the language could be tightened up a little bit and I'd be receptive to those types of ideas, but I think there's a difference there and I think we also have to look at this from a common sense perspective too. Well, like I said, I'm sympathetic to what you're trying to do, but the language has so many it could be's in it that I don't think I can support it as written. Yeah, I think by its nature it does because you know, we have a lot of people in Vermont and we're not unique, but that operate in different capacities. You know, we have people that are part of political parties that are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, and they're trusted people to a certain group of people. And you know, that's in my mind, not a violation, but for that matter, we might have postmen that might collect thousands of these things. They're doing that in their official capacity. They're not out, you know, going to another postal route and knocking on every door. So I think there's some common sense here and I think that we, you know, it's what's the intent, what's the purpose? Are you operating in an official capacity? Are you a trusted individual? Have you been requested to do this for somebody to help them out? Or are you just literally outgoing to places you have no idea what's going on there and just looking for ballots? Thank you, Madam Chair. John Gannon. Thank you. Scott, as I think we've seen since the beginning of the COVID-19 emergency as the governor has put out emergency orders, various state agencies have put out directives and guidance about how to comply with those orders. For example, you know, indoor dining, there are specific directives that have been put out with respect to that. Outdoor dining the same, you know, with respect to outdoor recreation. I mean, you name the sector of the businesses or municipalities, there's been guidance put out by various agencies across the state. Can't the secretary of the state provide guidance to protect the health of voters and others that would be better, you know, deal with this issue better than this amendment? I, you know, I think it's, I think I think two things. I think it's important for the legislature to say what we mean and put that out there. And I also think that I, I'm not sure the secretary of state is the most relevant opinion. I'm not, I'd call the secretary of health, call Dr. Levine, see what he says. Well, I mean, this is a, I'm not, I'm not arguing that, that the secretary of state doesn't know how to run an election. I'm saying that this is on state. Well, I'm sure like the other Vermont Department of Health to testify. The secretary of state would consult with the Department of Health and Dr. Levine with respect to the issue. Then yeah, I'm sure he may very well be, but I think if your committee's gonna do its due diligence, I think you ought to, you ought to contact the Vermont Department of Health and see what they think. Okay, thank you. I believe the Vermont Department of Health does not have a crystal ball to understand the rate of infection that will be present in September, October and November. Jim Harrison and then Hal Colston, and then we move on. I thought we were planning for a worst case scenario here. I guess I must have missed that. Yeah, great. Thank you. Earlier, it was raised about a question about justice of the peace. It may already be covered in title 17, 2456, where it talks about unless the moderator, justice of the peace, town clerk, treasurer, ward clerk, inspector of elections that are acting in their official capacity. So I think the issue of whether a JP can collect a ballot is already covered under existing law, whether or not they are a candidate for office. Thank you. Hal Colston. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Representative Beck for bringing this amendment forward. However, I see this as a continuation of the delays that began about two months ago to this process of putting in place that are all mail-in ballot voting process. I believe we need to act now. Time is of the essence. And to be honest, I'm gonna follow up on the point that Representative Gannon made. Of all the directives that are out there, I know, Secretary Condos, I know him for a long time, and I know him to be a person of integrity. And I trust that he and his team will do the right thing for all Vermont voters. And they will come up with a comprehensive directive that will address the issue that you brought up. But what it will do, it will put it in place now. We don't have time to wait. We need to keep our eye on the prize, and that's the safety of our Vermont voters. And we can't afford any more delays. Thank you. Thank you, Hal. So I think at this point, it's probably a good idea to hear from the Secretary of State and his elections team. So Jim, your thoughts on the Beck amendment. Thank you. I'm not sure I understand the need for the Beck amendment as it's written. I do think probably an easier way to deal with this is if it really truly is a health concern, then perhaps we should stop all in-person campaigning as well because you're not gonna know who you're talking to when you walk up to them to campaign. I think that this language is so overly broad that it has a lot of unintended consequences. For instance, do you wanna stop AARP from helping people? Do you wanna stop legal women voters from helping people? Do you wanna stop playing parenthood or the NRA or right to life? I mean, these are the people and organizations that would be not allowed to provide any assistance when it comes to labor organizations, mental health workers are now unionized, social workers are unionized, nurses are unionized. Are we going to say that they can't do this because it's not collecting ballots, would not be a normal part of their duties. And I'm not saying that they are out there collecting ballots, I'm just saying that if a senior that they were providing care to, asked for their help, do we really want to limit that person? So I think essentially, this law has been in place for decades and it's never been a problem before. I think that this, the one thing that I do agree with Scott Beck about Representative Beck is that the whole idea behind this is to protect the public's health and that is true. I think that this amendment is really trying to put belts and suspenders on something that's already illegal. And I'm not talking about ballot harvesting, I'm talking about ballot return. Ballot harvesting, frankly, is a, to put it bluntly, is a dog whistle. It's something that is put out there to denote it as illegal. Returning ballots is not illegal. We have a process in place and we have several laws in place that protect. Every single piece of this is protected by law. And actually, I think Chris will probably speak to that when he speaks. We have a lot of seniors in this state, myself included. And many of these folks need help getting their ballots returned. It's already illegal to influence a voter. It's already illegal to cast more than one ballot. It's already illegal to show someone how you're voting. It's already illegal to impersonate someone. I just don't understand this. I will say one thing and I will, on the record, on the record to this committee and to anyone that's listening, I will, in my directive, when we finally make a decision on the procedures going forward, I will issue a part of my directive will be that candidates cannot pick up ballots. I do agree that that is an issue that should be dealt with. I don't think it needs to be put in the law right now. I think that the law actually should be revisited in the fall, in the next January when you folks are back in session. This is gonna need a lot of debate. And I think we wanna be careful. You don't wanna pass the laws quickly and then have unintended consequences that prevent anyone from getting their ballot back to their town clerk. I'll stop there and I don't know if there's any questions or if you wanna let Chris speak on the penalties and the laws it is now. Rob LeClaire has a question and then we'll go to Chris. Thank you. Actually, I don't have a question, madams. Chair, it's just a statement, but I can wait if you'd like until after others have had a chance to testify. Thank you. Leave your hand up and we'll get to you right after that. Thank you. Very good. Go ahead, Chris. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Chris Winters, Deputy Secretary of State. And first of all, I'd like to reiterate that this concern about ballot return is probably going to be a relatively small issue because as has been said, the plan is to make it very easy for voters to simply put their ballots in the mail with a prepaid envelope addressed to their town clerk. So ballot collection, hopefully, is not going to be very necessary out there. That said, the amendment before you is problematic from our viewpoint and Secretary Kondo's covered a lot of that. We would see this, you can hear just from the discussion and committee as very difficult to interpret, very difficult to monitor, to investigate and to enforce. And I would also say it assumes the worst of every person in every organization out there no matter their political affiliation. There are many, many individuals and organizations that might want to go out and encourage more people to a vote or do legitimate assistance to voters who might not otherwise have the ability to get their ballots back in any other way. But this assumes that not only will someone collect those ballots, but they'll also tamper with them in some way. And there are some voters out there who legitimately need this assistance in order to get their ballot cast. There are disabled Vermonters, older Vermonters, new Americans living in Vermont who lack reliable transportation. They might reside in geographically remote areas where they rely on others to retrieve and return their mail. Barring third party assistance with absentee voting very well could disenfranchise many of those Vermonters. So absentee ballot assistance is critical to a number of Vermonters. So we need to be really careful, as you've already heard, in placing any restrictions on that. Although we do see some as necessary, we want to be very careful and thoughtful about it. Any town clerk will tell you that voters get their absentee ballots back to them in a variety of ways and through a variety of trusted people. And these amendments would make it very difficult to figure out who can and who can't. So what you'd effectively be saying is that, as was already said, a disability rights group, a new American support group, a company focused on assisting the elderly, a church, a veteran support group, they would have a hard time knowing whether they could knock on a door to offer help. In a recent Arizona court case, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals struck down a limitation on third party assistance as discriminatory. And according to that court, minority voters were more likely than other voters to rely on assistance casting their absentee ballots for a variety of reasons, including issues with transportation and with mail service. So I don't think that's what any of us want to do here or are trying to do here, especially in this moment. So what is the problem that we're trying to solve? When you hear the term ballot harvesting, it's often used to criticize two very different sets of practices. There's the illegal and illegitimate absentee ballot tampering. And then there's the legal and legitimate assistance to voters who need help casting their absentee ballots. And voter assistance is not evidence of election fraud. So ballot tampering is illegal everywhere. It's already illegal. It includes practices like stealing ballots from mailboxes, filling out other people's ballots without their consent and changing or throwing out other people's ballots. And that case in North Carolina that we always hear brought forward is the danger of ballot harvesting. Everyone points to that as an example. The Republican operatives there were collecting ballots which is already against the law in North Carolina. That didn't stop them. And then they also engaged in many other illegal behaviors including tampering, all illegal. So we thought it was important that you hear quickly from us what is already against the law in Vermont because I think that's what we're already talking about here. I would refer you to Memo from the Director of Elections Will Senning to me, which is posted on your committee page. And I'll walk through some of the offenses against the purity of elections, which is a great title. Chapter 35 of Title 17, Offenses Against the Purity of Elections. It is illegal to cast more than one ballot. That's in section 1971, a voter who knowingly casts more than one ballot and I'm abbreviating here, shall be fined not more than $1,000 if the offense is committed in a primary or a general election and not more than $100 if committed at a local election. Next, a voter cannot show someone how they're going to vote. That's in section 1972. A voter who except in cases of assistance as provided in this title allows his or her ballot to be seen by another person with an apparent intention of letting it be known how he or she is about to vote shall be fined $1,000. Next, it's illegal to impersonate another person voting specifically including deceased persons. This is subject to up to one year in prison and a fine of not more than $200 or both. That's in section 2015 of Title 17. Section 2017, Undue Influence. It is illegal to unduly influence another person as to how they vote. So any person who attempts by bribery, threats or undue influence to dictate, control or alter the vote of a voter about to be given at a local primary or general election shall be fined not more than $200. Just a couple more here. It is illegal to intercept or destroy a person's absentee ballot materials. That's in section 2019. And it's called destroying lists and hindering voting. A person who prior to a local primary or general election willfully defaces or destroys any list of candidates posted in accordance with law, willfully defaces, tears down, removes or destroys any card posted for the instruction of voters or during that election willfully removes or destroys any of the supplies or conveniences furnished to enable a voter to prepare his or her ballot or willfully hinders the voting of others shall be fined $200. It's last one here. It's illegal to falsely sign, destroy or deface another person's ballot. That's in addition to the penalties of perjury associated with signing for another person on the certificate envelope. That's in title 17, section 2021, the destruction of or fraudulent acts pertaining to primary election documents, alteration or delay of ballots. Anyone who forges or falsely makes the official endorsement upon a ballot to be used at a primary or at an election or willfully destroys or defaces such a ballot or willfully delays the delivery of such ballots shall be fined $200. And last, I have also included, Director Senning included in his memo, a typical language that is on an earlier absentee ballot. There's a statement there where you print your name and you swear or affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury that you're a legal voter, that you're not voting in any other jurisdiction, except your jurisdiction in the state of Vermont and that in voting, you have marked your ballot in private and have not allowed any person to observe the marking of the ballot, except for those authorized to assist voters under law. And there's also a statement that says, I have not been influenced. My signature and the date below indicate when I completed this document. And then you were signing that the information on this form is true, accurate and complete to the best of your knowledge. You understand that a material misstatement of fact in the completion of this document may constitute grounds for conviction of perjury. So we hope that that answers some of your questions about what is already illegal and what it seems like these amendments are attempting to prevent, which is not just the return of ballots, but it is the tampering with and illegal behavior with those ballots once they've returned them. So to conclude, at the end of the day, we think we should leave it to the elections experts to figure out the directive and what the return of ballots should include so that we don't unintentionally disenfranchise a number of voters. We will, as Secretary Kondo said, issue a directive addressing the return of ballots. It will address candidates and it will take into account the delicate balance between much needed voter assistance and the potential for voter interference, which is real and is out there and we do take seriously. We hope you remain focused on what's really important here, which is the proposed mailing to voters of their ballots in the fall to address this pandemic, to address every Vermonters' ability to vote safely, making sure they can vote in November and get their votes back to the town clerks and have their votes counted. Really appreciate the time in front of the committee and we would ask you to reject the proposed amendment. Rob LeClaire. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to keep this brief. There's been a couple of statements made that I guess I have to respond to. One is there's nothing about this amendment that postpones this process whatsoever. Secretary State has already been given the authority to do what he needs to do. It's my understanding that all the supplies have been ordered. We've got providers secured. There's nothing that will delay this. This is all about the safety after, in November. The reason that we're doing this is because of safety. Yes, the Secretary State is the ultimate authority on elections, but he is not the ultimate authority on health. We're still, if we're under a state of emergency, still, even then, if we have a flare up of this, does that mean that the governor can go through and have an executive order that talks about the fact that people can't vote in person? We've already got processes in place to do this. This is just clarifying it. The Deputy Secretary of State went through a litany of organizations of groups of people that he feels should be allowed to go interact with our most vulnerable population. I guess I have some concerns about that. This isn't about ballot harvesting. This is about the safety of our residents and the voters in the most vulnerable population. So if we're going to do this, which again, we already have, the Secretary State has the authority to do that, let's do it appropriately and let's mean what we say and that we're concerned about our most vulnerable population and our poll workers. I think every community that you're allowed to vote in, there's justice of peace. There's other ways to get the ballots there that's appropriate. We don't want a bunch of people going door to door that don't know anybody. There's a lot of communities down there, Montpere is one of them where you can't go into a retail establishment now without wearing a mask. If we have a flare up again, look what's going on in Manuski. I think we had 19 more new cases the day before yesterday. This is not going to go away. And as the governor opens things up more and more and we have more interaction amongst ourselves, it's very reasonable fact it's going to, we're going to have more cases. So I absolutely support this amendment. I want to keep Vermonters safe and our elections safe. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. Just to manage the time here, we are 40 minutes into our committee meeting. We've got the floor in about 20 minutes. So what I'm going to do right now is invite Representative Sherman to introduce her amendment. And then we will hear from other perspectives on not only her amendment, but the Beck amendment. And then we will take our committee vote towards the end of this hour. So thank you. Go ahead, Heidi. You might want to unmute yourself. I'm not hearing you. Do you want to leave the meeting and come back in? That might help or call in with the phone number that's included in the invitation. Yes. But Representative Shaw here, she just on chat just said she can't get unmuted. Yeah. I am seeing that she is, I can unmute her, I believe. But I'm not being, I'm not able to hear her. Thank you. She's coming in on the phone. OK. Madam Chair. Yes. Would it, in the interest of time while we're waiting for Representative Sherman, would you like to vote on Representative Beck amendment? And if so, I would move that we find it favorable. I'm going to wait and vote at the end because I still would like to have time to hear from the perspective of AARP and also the National Vote from Home Institute if we have time. So I am going to off on that. OK, thank you. Can you hear me now? Oh, yes, we can. Thank you, Heidi. OK, sorry. I hope this doesn't happen on the floor. OK, so thank you, Madam Chair and the community. You just muted yourself. Didn't you? OK, now you're good. Maybe I'll mute it or whatever. Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me to speak to you about the bill, about my amendment to S348. And my amendment is simple, albeit the Secretary of State preempted it, which I recognized. But I will say my amendment is very simple. We approved earlier this year with my support the mailing out of ballots to all Vermonters for the 2020 general election. Obviously, the proposed change in this bill would eliminate the governor from that process. But as we were discussing this on the floor on Wednesday, a line of questioning sparked my interest and significant concern, frankly, that I hadn't really thought about in the past. It became clear during that line of questioning in my subsequent follow-up that candidates who are on the ballot, whose names are on the ballot, can actually go and harvest ballots, collect them, that is, they can collect them and return them to an election headquarters or the town clerk. This actually really, really surprised me. I've been in office for 14 years, been through seven campaigns, and not once, not once have I collected a ballot from somebody to return to the town clerk or election headquarters. I thought it was completely inappropriate. I wouldn't have even thought of it that that it was even possible. I naturally assumed that it wasn't. I actually didn't even think about it. So I naturally assumed after this, when this line of inquiry came up, that it was not allowed. After all, candidates like us are not allowed even close to ballots, even in the vicinity of ballots on election day. Why would candidates be allowed to collect such ballots prior to election day? Those ballots are just sacrosanct prior to election day as they are on election day. Are they not? Are they not, Madam Speaker? So my amendment is simple. It replaces section C with another new section C that will make it clear that candidates who are on the ballot cannot collect and return ballots on behalf of anybody but themselves. An obvious addition to this is candidate families and candidate staff would also be prohibited. Our elections, Madam Speaker, must be actually free and fair and they must be perceived as free and fair, allowing a candidate whose name is on the ballot to collect ballots from anybody, from any person, is completely inappropriate and clearly violates the perception of free and fair election. So Madam Chair, I ask that this committee support this amendment. I think it is the right thing to do, regardless of political party or politics in general. I believe you know it's the right thing to do. Vermonters deserve nothing less. Representative Kitzmiller, unmute yourself. Here we go. Here we go. So good morning. As I read both Representative Beck and Representative Sherman's amendments, I find them to be basically going after the same thing. They use slightly different language, but these two amendments are remarkably similar. And I think we can cover them both with one vote. I'm not persuaded by either one. I have great faith and trust in the Secretary of State's office and everything that the Assistant Secretary or Deputy Secretary of State said and in the Director of Elections. And I'm confident that they can run a fair process and explain it well. But that's my comment. I'm not going to support either one of these amendments. Representative Shaw as a co-sponsor. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's taken up Representative Sherman's amendment. I do support it, obviously, as a co-sponsor. I've been at Justice of the Peace since 1973. I've been through many, many elections. I've lived with Chapter 17 over those years. Many phone calls with the Secretary of State and Chris and Will Stering both. This is a good amendment. And I was glad to hear Secretary Kondo say he'll do a directive directing this action to happen. 17 PSA is full of laws that protect and keep candidates away from ballots in a polling place. And I would like to think now that people's homes are an extension of the polling place. So direct youth also to say that this amendment strictly linked to the 2020 election only. And so this is a piece of belts and suspenders of something that the Secretary approves of. And I would hope that we would gain some support in your committee. A lot of times elections are perspective and voter perspective and anything we as candidates can do to make sure that we show the right thing to do is a good thing. And this particular amendment will help us do that. So that's my steal. And one other thing, Madam Chair, I would hope when you go to the floor today, you clearly state that H61, 681 has already passed. We've already authorized voting by mail. This is simply a removal of the governor from the process, just a notification to the governor because I think people have misread this bill more than once. I think you're right. Although I think I did say that pretty clearly the first time around, but I appreciate the tip. Secretary Kondos, can you weigh in briefly on the Sherman amendment? I know you already gave us a good rundown of the previous amendment. Sure. So again, I don't think it's necessary because I've already committed publicly to include this in a directive. And frankly, almost everything that this is designed to do is already covered by law. There are already penalties in place for almost everything that could possibly be done. I agree that the issue of candidates picking up ballots is not a good idea. It should not happen. But we need to have this discussion in a much longer debate that deals with a lot of these issues that also looks at the other aspects that Representative Beck brought up, not just this alone. So part of the problem we have is we need to move this bill and we need to get this to the governor's desk as quickly as possible. We still have contracts we have to sign and we have to be in a position. There are other states, many other states that are actually implementing vote by mail and supplies and procurement, the mail houses. Yes, we have ours lined up, but we need to make sure that we can cover that we're covered completely for this. This is really about the voter being able to cast a ballot. It's their right and to be able to do it without sacrificing their health and safety. And if health and safety is really the issue, then we should outlaw campaigning for this year. We should outlaw any kind of interaction. That's why we did away with the signature requirement because we were gonna have 50,000 Vermonters that would be signing someone's petition papers. So we had to get away from that, but this is a completely different animal. And frankly, we are providing postage paid envelopes, which will make it very easy for people. Representative Beck talked about hordes of people out campaigning. We haven't had that kind of a situation anywhere in the state in the past. And all of a sudden this year, we're gonna have hordes of people. I just don't buy it. I just don't buy it. Thank you, Marsha Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair. This election is already going to be different. And the more restrictions and stipulations we add to it, the more confusing it's going to be for the voters. I agree with Representative Colston that we need to move this along so the Secretary of State's office can set up a secure and safe way for voters to vote. I will not be supporting either one of these amendments. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I wanna ask Carol Dawes to weigh in for a moment as a local elections official and as somebody who speaks regularly with town clerks from around the state would love to hear your perspective on what the impact would be to your processes if one or the other of these were to pass. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that you've got a very short window of time here. So I just wanna lay out one scenario. I can imagine as I testified to this committee earlier that I have a lot of situations where neighbors go out and collect ballots from each other and bring them in. And most of those come to the polls. When the voter comes to the polls, they bring three or four other ballots. And all I can imagine is that situation happening and I have to deny, I have to refuse to accept those ballots because they're not being, because they're in conflict with a new restriction that would say that these people can't be returning these ballots. And I'm not sure what that means. If I can't accept the ballots, then those voters have been denied their right to vote. And so I think that the current law says the ballots can be returned by any means. And I think that that's an important option for voters to continue to have. Thank you, Carol. Greg Marshallden from AARP has been with us for a number of these conversations and would welcome you to give us some thoughts on these amendments. Thank you, Madam Chair, members, committee. I want to remind everyone that AARP is a nonpartisan organization. We don't endorse candidates for public office. We don't oppose candidates. We don't have a political action committee. We don't donate to PACs. We don't donate to parties. I just want to be clear, but we do have over 135,000 members in the state. And as all of you know, many of them vote. On April 3rd, I testified in the Senate Government Operations Committee on the urgent need to activate emergency voting provisions you passed in response to the unprecedented global pandemic in order to address the very real concerns of the health and safety of Vermonters, they're going to be forced to congregate in person at voting sites on election day. That was 10 weeks ago. Two and a half months have now passed and here we are still facing some uncertainty about whether or not we're going to actually have a safe election here in Vermont. As of this late date, I ask you to please vote no on any amendments to this minor adjustment to legislation you already passed and are only amending because the governor decided after signing the law that he does not want to be a part of making decisions about how Vermonters vote on election day. All you have to do is open the newspaper or have a look at what happened in Georgia the other day to see how bad this can get. And we cannot allow that to happen here in Vermont. So we strongly encourage you to concur with the Senate on the third reading so that we can start educating and preparing Vermonters, all Vermonters for a smooth, safe and accessible election. We cannot afford to waste one more minute here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. So we have a few representatives of the National Vote at Home Institute and I wanna give a brief moment for Amber McReynolds who has jumped up and is ready to shed some light on what the National Vote at Home Institute thinks of restricting ballot return. Hi, members of the committee and thanks for inviting us to participate in this session today. We're a nonpartisan, non-profit national organization and our core focus is on vote by mail and vote at home policies and procedures and we help states improve those procedures. And I just first wanna commend the state of Vermont and certainly secretary condos for taking action to prepare for the fall election. We're not seeing that across the country. We're actually very concerned about many states not being prepared for either an emergency contingency plan or for an expanded use of vote at home. And so we just really appreciate the state of Vermont and this committee and secretary condos for leading in that area because it's just critical and we're very concerned about the timing before the election right now to take action. I don't think the amendment is needed. This is certainly an area that we monitor very closely around the country. States vary in terms of their procedures and what's in place around this. In fact, most states don't actually have provisions against ballot collection as it's talked about here. It seems to me that secretary condos and the staff of the secretary of state's office will certainly consider all health and safety considerations as they administer this process. And to me that's where you wanna have a lot of specificity around these sorts of procedures so that they can be adjusted and they can be agile and they can be more nimble as they're implemented. Whatever we add things into the law in terms of specifics like this, sometimes it can actually complicate things down the road if the dynamics change on the ground. So our recommendation would be to leave that to the secretary of state's office so that they can be nimble and they can adjust accordingly in the fall as things change on the ground. And then certainly just overall there are people facing significant barriers in the voting process. We've already seen issues come up across the country and primaries with fairly low turnout. So I would just encourage and again, appreciate that you're being expansive in all the policies and laws that you're considering today. Thank you so much. Thank you for being with us, we appreciate it. Representative Sherman wants to make another pitch. Oh, it's not another pitch, it's just to be clear my amendment is much different than the Beck amendment and I would hope that you address them separately because they are much different from one another. And it seems like this combining of them is where you're headed as a committee. So I would ask that you not do that. Committee, any questions, comments, any other answers you need before we move forward with making a decision on these? Scott Beck. Thank you. So I just want to just take a 30 seconds here. There was a lot of secretary and deputy. I think a lot of confusion of the subject. This is about health and safety. It doesn't go into First Amendment. I didn't restrict campaigning. It doesn't stop any group AARP or any others from informing or phone, mail, text, poster, whatever, telling people how to find a trusted person to collect their ballot. This is purely about the health and safety and wellness of Vermonters. And I guess if you think it's good policy to have untrusted people going through neighborhoods during a pandemic, you can make that decision. I think that's a very poor health decision for Vermonters. Committee, any questions before we move forward? So, Marcia, I believe that there is a motion on the table from Representative Harrison to find the Beck amendment favorable. Is that correct, Rep Harrison? Your motion was on the Beck amendment. Yes, yes, Madam Chair. All right, so yes means you are in favor of the Beck amendment. No means you're not. And are we ready? Yes. Okay. Gannon. No. Kitts Miller. Warren, Kitts Miller. Oh, no. Roe Wickey. No. Leclerc. Yes. Harrison. Yes. Gardner. No. Placic. Yes. Cooper. I vote no. Ronnell. I vote no. Colston. No. Cufflin-Hanses. No. So we have three yes, eight no, zero absent. Thank you very much. Who wants to make a motion on the Sherman amendment? I'll make that motion that we find it favorable, Madam Chair. All right, we'll give Marcia a moment to prepare the question. Ready? Gannon. No. Kitts Miller. No. Roe Wickey. No. Leclerc. Yes. Harrison. Yes. Gardner. No. Placic. Yes. Cooper. No. Ronnell. No. Colston. No. Cufflin-Hanses. No. Three, eight, zero. So neither motion of the motions carry. Thank you, committee. Thank you members of the public for being with us this morning. We are needing to pop off abruptly because we are late for floor. So I will see you all in another Zoom in a moment.