Legislation that would make a series of changes to Vermont’s voting laws narrowly advanced in the Senate on Friday, but its fate remains uncertain.
The bill, H.429, would create new restrictions on candidates running in multiple party primaries, allow limited electronic ballot submissions and make it easier for towns to adopt ranked-choice voting. It won preliminary approval on a 16-14 vote.
With the legislative session coming to a close, the bill — which still needs to clear a final vote in the Senate and then return to the House — is unlikely to become law until at least January.
During two hours of floor debate, senators raised the most concerns about election security and new hoops third-party candidates would have to jump through.
Sen. Ruth Hardy, D-Addison, who reported on the bill’s latest draft, argued the legislation would create a “more fair, more transparent” election system.
Voters with disabilities and overseas voters would be allowed to submit their ballots electronically through a secure portal, Hardy said. Those ballots would then be printed and put into a tabulator, rather than digitally entered into the tabulator through the electronic portal, she specified.
Some members, including Sen. Randy Brock, R-Franklin, expressed concern about possible security issues posed by the electronic system.
“The person in Vermont state government who is in charge of cyber security did not testify on the bill to the committee,” Brock told his colleagues, referring to the director of information security at the Agency of Digital Services.
Similar concerns arose in March when the House was in possession of the legislation.
But the bill drew the most intense opposition due to its so-called “sore loser law.” The provision would generally prevent a candidate who lost in a major-party primary from being nominated to represent a different party in the general election.
“Our state has had a robust history of having both a significant number of independents as well as the most established third party,” Sen. Irene Wrenner, D-Chittenden North, said, expressing frustration that the provision seemed to have only the support of Democrats — the majority party.
“Wouldn’t it be better to adjust Vermont laws with at least bipartisan support, or the votes of independents?” she asked.
According to Hardy, the bill provides for certain circumstances in which a candidate could lose in one party primary and run in the general election under a different party’s banner. A person would need to appear on the ballot for one party and register themselves as a write-in candidate for a second party before the primary election. The person would then need to receive the most votes as a write-in candidate for the second party to represent it in the general election.
Or, if no candidates appeared on the ballot, the person would need to win more write-in votes than the number of signatures required to appear on the ballot. In the last election cycle, that was 500 people for a statewide office.
Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington, expressed reservations about office-seekers having to register as write-in candidates.
“That is a major change,” she said. “I don’t know of anyone that declares that they want to be on the other party’s primary. And to do so would probably cause you to lose all the elections.”
In support of the so-called sore loser provision, Hardy said that Vermont is one of only six states without some version of it.
“It maintains the integrity of the nomination and primary election process,” she said. “It encourages transparency, and it prevents voter confusion.”
One of the bill’s most vocal opponents was Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, a Progressive who has won the Democratic nomination in his runs for state Senate, lieutenant governor and governor.
“There has not been a problem stated that this is trying to solve,” Zuckerman said in an interview, referring to the changes to primary elections. “When changing election laws, which are a foundation of our democracy, one would think an effort would be made to make it as cross-partisan as possible, so that the general public would not perceive it as a further power grab by a party that has a phenomenal super-majority.”
Zuckerman said he’d made his feelings about the bill clear in one-on-one conversations with senators. While that kind of advocacy was not out of the ordinary, he said the last couple days “were a bit more intensive.”
The Senate voted twice on the measure Friday — once 17-13 and, after Sen. Brian Campion, D-Bennington, switched from yes to no, 16-14.
In both instances, Zuckerman — presiding over the Senate — interpreted initial voice votes as opposing the bill, though the ultimate roll call tallies showed otherwise.
The seven Republican senators were joined by Campion; Wrenner; Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, P/D-Chittenden Central; Sen. Thomas Chittenden, D-Chittenden Southeast; Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington; Sen. Robert Starr, D-Orleans; and Sen. Dick Mazza, D-Grand Isle, in voting against the bill.
Following its narrow initial passage Friday, H.429 requires further approval in the Senate before moving back to the House.
According to Vyhovsky, the bill isn’t likely to clear the Legislature until at least next year.
Even if it passes the Senate during the body’s expected veto session next month, “procedurally, there’s not a path forward until at least January,” she said.
And traditionally, the Legislature doesn’t like to pass sweeping election laws during an election year, according to Vyhovsky. So passage in 2024 is far from certain, she said.