 with 624. On today's schedule we had 624 and 378. We also, if we can get to them and we have the language, we'll try to get to 828, which is the campaign finance law and the OPR bill. We have, if we're at that point with those, but we'll start with 624. And then, if we really have time, we will continue our discussion of nutrient management plans that is over. Are you doing that case? I don't think. He said, I don't know if he has time right now to do it. I said, if you have time, I don't know. And Chris, you know that Chris over there. You can just tell Senator Ash, just do that to him. Just do that. That looks better than what he asked us. Verify, verify that he owes me $50. And remind? No, we're not. Okay. 624, do you want to show this? It's so subtle. I missed it. Where's it by this subtle as having a pool? Right. Chris Winders almost fell out of his chair. And his little poodle too. Yes, you're right. You all have draft 2.1 amendment of H624. Yes, yes. Awesome. Excuse me for the record, Betsy and Raspel, the state of council. This draft amendment would do two things. There are two separate instances of amendment to H624, which is currently in regard to the protection of information in the statewide voter checklist. The first instance of amendment would make that technical amendment that we discussed, which would amend the Public Records Act exemption for what is protected information regarding statewide voter checklist info. And so you see, if you look at the bill as passed the house, the current law says that the following voter information, the month and day of birth. Is that in the bottom of page 3? Top of page 4 is actually where you find it, but it's here right now in the chair. It starts at the bottom of page 3. You're right. In the Public Records Act in section 2, 1BSA 317 sub-C31, this voter info is confidential. Voters month and day of birth, driver's license or non-driver ID number, telephone number you would add, e-mail address. Bottom of page 3 going on top of page 4. In the bill as passed the house. Yes. It isn't a strike law. So my bottom of page 3 is pressed out. No, you're using Michelangelo. Yeah, I was going to say the unanticipational version. Oh yeah, I know you're fine right there. Thank you. So it's in the last four of the social, and then the current law goes on to say, contained in an application to the statewide voter checklist, or in the actual statewide voter checklist. Well, we don't have applications to the statewide voter checklist. What we technically have, where voters put all this info, is in a voter registration application. Right. So it's just correcting that. To say that that voter information that a person provides when they register to vote in their voter registration application is what is a confidential except for public inspection and copying. And then the public records act. So this is a technical cleanup. So it will say, social security number contained in a voter registration application for the statewide voter checklist. You got it. That takes care of that. The second thing that this amendment would do, have you discussed the vote tabulator issue? So the second thing this would do is strike out the effective date, section three, and replace it with a new section three and a new section four for the effective date. The new section three, however, would amend the provision of law regarding political subdivisions used to vote tabulators. So the current law provides, and we're looking back now at the draft 2.1 amendment, in section new section three, that's proposed. The current law provides that a BCA can vote to require the political subdivision for which it's selected to use vote tabulators in its elections. At the top of page two of draft 2.1 amendment, you'll see, however, in current law subsection B, that some towns are required to use vote tabulators. A town with a thousand or more registered voters, as of December 31 in an even numbered year, shall use vote tabulators for the registering and counting of votes in subsequent general elections. So they're required, towns of that certain size, larger towns, if you will, are required to use vote tabulators in general elections. And then subsection C provides in current law how the use of vote tabulators is paid for. But the new subsection D is what would be added here at the bottom of page two to say, notwithstanding a town's use of vote tabulators under this section, or any other provision of law, just in case, for example, a charter requires the use of vote tabulators. The secretary of state may suspend the use of vote tabulators and require the hand count of votes in an election if the secretary determines. There are reasonable grounds of belief that the vote tabulators to be used in that election may have been rendered inoperable. And if so, upon such a determination, the secretary shall alert the clerks of the effective municipalities that his or her decision as soon as practicable. That would be the new language there, the new effective date, again on passage. I'm going to just send that amendment to the bill title so that it would be about the protection of info on the statewide voter checklist as it currently stands and the use of vote tabulators. Is it important to say any time period within which this should happen? Like if it happens four months, well, we wouldn't know four months before because they don't check them then. They only check them two weeks, ten days, and then the morning after. Just before. So this really is an emergency procedure. Plus you might have, yeah, it could be August for the primary. Right. Yeah. Any comments? Any questions for Betsy first about these two amendments? I'm going to address this one. Any comments by anybody? Please support them. Yeah. Josh. I'm reading it for the first time, but it appeared to have an objection. Josh in the morning. And the afternoon. Lucky me. Likewise. I just want to say thanks to Betsy and the secretary's office for helping through this. So does anybody have any other comments on the bill or the amendment? Maybe if I could just say that there is some concern that language would feed into the errors that live out there, that we're not doing this job well. And I don't think that's not my intent at all. And we tried to craft the language to work and be, you know, not setting off those fireworks. So just for people's knowledge, we should be sensitive to that. I've been to a public forum where people were quite animated that we were not protecting our process. And I think we are protecting our process, but just those skate patches. And I think it's, I mean, we can, for those of us who go to public meetings or who write articles or anything like that. We had a whole session a while ago on what we were, what was being done to protect our, the integrity of our voting. So I think it might be nice at some point for us to maybe even do an article about that. It would be great. I'll edit this actually for you coming from you to go around the state to compliment the work the secretary of state has done at HG. Oh, I do articles, but I never send them anywhere except at my place. Nobody, in your capacity as chair of Senate GovOps, it actually, to instill further confidence in our voting system. I can think about that. It would have to be a little more formal than I make my articles. Actually, I think they'd appreciate the information. My articles tend to be the way I talk. Don't you think that would be helpful? I swear. I tried to avoid swearing. Even I don't swear in line. I want to thank Senator Pearson for the addition. I think it's a good one. I appreciate that you listen to our concerns about the crowd that gets really worked up about voting machines and things like that. And just point out we are having legitimate concerns sometimes, but they don't quite bind to the fact that we're addressing those concerns. There is a cyber security forum tomorrow at 4-6 at the Pavilion Auditorium. For anyone who's interested, I think Orca is going to be there to record it. So we'll have that to send out to people so they can really be informed about what it is we're doing to protect the security for elections. Good. Anything you can to recap? And I did see this committee meeting on this issue on my local community television last weekend. I said, ooh, comb your hair. So, just a question on format here. Wouldn't it be easier to make this a strike off than to have these two amendments that the amendment almost looks longer than that? I think they're almost always, if there's more than one amendment, I think it's usually easier to present. Thank you. I can do that one. You have your next hearing with Becky and I can bring it back down. I should be able to convert it in that time. She's just that good. Is that good? So, Ben, and then we'll, we can vote on it then. Yeah. Sounds good. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. And yes, thank you Senator Pierson for bringing that forward. Good work. Yes. Good work. Okay. And she said that she only has one time left to use. No, no, no, no. Stay with me. Yeah, those are double shots. Thank you. I think these tagline machines are great. Yeah, they're great. As long as our vendor is great. As long as our vendor is great. All right. And it gives the constables some other activity. The constables are ever ready by the side of the tabulator. They are. And the justice service. Justice is a base. Hard to work. Our constable, we don't even have constables anymore. We do. We do too. The only one I've ever known in Burlington was Jess Oskie. She was the constable. Really? Jess was? Really? I'd like to see her with a vicious dog. I don't think constables are a vicious dog. Yeah, they do dogs all the time. No, no. If your constable is your animal control officer, then they do. Most constables are. They get called out on a lot of animals. You have. She didn't have anything to do with it. She told me. Our constables stood around the town meeting. There used to be a requirement for the constable to be present at the ballot box. What happened? Let's talk. Functions. Functions. Can we move to artificial intelligence? No. Speaking of that. Do you want to go through yours first? Perfect. Unless you want to. No, no. I'm fine. Whatever. As long as you're here and you don't have to be someplace else right away. Yeah, that's fine. All right. Let's do it. So we'll go then to 828. Great. 828. Great. Okay. So you have in front of you drive number 3.2? We do. Awesome. Awesome. We do it. Thank you, Gail. Oh my gosh. They're already in my car holders. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. So thanks for the feedback. Center Pearson on what happened in here discussing H828, which is in regard to disclosures in campaign finance law. I believe I've incorporated what you decided from your conversation yesterday, namely to get rid of the campaign finance violation curing language and just to make a couple tweaks to the Facebook language. However, I wanted to address one other issue that I added in here for your consideration, and that's on page 2 and potentially amending the definition of mass media activity. Now to tee this up, your conversation has been about the identification requirements in electioneering communications. Electioneering communication, when that term is used, there's a requirement that you identify in the electioneering communication, basically who paid for it. When there's a mass media activity that triggers another disclosure requirement in your campaign finance law. It's another form of disclosure, but it addresses a different issue. When there's a mass media activity totaling $500 or more that's made within 45 days before an election, there has to be a special mass media report that's filed with the Secretary of State and with a copy of that report going to each candidate whose name or likeness is included in the activity without the candidate's knowledge. So there's two different forms of disclosure and they have similar but not the same definitions. The one thing that I noticed is if you look at page 1 and look at our current law definition of electioneering communication, it talks about communications that are referring to candidates and either attacking or opposing them and it goes on to say including these types of communications. It'll say including communications published in a newspaper or periodical or broadcast on radio or television or over the internet is one of them. Just keep that in mind over the internet and then if you turn to the top of page 2 it also includes now mass electronic or digital communications. The House has proposed to substitute mass electronic or digital communications for mass emails and you had not wanted to change that. The issue that is a potential issue that it seems in the mass media activity definition is that as it's defined it means currently under current law a TV commercial on page 2 here. I have a draft that starts on page 3 it appears. The printer was acting up. I was trying to follow you and I couldn't find where they put it so. Sorry. I see it just. I see it. So if we're looking at on page 2 of draft. 3.2. Mass media activity under current law means a TV commercial radio commercial and then it goes on to say mass mailing mass electronic or digital communication and then literature drops newspaper periodical ads for local phone banks. The thing about the mass media activity is that while it uses mass electronic or digital communication and that matches what you would do to the definition of electioneering communication. The issue that seems is that electioneering communication also addresses communications over the Internet. So it just raised in my mind the question of whether there's a difference between communications over the Internet and mass electronic or digital communications. Why include an electioneering communication reference to the Internet and electronic or digital communications that seems to imply that those are considered two different things. So to try to make the two definitions consistent and make sure that you're capturing Internet ads. I'm wondering if it seems like you should add reference to Internet ads and the definition of mass media activity. Sounds reasonable to me. Any director of elections? Okay, so that's just that. I know for it, we'll send director of elections to the director just to add to that. I think what was discussed in the House too, and it speaks to your point, was that expanding from email to electronic communication, they were really just thinking about mass texting. What can that happen? That speaks to that. Those aren't necessarily related to that. That's the way I would go. Alright, thanks for that. Otherwise, it's the same language for adding in that extra local candidate report for those people who spend, the candidates who spend at least 500 bucks or more or roll over on page three addressing your 2972 no changes on that page three. But the only changes on page four regarding the Facebook portion, if you will. The former draft said if it's not possible to meet the ID requirements of this section, I understand you want to say if it's not practicable. So that word was changed. And then online, 13, it used to say that if you click the link, it takes the reader directly to a web page or social media page. That provides all the ID information as required. And I understood that you decided to take out the word directly, just that it would take you to that page and where the info has to be provided. Otherwise, those were the only changes from the previous draft you reviewed. I wasn't here to hear your discussion, but I think you understand the changes about non-natural person to individual. And on page five, it's just that in 2973 on page five, I think that's the only section of the campaign finance law that referred to non-natural persons when we otherwise use individuals and just be consistent to use that individual phrase. I know some pretty unnatural persons. Exactly. And then the effective date section would be on passage. So these new ID requirements and the new definition of mass media activity would take effect on passage. But there's that carve out for the local candidates report, taking effect on the beginning of the next election cycle, which is a little off because for most of our local elections, they're not on our standard to your general election cycle, although justices of peace elections are, because by the Constitution, they happen at the general election. So I don't know if that makes sense from an administrative perspective to have the local candidates report new report requirements take effect beginning to your general election cycle. That's where it is now, though. It seems like it would work to think of any local elections that would be scheduled early January, for example. Senator Clarkson pointed out, I think, about that time, local specialties, the mass majority are the next day in the week. If I could go either way, I could get that good an hour and so on. It seems like this way we don't risk interrupting someone mid whatever, although it's not exactly a big change. I don't carry my way. Josh? Madam Chair, just from the exchange general's perspective, just to give a little lead time so that there's opportunity to do outreach and education, especially for local races, would be beneficial. That's a good point. I agree. I think so, but not having really thought through, you know, but so many times, of course, too. Yeah. Last up there, finance guide, for instance, to our website. Yeah. Sorry. We don't talk to people anyway. I fail to hear you. I'm concurring that it would give us time to update our guide or can't define its guide on our website. That's it. Okay. And you're going to have to update it anyway for these elections if this is on-passage. So there's a bunch of some updating already. I mean, so if you're going to update it, you might as well... Are we on this? Yes. I mean, it strikes me as a modest update to include the municipal crowd if we want it, given that you have to update everything else also. Can I concur? I'm sure. No, it just seems to make sense to do it all on-passage. It's just, I guess, my point. I think your point was not the time to update the website but time to inform local candidates that their requirements have changed. And if I may, without despair from the local candidates, they typically are the most sophisticated on-camping finance laws. They're the ones that aren't thinking about it. But, I mean, we'll certainly work with folks regardless of what they decide. I'm happy enough to leave it with that. And I... Because local also, I believe, affects county, which is state's attorney and just those sheriffs. And so they now would be required to... They're all on your side. Oh, they're currently on... And they're currently required to file this for days. No, they're on your reporting side. They're on our reporting side. This really is just very... I don't know, just applies. Okay. Okay, I'm fine. Okay. So, Will, when you update it for all this electronic communication and the ad, the clicks and the radios, I'm just curious because I sort of... Is that... That will be all available on your website fairly soon once it's all passed? Yes. Okay, I think we're actually going to have looked at... Yeah, and this... There isn't really a change. It's helping just make it more clear. Yeah, I would... Well, I think... Right, but the media bonds, you know, I just... They're already there. All right, no, I'm just curious. One of the massive medias... I've been dependent on the... Okay, that's it. Right. Okay. Okay. Are we... Does anybody have any more comments on H828? H8 to consider it? I move that we pass... H... Draft... Oh, I move that we adopt draft 3.2 of H828. Clarkson? Yes. Pearson? Yes. No. No. White? Yes. Right. Stick it out for those multiple guys. There we go. Yeah. You better stick out for you, then. I'm sure the cards... the thank you cards will come flooding in. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Here, if you'd like to... It's not commercial, so... I don't... No, I'll think of it. I'll see if I can... All right. Can we go to the OPR bill? I move to the Refinery page. Pickup copies. Pick up copies. Oh, oh. We need the... Oh, the thumbs up guy. Yeah. Appreciate it. Yeah. Right. It works out darn hard. Let's go on. Yup. Yup. Hopefully we're going to... Next week, I'm going to be 65, so... Oh, my God. It's going to be here. You won't be able to get any of this. I don't think so. I'm going to get one. You're going to get my shoes. That'd be nice. Oh, I will. No, I wear Birkenstock. Oh, sandals. You're differentiating sandals from shoes. Yeah, shoes and socks.