 Good morning. This is Senate Judiciary. It is Friday, January 28, the last Friday of January. We've made it through a month remotely and we are taking up a bill this morning. But Genesis is for years, we've been trying to deal with criminal threatening and other issues. And Ben, it's S-265 and that act relating to expanding criminal threatening to include threats to third persons. And I think it's a little bit deceiving title, but I'm going to ask Ben from Legislative Council, Novo Growski, to walk us through the bill. And then we're going to hear from the Secretary of State and some others. And hopefully the dog will be quiet once the person gets in the door. I'm going to actually... Thank you, Senator Sears. So I will go ahead and share my screen to pull up the bill. Bear with me one moment. Can everybody see my screen? Yes. So as Senator Sears said, this is Bill S-265 introduced by Senators Clarkson, Sears, Ballant, Cummings, McDonald's, McCormick and Perchlich. It's an act relating to expanding criminal threatening to include threats to third persons. The purpose of the bill, it proposes to expand the scope of the crime of criminal threatening to include threats to third persons, which would include groups of people and any others. And this bill also proposes eliminating a person's lack of intent or inability to carry out the threat as an affirmative defense. The bill also creates an enhanced penalty for threats made with a threat that they would be carried out in a place of public accommodation. The bill really brings as a kind of broad overview before we get into the details of it. The bill brings Vermont's criminal threatening statute in line with what is constitutionally permissible in order to ensure that there are no statutory barriers to effectively address forms of true threats. So with that in mind, I'll go into the details of the bill. So the bill under section one, it amends title section 17-02 of title 13, which is the criminal threatening statute. The statute currently reads that a person shall not by words or conduct no only threaten another person, and this would add or group of persons. But as a result of the threat, place the other person in reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury to the other person, a person in the group of persons, or any other person. So with that addition, with those additions, what that essentially does is that when a threat is made to group of persons so it could be a board, a state agency, even a group of private individuals. And that threat places the other person in reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury. So to them, a person in the group that they are associated with, or any other person. So for instance, any other person could mean like someone that's part of the person's family. And it's really directed to encompass all of those permutations of threats that could play someone that's in reasonable fear of death or injury. And if you scroll down through subsection D on which is on page two line seven through 10 is revised to create an enhanced penalty for a person who violates subsection a of this section by making a threat that places any person in reasonable apprehension, the death or serious bodily injury will occur at a place of public accommodation and shall be imprisoned not more than five years or find not more than $5,000, or both. And a place of public accommodation means any school restaurant, store establishment, or other facility at which services facilities, goods, privileges and other benefits are offered to the general public. From there. Yeah, about that. The place of public accommodation. I'm thinking about a courtroom, for example, where you have screening going on in the courtroom. In order to get in. Is that also a place of public accommodation. Even though they're screening and law enforcement there. That's a place of public accommodation would fall if somebody were to threaten the jury, for example. Yes, if it met all the other elements of of the statute, and it was directed, the person only threatened those people, and they were put in reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury then then yes it could be swept into this. Ben. I'm just wondering what is the thinking behind the increased penalty for the action taking place in the place of public accommodation. Well, the thinking there is that since it's a place open to the public. There's, I think it's this balance between potential harm that could occur if the threat were made good on. And also those places at which, you know, places of public accommodation. Those are places often in which the public's work is done. And so it may also impede, you know, an agency's work. And I think it were the sanction or increased penalties made to recognize that balance that there is more that there's a potential danger to the public in a place of public accommodation and also yeah potential interference with official duties and Okay, could you scroll up so I can see the beginning of. So the other ones are. So the, the, can you keep going I'm sorry. Sure. Yeah, so. And then going down. So it's, it's one can I'm sorry can you go, go down. Yeah, a person who violates subsection a is one year not more than 1000. Not more than 1000. And then. And then for subsection see this would, there's an increased penalty for someone that intense prevent someone from reporting to DCF for suspected abuse of a child. Okay, so it's, it's five times the penalty if you make the threat in public. Correct. If I put place of public accommodation. Yeah, that's correct. Okay, so could a place of public accommodation be a bar. Yes. Okay, that that just seems a little odd to me that so if somebody calls up someone on their cell phone and threatens them or threatens their family. It would be one one year or $1000. But if they happen to say the same thing not on the cell phone but in. Is that Jeanette is my own misunderstanding. I don't think it's if they make the threat in the place is if they intend to carry it out in the place of public accommodation. Correct. So, for example, it would be, you know, as an example, you know, I'm going to come to the bar and hurt you or kill you. And so I think the rationale behind that is just that when you're going somewhere where there are people and people are going about their lives and you're threatening that something like that would happen there. And that serves as a justification because of the fear and impact that it could potentially engender at that public place. As one of the sponsors what I had in mind in this section is a group of election workers doing a recount. We all saw. I think it was in Michigan. Groups of protesters were out in front and there was certainly a threat to those election workers if they found that Biden had gained more votes. And they were, you know, fired up about the steel. And I had in mind to hear, you know, in Bennington, I've been to several recounts in select board races where, you know, I was a member of the Board of Civil Authority so I'd be there. And one of the candidates was to threaten those poll workers who are doing the recount. That's what really had in mind, quite frankly. I see now the threat has to be that it will occur at a place. I guess I would still say five times the penalty seems a little out of range. When we get to the markup, we can certainly talk about penalties and maybe the others. I mean, I always the, you know, we've had a lot of discussion in here about preventing another person from reporting abuse to DCF. So, you know, maybe that. But anyway, thank you. It's an important conversation I think to understand what at least what was intended by the sponsors. Senator Sears may proceed. Yes, please. So the subsection are new what is newly listed as subsection is really just a renumbering or re lettering rather of the preceding sections after D was revised. And it makes a couple stylistic changes to subdivision one and two. And also adds a new subdivision three, which defines a place of a public, a public accommodation as having the same meeting as in nine VSA section 45 01. And that definition says that place of public accommodation means any school restaurant store establishment or other facility at which services facilities goods privileges advantages benefits or accommodations are offered to the general public. Could I ask Ben that at future meeting, we have a copies of 45 01 section and 13 1021. Absolutely. And I could pull those up now if you'd like. No, I think it's fine. I think if we have time later on after we hear from the witnesses, maybe it'd be good time to pull up 45 01. So we all know what public accommodation means it doesn't mean. Okay, of course. And moving on, as I said, one of the reasons just to keep in mind one of the things that's been happening in many states, including Vermont is protesters going to somebody's house. They're not a place of public accommodation, but they are there to reach a goal. And at what point that might become a threat to the family of the elected official or whatever right. So maybe it'd be a good idea to have a discussion about that. And so to proceed on, as you can see on lines 18 and 20 sub sections E and after change to F and G. And then in section 20 on our line 20 on page two and on to line to on to page three. There's a revision that removes the affirmative defense of having the inability to carry out the threat. So now it reads that it shall not be an affirmative defense to charge under the section that the person did not have the ability to carry out the threat or do not actually intend to carry out the threat. Previously, it was an affirmative defense that the defendant could prove and was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence so that means more likely than not. And so this revision removes that option from the defendant's affirmative defenses. Senator Sears. Yes, Senator White. This isn't a question for Ben but when we get there I would really like to have a conversation about that section. Okay. And get in this section also. I'm sorry, Senator Sears. No, go ahead. I was just saying go ahead. I can also is in line with us constitutional and Vermont constitutional law. There has been much discussion within the Vermont Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court about the limits of limiting our limits of free speech and I just want to emphasize that this takes language directly from us Supreme Court president that the intent to not carry out the threat really isn't captured by those First Amendment limitations. So again, this is in line to expand our statutory structure to be within the bounds of the constitutional limitation that just kind of fills the gap so that there are no issues between what can be prosecuted and what is constitutionally permissible to be prosecuted. And I'm happy to further elaborate more on that if the committee would like. Well, I actually had a personal experience with that. When we were doing civil unions in 2000. I received a threatening letter before email obviously, and I reported it to the Capitol Police. They checked it out. The guy was in Minnesota in a wheelchair so they basically said there's no way he could have carried out that threat. But I was still concerned that you know until I heard that I was concerned about the threat. It didn't make a difference in what I decided to do but it was serious. The current law, you know he because he couldn't reasonably carry out this right. Yeah, Mr Chair. Yep. I agree with the intent here. You know it seems that what what you're trying to do if you're issuing that threat is terrorize the person. And if possible change their, their actions or punish them if they don't change their actions and those things happen, whether or not they intend to carry it out. So, I, I go along with how this is worded now. You know, I have been on the receiving end to show you how of threats and have the FBI get involved and at that point you have to go to your family and say, don't freak out but the FBI is looking into a threat against us. And that all that psychic damage occurs whether or not the person has the ability to carry it out so. I see that the intent I agree. So, are we going to have the discussion on this now or. No, I, we're going to have plenty of discussion about all of this as time goes on but I, as you as normally we do then is walking us through the bill. We're going to hear witnesses today and next Wednesday, hopefully, and continue then we would mark up the bill and have discussions about whether we want to go forward, make additions, not whatever. So, I can actually read section two pretty easily then. Well, section two, as you can see, Senator Sears, is that is the effective date and that the act shall take effect upon passage. I actually, when the other bill was introduced to McCormick bill. I got an immediate email from my town clerk saying the problem is here now and I, I have a real problem with having an effective July one. And she was, there had been several threats to town employees that day actually that the bill was introduced so pleased that we have an effect on passage, effective on passage, excuse me. All right. Anything else for Ben. Why don't we go. Yes, Senator Nica. I was just wondering if we could get a copy of the federal law that came up. I think we can. I'm sure we can. And maybe the Supreme Court decisions. Absolutely. And I'm also, if you'd like, I could give an overview of sort of the truth that threat doctrine and sort of the finer details of this now or at a later time. I think at a later time I think Rory. I hate to use his first name. The Washington County state's attorney. I think there's a witness people and may provide that he, I gotta have, I must give him a lot of credit for having worked up a draft of this. And because as you know, there were, well, I'll let the witnesses talk about it. I think a lot of this was ideas that he developed in his knowledge of federal law in his background. No, it make him up then Alice. We'll certainly have a discussion of it. All right. If you want to take that down, Ben, and we'll have from our first witness. By the way, they are our first witness on the agenda was supposed to be the Attorney General's office. And they are concerned about a civil case that's ongoing right now. And they wanted to wait until Wednesday next week. I believe Julio Thompson will be the witness for the Attorney General's office, but it was only that concern for a case that came up I believe this week. I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that whether I agree or disagree with this bill. I'm not a cosponsor, and I'm not a cosponsor on any bill if you look at the cosponsors because I didn't have time to read them when people were sending them out to get cosponsor. So I just ignored everything so I'm not a cosponsor on any bill I believe. All right. Well, good to know. Thank you. I know Senator Clarkson sent it out widely and this was the list that we had. I didn't have time to read any of them. Are you someone asking if we are cosponsors. No, no, no, I was just, I just I know that a number of people have asked me about a number of bills why I didn't constituents have asked me why I didn't cosponsor a particular bill. And I said because when they come out, I don't have time to read all those 100 bills that come out to see if I want to be a cosponsor so I just didn't do any of them. That's all good idea. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue of threats to election workers. Although my comments will be specific about election workers. I want to be clear that this is affecting elected officials throughout the state. My testimony today really is meant to inform your efforts to strengthen Vermont statutes across this country, secretaries of state and other election officials, including their staffs and election workers remain in the crosshairs for violent threats and actions. And we're not immune here in Vermont. Nationally we are seeing long time experienced election leaders, and their staffs leaving their positions for other work, because they've had it. This is it. This is cross the line. So let me just start with it. I'm really just read you an excerpt of one of the voicemails that we received. Now I know that Senator Sears and Senator White and their roles as chair had been given one of these voicemails but let me just read you one of these, and I caution you may find this offensive. Quote unquote, justice is coming. All you dirty sea suckers are about to get effing popped. I effing guarantee it. That was one of the comments that we got this brief excerpt from one of the voicemails left my staff to my staff was from a caller who was upset with the results of the 2020 election. It was fueled by conspiracy theories that we've seen all that we've all seen online and even spread by our former president. The notion that this could escalate the physical danger is really not far fished here in Vermont, we are well aware. We had a death of a state employee Laura Sobel in 2015, and the threat recently made to speaker Krulinski, just because they were doing their jobs. And I can report to you that several of my colleagues in other states, for instance, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, are continuing to receive threats, just as we have. And some of these instances, their state law enforcement is providing 24 seven security. Comments like we know where you live, what type of car you drive or protesting in front of their homes. And I, you know, Senator series you mentioned that about protesting in front of their homes, the Michigan's secretary has had protests in front of her home, and she has a young child who's in school and has concerned her greatly. And this winners and I take the personal safety of our staff very seriously. We have undergone as a safety appraisal of our building completed by BGS and the Vermont State Police, our building now remains locked 24 hours a day. We are awaiting an estimate of costs for which we have not been able to budget yet before we can take further steps. Let me be clear, I do not fall law enforcement in any way. They have to make their judge best judgments based on the laws of the state. After they've investigated the incident, which is we discovered in this instance fell short because of the law. I'm not an attorney, and I'm certainly not a constitutional attorney. I understand there are protected speech rights that exist. The chief is that these voicemails probably do cross the line, although they did not name me or any specific individual. They were directed at my, my office and my elections team, they came through an elections line. Some of the comments, and these are paraphrased, put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. There is a reason they're bringing back firing squads, and you are next. Not to be popped. We're going to destroy you and destroy the Secretary of State. Words do matter. And we've had and they have had a direct impact on of traumatizing election members of Vermont, with at least one number of my staff, who was so fearful to leave work to walk to his vehicle. In spring, he ended up with PTSD like symptoms and took about 10 weeks off using his leave time and FMLA to receive heavy counseling. After we received the October voicemails. This person was again showing signs of fear and trauma that were clearly resurfacing. The federal level, even the US Senate has held the hearing on these ongoing threats and they continue to it as they continue to escalate because of the perpetuation of the stolen election myth and conspiracies by elected officials who should know better than to spread lies. Now closer home to home here in Vermont, right after the 2020 November election. We received three extremely disturbing graphic and threatening voicemails to our office. Who came in directly to our elections office and one came through the office of professional regulation. These voicemails were turned over to the US Attorney, the FBI, Vermont State Police, the Attorney General, the Washington County States Attorney, Montpelier Police, Capitol Police and BGS security. There was a team of law enforcement that we had a consortium that we had put together prior to the November election, in case we had any incidents that we needed to be that we needed to be concerned about. After a review and investigation we were informed that the phone was untraceable. It was probably a burner phone, and they felt the threats did not cross the actionable threshold set by Vermont law. Probably this past summer Reuters news out of DC had contacted us and requested copies of the voice mails, which we did provide to them since the investigation was considered closed. They were doing a nationwide investigation of threats to election officials. This is where it gets interesting. The Reuters reporters took the phone voice mails which listed a phone number and called the phone number. They actually made contact with the individual. They interviewed him for approximately three hours, as they were trying to understand what was motivating these callers to make these threats. Reuters believes, and I'm sorry to say this, Senators here, Reuters believe this individual does live in Vermont and most likely in Bennington County. Reuters actually flew to Vermont to interview us and others, including SA Rory Tebow. They also interviewed other individuals who had made threats to other secretaries across the country. In mid October, we received three more voice mails, even more disturbing, full of expletives that appeared to be from the same individual who had threatened us last November. The first conversation with this person eventually soured and they became the target of over 150 text voice mails and other threats. By the way, we can supply, we have copies of those voice mails and we could supply them. I know Senator Sears and Senator White have heard at least one of them, but we can supply all six of them, I believe, as we have, we have those saved. The individual claims he was contacted by federal law enforcement and is of the belief that it was one of the Reuters reporters impersonating a federal officer. They did not. He also believed Reuters was in collusion with our office, they are not among the threatening personal messages he sent to them was a message that he was going to destroy them and destroy the Secretary of State. I believe it was this recent incident that triggered him to call our office again in October and leave the most recent threatening voice mails. I also want to point out that when we are discussing the safety and protection of election workers. It's not just our Secretary of State's office. This includes as Senator Sears said Vermont's hardworking municipal clerks and their election officials all across the state. The select board and school board members are also being targeted as you can see it in the papers, almost on a daily basis. For instance, the bills they are considering right now in Maine arose after two town clerks were targeted, threatening them with violence. Unfortunately this has happened elsewhere in the country as well. In my conversations with law enforcement at the public safety and with Washington County Rory Tebow. We were told that the federal law has a much clearer standard has been litigated up to the Supreme Court. We know the guardrails and it is easier to act upon and that Vermont law is somewhat weak. I'm not going to get into the bill itself I'm going to let States Attorney Rory Tebow speak to that and let him provide his thoughts on the language that can provide provide some help. I wanted to say again to you my former colleagues thank you for all you do this to serve Vermont. And at this point I don't know if you want to. Senator Sears turn it over but I know Chris Winters has some comments as well my yeah. There may be some questions for you Mr. Secretary so I will see if I have actually wanted to point out I have talked to Reuters as well. Actually met with a reporter from there. And I'm so unstable that I just lost my video. No no no it's not you that's unstable it's your internet. Oh. We can see you. Oh good. I'm gonna. I don't know why I. I'm getting. I'm trying to get back on here we go. I'm back. I just lost it again. I'm going to just Peggy I'm just can you hear me and see me. Yes we can hear and see you. Okay. I think. Yeah. Something is happening here. Okay on this end. Every time I. You want me to. Yeah. Take over for a minute and while you get it. No I think I'm back. I think I'm back. All right. Oh God. I hate this. Jim I've also talked to Reuters. And yes they believe the person was from Bennington County. I don't know for sure, but it's important to note that not only have our election workers been threatened reporters have been threatened and that's not just on this case. We have cases in Manchester. Where the Manchester Journal reporter was threatened. By someone. We're doing a story about a particular organization up there. In. No, it's not. I think I'm still in there. Because I'm still on the phone. It's not I just to make clear. While obviously. The threats to government officials concern us all. It's also threats to. Individuals. Around the state that's becoming more common. I wonder if you. to get help for your staff through any state agency or through the local mental health agency or others? We've encouraged any staff member who feels threatened or feels the need to use the state-sponsored employee assistant program, the EAP. I do know that the election worker that I was speaking of went through heavy counseling for, like I said, for about 10 weeks. When you walk out the door of our building, which is right across the street from the state house on Stays Street, you kind of look over your shoulder to see if there's anybody around as you walk to your car in the parking lot. We've had individuals who obviously have mental health issues on the street yelling at our building, yelling at the state house, right in front of us. We typically will contact security, let them handle it, because they're able to de-escalate and get the person to move on. But it's becoming more and more evident across the country. It's not just here. Fortunately it is. Senator Benning. Jim, I would like to take you up on your offer of getting a copy of the voice mail. We can do that. Thank you. Any other questions for the Secretary? Okay, why don't we head to the Deputy Secretary, Chris Winters. Welcome, Chris. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. Chris Winters, I'm the Deputy Secretary of State, the Deputy to Secretary Condos for the last seven years now. And I'll just add a little bit to his remarks. I'll be quick. As you all know, the right to vote is an important one. We often like to say it's the cornerstone of our democracy. And we rely on hundreds of election workers across the state to carry out a very serious task and enable that most important right through the impartial administration of federal, state, and local elections. So in Vermont, those 246 municipal clerks are in charge of elections for their cities and towns. And you heard Secretary Condos talk about the threats that are made to our office. But we're also very much concerned about the clerks and the election workers and the ones who make this possible in every town and who may even be more vulnerable to this sort of threat and intimidation than we are here at the Secretary of State's office. Perhaps not coincidentally, the majority of election workers are women. And the vast majority of these cowardly, often anonymous callers are men. You heard the Secretary talk about some of the Secretaries of State in other states, Secretaries Hobbs, Benson, Secretaries in Pennsylvania, and some of these other states in Colorado are subject to a lot of threats and intimidation. And they all just happen to be women. We haven't heard about many threats from our own town clerks. It does happen, but we haven't heard of a lot of them. But we are very concerned that the worst is yet to come. And as someone who has to be on Facebook and Twitter, I help run our communications here in the Secretary of State's office. And I have to monitor and produce some of that content. You'd be surprised or maybe you wouldn't be surprised at how much disturbing language and content is being carelessly thrown about out there in the in the Twitterverse or on Facebook in the form of accusations, really serious wrongdoing with no evidence and often no basis in reality. It's not uncommon to see talk of treason and execution among those comments that are just casually thrown about. So across the country, we're seeing these threats increase and escalate. And some states, as we've mentioned, have it much, much worse than we do. And that Reuters report that Secretary Kondos mentioned earlier, there were some 850 serious threats that they catalogued. And certainly, there are way more than that. Just knowing the impact that these six phone calls had on me personally and on our staff here at the Secretary of State's office, I can't imagine the impact that this had on thousands and thousands of hardworking election officials lives. In a New York Times poll that was conducted in July, the paper found that one in three election officials felt unsafe in their jobs. So anecdotally speaking, we're hearing from Will Senning, who's our elections director, that several of his counterparts in other states, they're getting done. They're leaving their jobs after a really stressful election season during a pandemic, with the stress from that compounded by rough treatment after the election, including accusations of cheating, and even some of these threats that we're talking about. They've decided it's just not worth it, which is sad, because you won't find any more dedicated public servants than the folks who work in elections. They're the boots on the ground for our democracy, and they're really passionate and invested in the right to vote for everyone. So it's a real extra slap in the face and just totally demoralizing to be threatened after you've worked so hard to protect the right to vote. So I bring this up because it really could become a crisis when good people are afraid to do these very important jobs. And so the threats against our election workers just for doing their jobs are an assault on that cornerstone of democracy that I opened with here. So from the elections perspective, this is a really important bill and really important work that you're doing. And I want to thank you for your time and for taking this up today. Well, thank you, Chris, for your testimony. It's really important. I want to remind those who may be watching or who may see this later that it's, it is pervasive around the country. We lost you, Senator. He'll unfreeze in just a sec. Okay. Where we store owners, is that better? Where we see store owners threatened for trying to enforce a mask mandate or something of that nature. I focus here so far with witnesses, but I want to make clear this bill goes beyond. And I also want to, in 2019, following the decision by a state representative from Bennington not to run again due to it, much of this nature and polling and et cetera. We tried to introduce some changes to our hate crime statutes. Senator Campion, I introduced a bill on that in 2019 that actually was taken up here in the Senate. And the House was also dealing with it. And at some point the House couldn't come up with an agreement on it. So I wanted to make clear that this is somewhat different than that. That focus was on hate-motivated crimes. And just for the record. Are there questions for Chris or additional questions for the Secretary? I want to thank you both for coming. And I also want to thank you both for continuing to serve in these difficult times. And I'd like to add a comment, if I might, just about the dedication of the elections officials, whether or not they're receiving threatening messages because I really do, as Chris said, see them as the bedrock of our democracy. And all the other changes that we make would be less meaningful if we did not have our democracy and our voting rights. So. Thank you, Senator. All right. Our next witness is Rory Siebel, the state's attorney for Washington County and who got involved in this because Washington County is where our capital is and where the threats were received. So, Rory, why don't you take it over and thank you for being here. Good morning, Senator Sears and members of the committee. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify for the record. Rory Tebow and I am the Washington County state's attorney. I want to provide a little bit of context to why this is such an important issue for me and ultimately the constituents here in Washington County. As the home to our state government, we have a lot of government employees here, whether they're working for the executive branch, the legislative branch or the judiciary, and the threat environment in the past two years has been unprecedented. Vermont, I think, has long, for a long time, been pride itself on the fact that we're a small state. People are generally civil. We know people in our communities. Yet, the national and hyperpartisan political environment coupled with the big life, you will, and other, the other aftermath and effects of the 2020 election has led to a difficult environment, especially for election workers and for individuals who are trying to just dispense and do their constitutional or duties to the state of Vermont. Criminal threatening has always been a challenging topic to deal with because, again, in looking to our Vermont values, we place a high value on freedom of speech and expression. Of course, there have to be some limits to that and Vermont and the federal government operate under the same constitutional framework, which is threats need to constitute a true threat in order for there to be a criminal penalty or sanction. My ultimate assessment of what S265 strives to do is to remove in some ways the false ceiling that we've created in a statutory framework in Vermont. Comparisons to other states and to federal law is not to say that there's a different constitutional standard, rather to say how we realize or how we react to these threats depends a lot on how statutes are written. The committee has already heard from legislative counsel that of the key changes and one of the most important ones is removal of the affirmative defense and hearing both senators here and Senator Baruth share their personal experiences with that, I think it bears, you know, repeating and is a huge issue. The terror or fear or intimidation someone feels from a threat in that moment doesn't matter whether they know or don't know if someone is capable of doing that. We're fortunate as elected leaders and government officials to have resources, whether it's BGS security, the Capitol Police or any other immediate response from law enforcement to assist us. An election worker in a remote part of the state may unfortunately have to wait a longer period of time to get a response when they feel threatened. It's just the nature of how business works in terms of being in a rural state. So I agree with both secretary condos and Mr. Winters description of the fear and issues that exist when we're talking about our municipal and local boards or election workers who are spread out. Again, the threat environment is just fundamentally different than it was say two years ago. Ultimately, I start my comment a little bit more about the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense is somewhat of an odd creature in Vermont statutory regime. I filed as a supplement to this testimony today. It's fairly lengthy presentation with an executive summary and then a deep dive into our current threat statutes. If anyone wants to take a look at that past subsequent to the testimony or learn more, see some of the direct constitutional language used by the U.S. and Vermont Supreme courts on this issue. Why say the affirmative defense is out of sync is because there's one of we're looking at threats by words or conduct. There's no other analog to it. When we look at our false public threats statute, which is really limited to bombing threats or catastrophe someplace in public, there's no affirmative defense that applies there. Instead, we measure the harm and impact on society by the fact that those words or conduct leads to evacuations or pandemonium. Looking to the definition of public accommodation, I would defer to the committee really on whether that's the appropriate scope or whether it should be narrow. I think the ultimate goal here is to ensure that whether it's called a public accommodation or not that our state municipal buildings, including the state house or state office buildings, are areas where there's a heightened level of concern and awareness, whether that needs to extend to every single bar or shop out there is a policy question. I'd also add though that historically outside the context of threats toward elected officials, we've also seen an increase the past two years of threats occurring inside or being directed at schools or also places of worship. These, while they're not necessarily legislative or executive government buildings, they are critical infrastructure within our communities and we don't have to look far around the state to see circumstances where threats directed towards schools have resulted in numerous students selecting to stay home or generating really an unprecedented degree of fear and concern in those communities. So at the end of the day, the most important takeaway from this, from all these proposed modifications is this is not an endeavor or an attempt to outwit, outmaneuver or somehow change the constitutional standard for what is and what is not protected speech. Rather, as I mentioned before, this is eliminating the false ceiling, so to speak, between what our statutes allow us to do versus what the constitutional limit is and I think legislative council did an excellent job articulating that this covers some of those gaps. Aside from the affirmative defense, also ensuring that the statute clearly applies for the application to both groups and is important as well. Another notation as well when looking and thinking about the penalties, criminal threatening in contrast is serving the peace by electronic means or any of our disorderly conduct statutes is predicated upon a threat to inflict serious bodily injury or death. So just saying I want to punch somebody or, you know, I'm going to slash your tires if you don't do X or Y is not subject to Vermont's criminal threatening statute. Instead, this is really focused on the greater degree of harm and so I think that is part and parcel of why criminal threatening has an enhanced penalty versus, say, aggravated disorderly conduct and also why the proposal here has included a felony enhancement for public accommodation as currently dropped. What I would notice this, what, you know, the question may be why have a felony enhancement. One of the important collateral consequences that comes from the felony offense as many of you will know and recall from other circumstances is brainy disqualification and upon a felony conviction prohibiting someone from retaining firearms or other dangerous deadly weapons in some circumstances. So I understand clearly that this committee has focused so much of its effort in the past few years looking at ways to defalonize or reduce exposure or, you know, rationalize Vermont's laws with contemporary attitudes and rehabilitation. But sometimes there are collateral consequences that are proportionate and fit with the relative degree of harm done and from my office's standpoint, you know, we feel that when there is a threat or a conviction based upon this type of behavior directed towards, let's say, the Secretary of State or the Attorney General or the Governor or more in the ground level, a DCF worker or a corrections worker who's part of the state government apparatus that that may or should require an enhanced response or the ability to ensure that the person is deprived of the means to act out upon such threats in the future. With that said, I'm more than happy to take questions and discuss process or other considerations. But those are, from my perspective, some of the most important things that we're considering as practitioners in looking at how to best protect the numerous state government and elected officials here in Washington County. My question, Rory, and I thank you for being here is actually based upon news stories. We didn't talk about it, but can you talk a little bit about your frustration when these threats occurred and not being able to prosecute or at least investigate because of the limitations of current Vermont law? I remember a few of your quotes in articles. Yeah, I think one of the notable ones is this, that our Constitution allows us to be really impolite, mean, crude, rude, and nasty to one another. But when that crosses into a line where it is making people afraid to do their job or dispense their duties, or I think as many have experienced, having to have that very real conversation with family members of showing pictures of if you see this person call 911 immediately or if you notice anything arrived, you need to get in the house. And I think that what's difficult for us as prosecutors we're looked to to help solve problems and keep the public safe. The fundamental, aside from dispensing the laws in a just, fair and impartial way, one of our other, I think most important duties as prosecutors is the overarching goal of public safety. That goal is frustrated when we have victims or people who feel impacted by actions of others in the community who come to us for help or protection and then ultimately get nothing. I can give as an example, I can't talk about it in too much detail because in thoughts, juvenile matter, but we had a threat in a school that we could not, because of the way the criminal threatening statute threatened, we could not get a finding a probable cause within the family division. It left our only recourse as seeking an extremist protection order, which while it's not a criminal action, it does prevent access to or purchase of firearms for a period of six months, extending that can be difficult. Ultimately, we were sometimes left with a very limited set of tools to respond to something that, while it may be constitutionally protected places, people in duress, fear, and ultimately, when we look at that through the lens of schools or public officials, every promontor has a vested interest in ensuring that their legislators or judges and their state government employees discharge their duties in a manner consistent with the law and they're not afraid or they're not avoiding doing or taking controversial action because they fear that there'll be repercussions either in harm inflicted upon them, on their family, their property, or the reputation. This is quite frankly where I'm not a constitutional law scholar. I really greatly appreciate in drafting this that we had the assistance of legislative counsel then as a recent practitioner, I think is very well suited to address these issues and analyze them for the committee. I also have to give appreciation and thanks to Evan Menon from our department who was also integral in doing some of the background research and digging into the model penal code for this. The end state is this, that promont statutory regime does leave gaps and I'd rather have us be able to approach and utilize the extent of the law up to those constitutional boundaries and not have to explain to a potential or punitive victim that we won't prevail because of the existence of an affirmative defense or that we won't prevail because the threat was directed towards a group, not towards a particular person. And just to put it in plain terms, this is in the summary I filed as a document to the committee. Notwithstanding changes here, it would still be incredibly difficult or unlikely to be able to hold to account the individual who made threats to the Secretary of State's office. There are a number of reasons for that, including really the application as legislative counsel reference to the true threat stocking, which requires that a true threat is something that is first a serious expression to do something, that it conveys an intent to commit unlawful violence, that there be some element of volition to it, that there be quote unquote gravity of purpose, and that there is some measure of likelihood of execution. In this particular case, many of the threats were conditional or indirect. The caller during the course of the threat didn't indicate that he would do anything himself. It's implied that others would do so. There's also references to the authorities taking action in some of these. So the question is if there's a threat that's ostensibly an action or government action that results in some harm to somebody, cannot constitute threat. Rhetorically is telling someone to kill themselves, threatening comment, and the answer from different case law review is like we know. And then finally, particularly as to a particular person is important. And also I'll go into one case of Supreme Court law I think is worth looking at in its Watts versus United States. And this is a decision rendered during the course of the Vietnam War. And in very plain terms, it involved an individual who upon receiving a draft card basically indicated that after going to basic training, the first person he was going to aim his rifle at was LBJ. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately determined that that was protected speech and found that it was political hyperbole and that he did not have a reasonable likelihood of actually carrying out that threat. So in that sense, I hope the president at the time was still sleeping easy based on that being said, but it does give context that there are still a lot of protections for speech built into the U.S. and Vermont Constitution and our respective courts interpretations of that. Thank you. Other questions for Rory? I do note that you've provided us with a review of proposed bills and other considerations and quite a lengthy document. And it's on our webpage. You'll also find other testimony, written testimony from the ACLU. We will try to hear from them next week. And thank you. Senator White, you have questions for Yeah. When you were talking, I made a note that said this is what my note said. This may not be what you said. So if you would just elaborate on this a little bit, I wrote that state offices and places are more vulnerable and that maybe the definition of public accommodation was too broad in this. And I just wonder if you could elaborate on that a little bit because I wasn't sure I heard it right or that I interpreted it right. Sure. So to speak to public accommodation, first, that definition comes from Title IX, which really deals with commerce and other business activities in the state. So it expressly says public accommodation, including school, but it also says I think mixed reference to business, a restaurant, other places like that. I think where it captures or would tend to capture state government buildings is or other places providing services, privileges or benefits, which, you know, to be broadly construed, I would defer to Ledge Council on whether that definitely includes state government buildings or the State House itself. Oh, okay. I think I interpreted it the other way. I thought you were saying that that might be that expanding this to all places of public accommodation might be too, too broad. Well, I think, you know, to answer that directly, I think that's a policy choice for, you know, for the committee, ultimately. I understand Senator Bruce comments in particular that, you know, threat directed towards a bar or restaurant or because the recipient of the threat sitting there, you know, should it be subject to enhancement? I think from a practical standpoint as a prosecutor, I would say, you know, gentlemen know can sometimes be difficult to capture the essence of, you know, what we're trying to criminalize or penalize at enhancement level. But ultimately, as point of terms, I can say the goal here is to make sure when there's a threat that impacts a class of people or a particular building or, you know, a particular organization in the building, that there be a mechanism to respond to that. So threat directed against, you know, DCF workers as a class of persons, let's say, or, you know, a threat directed towards the staff at the secretary state's office, you know, they may occupy that place. And ultimately, the goal here, I think, is to look at individuals who are performing, whether it's election work, whether it's just the core functions of state government, measuring harm. Certainly the harm to an individual is certainly we can all agree that when that harm extends to an entire class of individuals and results in a disruption of state government or election functions, then I think we can agree that the harm is, to some extent, greater. Yeah, I'm not worried about that. I mean, I agree with that. I just, I guess my question was, is extending it to all places of public accommodation too broad an interpretation? And I don't know. I'm just wondering. Yeah, I would note this as well. So, you know, sometimes when we have an elected state's attorney appearing, you know, we sometimes appear on our own accord, sometimes on behalf of the department's state's attorneys and sheriffs. At this point, I wouldn't take a position on that either for my office or for the department, but I think that ultimately is a policy question to consider with, I think, where there'd be greater consensus among our department would be looking towards schools, state government centers, places of worship, places that are somewhat obvious, versus just the more broad category of public accommodation. Okay, thank you. I want to, you know, I don't know if it would cover, you know, it's certainly been the news, the Slate Ridge and the controversy there and the threats to public officials, as well as neighbors in that area, which is in Rutland County. And I do think, you know, you know, the intimidation there of both the reporter, zoning officials, court officials and others is clear. Now, it's interesting that the, as I understand it, the agency and natural resources failed to go in because of fear, as did the, but the state police were monitoring the situation. That's what I kept seeing about it. So I think that's a very real situation that involves not just government officials, but neighbors and et cetera. So that's where I, the place of as you said, this is pervasive around the country now where, and so I want to make sure we cover that. And also, if somebody chooses not to run, you know, for the state house to choose not to run for real election because of these threats, that's very real as well. That Jim, excuse me, the secretary mentioned some election officials in other states have chosen not to run for real election because of these threats. Thank you very much. Are there other questions for a moment? This has been enlightening and very helpful. Matt Valerio, would you like to testify next week? Let Peggy know. See you're on. Yeah, we should have invited you today and that's my fault. That's okay. I was sure you were going to bring it up again. Oh yeah. The plan is to bring this up again next Wednesday and have a discussion of it and continue to work on it. I think it is an important issue but then the threat has to, and I can't emphasize enough, the threat has to put somebody in fear of bodily injury or death, serious bodily injury and death. It's not just fear that, you know, something else is going to happen or disorderly conduct and other means. Am I correct, Mr. State's attorney? You are, Senator. To make that clear. All right. We're going to take a 15 minute break to