That little bug a boo. Thank you Tucker. Thank you all. Thank you. Um, all right, so should we go to elections? Are we on time? Is it 230 that we were supposed to start this? It is. Right, so we'll start with whoever's here. So I, we had four things. That we didn't get to yesterday. One is the right ends. There's will good. One is the report to the totals at the close of polls.  Those are the four under the town clerks that we didn't get to. And then we'll move on to the candidates category. Okay. Is everybody okay with that? Okay. And I apologize to Senator column or because I sent him. The biographical data of all the people from the 2019, 20 legislative session for 1819 or whatever that was instead of his title 17. So as he's thumbing through his book, you know that he's trying to figure out who the house members were. And the nice thing about that book is it actually had date, a lot of information about us, which if you look at the current one has almost nothing because we've taken out so much information.  Yeah, and more. I mean, people's addresses aren't there anymore.  Yeah, I know I agree with you. So let's go to the issue of the writings and we, I believe have had that on our request from town clerks for probably 10 years. And the issue is the town clerks don't want to have to count. Well, Carol, why don't you set the scene for us and tell us how many you had that you had to count that weren't Mickey Mouse and Donald duck which you don't have to count anyway so do you want to talk to us about the this issue. Yes. Except let me just pull up my document that's got my some data in it. The, oh gosh, that's way too small to read. That's better. Yeah, the, the law calls for us to tally all right ends. And, and we certainly understand the reason behind it. Right in candidates are, you know, it's, we have all seen right ends get elected. Um, and so we understand the need but but we also see every year on the the significant number of essentially joke right ends on that or one offs, you know, that that don't have any impact and are, you know, take time, not only to for election workers to tally but for reporting. It's whoops. It's particularly pervasive in primary the primary elections, because we have a lot of people who want to. They, they, they don't like the idea of being forced to vote just one party ballot. And so they write candidates from the other ballots on the one ballot that they have been given. And so we'll end up with, you know, 10s or hundreds of write in ballots, you know, as an example on the Democratic ballot for Governor Scott. And so those, and that it's not a Republican vote for Governor Scott, it's a vote for Phil Scott to be the Democratic candidate for governor on and voters don't understand that I've spent a lot of time trying to explain that to him but that leads to a lot of right ends on. We also just on the local level on town meaning last year I had 67 right ends on none of them were actual candidates, nor did any of them receive enough votes to qualify to be elected on. I've had people come up to me after they finished voting and go I wrote you in for everything. And I'm like, yeah, thanks. So, so then I end up with, you know, but we have to tally them all and and report them. So what we've talked about as you said, Madam Chair, a number of times over the years is coming up with a way for writing candidates to declare their candidacy on on the state level that could be done through the secretary state's office it could be done as late as the day before the election. And then the secretary of state could send word out to all the clerks as to which candidates would need to be who are the legitimate writing candidates that would need to be tallied for local elections it could be done to the clerk. It could be those of polls. So it could be that we have a stack of consent to candidate forms at our, at our polling place and, you know, Jane Smith comes up and says, yep, I've decided to run a right in campaign for school board, and she signs the form and now we make sure to count the right in votes for Jane Smith for school board. One of the reasons that this is important is that without knowing which Jane Smith is the candidate, we could have multiple Jane Smith's in our town, and have 47 right in votes for Jane Smith, and we don't know which one. It's for so this would certainly help solve that problem. Any questions for Carol I have, I have one committee. So, so my question is here is when you were talking about I hadn't even thought about it in terms of the primary, but I for example have a couple times. I run in the Democratic primary, but I have a couple times gotten enough votes on the Republican primary ballot to be an official candidate. In to run as a DR, if I wanted to, and then I accept that or don't accept it. But that if that would eliminate that possibility for anybody to get a to be come a candidate for in a another party. Is that right. I would imagine yes it would. Okay. I think, I think that's good. I think, I think that I think your idea, Carol was a good one. It shows intentionality it show, you know, it means that that people have committed in some basic way to saying to owning their spot there, they're right in candidacy and I, I think that's great and I, I have long thought that people running in, in both. And, and I mean I've always thought that was a problem what Jeanette just described so I think that I actually think this is a great idea and it really shows has people own own that they want to actually be considered as a candidate for that job. This would mean that somebody couldn't run in the general election as an DP. They wouldn't, they couldn't do that. They wouldn't do that for DR or an RD. They wouldn't have any ability to do that. Senator Polina did you hope. Oh no that. Oh yes. It's kind of, I look really dark in the picture I get myself I can barely see myself but it's we thought you were in the witness protection program. But anyway, what you just said is not exactly true I don't think because you could run in let's say the Democratic primary win the primary and then be nominated by the Republican Party or the Progressive Party. You could be nominated. Yeah. So you know it doesn't always happen to write off song right in song saying right and I think having not a lot I think that I differ with Senator Clarkson, I think that it takes away the ability of people to do something that's kind of spontaneous in a way that they want to show their support for for Jeanette White and the Republican primary because they're Republicans with a supporter and they should have the ability to do that I just think that sort of squashes their ability to express themselves. I think there's some legitimacy maybe to saying there's a way of notify people on the day of the election that might be worth talking about but you don't always know that people are writing you in. Senator Palmer. Thank you Madam Chair. I sympathize with Carol and I, I'm hoping for some middle ground and I'm hoping will sending might be able to offer some suggestions. I certainly see a difference between somebody writing in Mickey mouse. And someone's name that actually lives in the community. And I don't know how to filter that I admit that, but I think it's fairly clear when someone's making as Carol said a joke out of it. And I don't know how to do both so I guess I'm agreeing with Senator Polina I think it still should be available to people, even if on the election day itself.  But anyway, I'm waiting to hear what will make good. I will comment here that they don't have to count Mickey mouse. If it's a fictional character if it's nominating the, the tree or whatever. They don't count those. The only count real people will do just a couple of points to make well you guys are discussing it's a good discussion. Keep in mind that what we're talking about is the reporting requirement. Obviously anybody's still going to be able to write in whoever they want to write in and express themselves that way you're not going to be saying you can't write this name down. What you're talking about is which names the clerk has to account for on the official return of vote and list a name. That also of course and I think any legislation should be clear about this that only a declared right and candidate could win, or else we'd have to figure out some language that if a certain one that hadn't been declared received a certain number of votes that they then got reported I think that gets messy I think the point should be you have to be declared to have your votes reported and to win. I wanted to make the point that Senator Polina made that those dual party nominations come from various sources including the committee nominations so that would still be able to happen. And then Senator White to go back to your first comment. You could craft the language in such a way that says a candidate on one primary ballot can declare as a right and candidate, and you could each year declare as a writing candidate for the other two parties. There is clear law right now that your name can't be listed on two separate primary right file for those that you guys could carve out an exception that said. You could cover a candidate on one primary ballot can register as a writing candidate in the other parties. Otherwise I think in general Carol pointed out correctly that this is primarily a problem in the primary and keep in mind that a big reason it is just because there's so many empty races to. So there's no candidate to vote for so the only thing you can do is write someone if you want to vote. The primary causes these really massive lists of names that the clerks have to report after the election. And so I think you could consider a bill or a provision to that just did this for the primary election, and not the general john. I'm going to be the outlier among the clerks here. And if we're reviewing every ballot anyway I don't think it's an extraordinary amount more work, but just in general the idea of changing the right in process to essentially just another filing paperwork requirements so you've got two tiers of candidates with filing requirements and then add on to that that yes you could write anybody in, but it wouldn't actually mean anything because it wouldn't be reported it would be as much of a vote as you know putting a lawn sign out in front of City Hall. And I think when you have challenges. I just think the principle of rolling back, even a tiny tiny bit, the Democratic participation process. I'm all for adding them on I'm not for rolling any back and even even a tiny bit just as a matter of principle and I think that's, that's what this kind of thing would have the effect of doing. I actually agree with john I've, and as Carol knows I've, I've objected to this measure, probably 10 times, and I think that it, it does rifle people's ability to vote for whom they want to vote. And I mean it doesn't, they can still do it but there's no chance that that person could be elected so what happens in the case of a week before the election, some really horrible news comes out about a candidate. And people say, oh my God, this is really terrible I can't vote for that person but there's no one really running against them, or they people don't like the person that's running against them. So, we're going to we're going to write in so and so they. They should be able to do that from as a, as a, an activist, not not the person themselves wanting to do it and declaring, but from the community itself, wanting to support some person and they should be allowed to to win and to hold that office if they, they win I believe so I know that I'm probably an outlier on the committee here, as john is with the town clerks, but that I have always thought that this and actually, I will say that we had this in. We did. I was convinced one year to put it into the bill that we did an election reform, and it was taken out on the floor of the Senate, because they objected to the stifling the will of the voters. Just to let you know that that that happened. Will. Can I ask actually Carol if she could refresh my memory or you might be able to Senator White have passed iterations of this suggested baby and I would throw this out there, whether it only applied to statewide offices. Yeah, I think so, and that answers a lot of the questions about dual nominations across parties for all your reps and senators still being able to be written in. So, the more I think about if we were to do it for for the legislature as well. That would be a lot of filings for my office to manage at one time. And we may route those through the rep district clerks, or the Senate district clerks being the folks you need to file with for to declare for those offices. So we could start with the simple step of statewide filing with the Secretary of State's office. And if it were just those that's a manageable amount for us. Again just to reiterate reiterate reiterate what Carol said we could do it the day before Senator White which would address some of your concern about changes in circumstance, which I understand too. I was thinking of it more as the, the argument on the Senate floor was that it stifles the will of the voter, not the will of the candidates, but the will of the voter and that we, we need to make voting, make people's voices count when they're voting and if their voice isn't counted, then we've stifled the will of the voter that's that was the argument. And I'm just throwing that out for, but it's worth so what you're saying is that we should not have to count them for presidential and statewide people, but count for every other office said what you said will be done. That was what I suggested I'd be curious if Carol thinks that's a meaningful step forward. And I see Alex. I can see certainly for the for the primaries that it would that it would be significant. I think so too. Senator Clarkson. Yesterday everybody was arguing about everybody knows the rules they know the deadlines, they ought to be able to live by them. And today we're being not consistent with that. And I would say that if, if you are wanting to represent a city, or a community or a county that, that, or even be the, the trustee of public funds. I think intentionality and owning the fact that you would like to have that office and you feel qualified for that office is important. I don't know why but I think that's an important piece of this. And I, I guess I, I, I hear you on the voice of the people but also I think we have a timeframe and we have, we have a, you know, and everybody knows it's all publicized. And we allow for people to let their clerks know that they are writing as running as a writing candidate up till the day before. I think that is a fair thing. It isn't the will of the candidate, it wasn't the candidates knowing it was the, if you have a groundswell of people in a community that want to elect somebody. Right, that person may not even know.  I want my candidates to want the positions they're elected to. I know, I know, I just, I really have a problem with people just randomly elected, I mean, and I don't know if this is even ever happened I'm sure it's happened because it's Vermont so I'm sure something happened like this. I think it's as important for somebody to want that job and be willing to accept it and do the work of that job as it is for the people to say, and they have plenty of time to say that before the day before.  I get it. I get it. I saw Senator Collin Moore had his hand up. Yes, Madam Chair and you made the point I was going to make. So I think you have successfully talked me into supporting your position. I can see a situation Senator Clarkson where the day before or two days before an election something happens I don't know what it could be it could be a very bad thing that would happen to a potential candidate or something in the community that changes the landscape. And so you have this groundswell of support all of a sudden that says, you know what I'm not voting for X, I'm going to go vote for why and I'm going to call everybody I know, and see if that doesn't necessarily have any idea that this is happening. But I think we at least should allow that eventuality to happen if indeed it did. And the candidate if if he or she one could always say, I'm not interested I don't accept I mean that's not to me. I think it's more important to leave room for the voters wishes than the candidates. Senator Rom, you haven't weighed in at all. Or I saw Senator Polina's hand up. Yeah, Polina's hand is it. Yeah, I can be brief. I agree with Senator Collin Moore just said and what you said Madam Chair as well I think that it's up to the voters. Voters need to be given that choice so I would I would agree back to going back to John Odom statement, which I think was also pretty strong so I would agree that my position would be to leave it alone. I mean I was just, I was just thinking about you know we have a, we have a house member representative Hal Colston from Winooski who started as a write in candidate against someone on the ballot in Winooski for city council. You know what there's it's just, it does happen that people decide after certain deadlines that they Well he actually ran as a write in candidate in these cases. He did it like three times he ran as a write in candidate. His first race was, you know, as a write in candidate. In these, in these, in the cases that we're talking about people don't declare they're a write in candidate. Right. No, just Hal wanted that job. Right. But I guess it's hard to distinguish between someone, if other people sort of come to that person and say we really want you to run and they say great all, I will serve, you know, where's the line between sort of saying that, yes, I would like to serve and just not making a public statement about your intention. I guess, like, are you saying that if someone says no I really don't want to serve please don't put me in the ballot. There's no no what this is saying is that unless the person has declared as a candidate there, the votes for them will not be counted. But then so declaring is declare is filing your petition, your papers. Or is Carol suggested for local elections declaring the day before. Right, or the day of, or the day, whatever, but you have to declare that that's the issue here to clear physically in the clerk's office like put in paperwork. You have to officially declare. John wants to say something. Yeah. Oh, you know what I always, the conversation I get in so much about term limits is that I am against term limits because it's my vote and I should get to vote for whoever I want. I think the argument stands here and it's not just about physically writing in, because if it doesn't count. That's not a vote. That's graffiti. I think I have a right to vote for who I want and it should matter. So, I guess the question is, do we want to address this at all for any of them. And I, I know that it's a problem with the primaries because of the way we do the primaries but maybe when we get to the primary issue. We can solve that issue. Although, I guess, maybe not. Anyway, so where are we committee here, poor Carol. It's not something I'm going to fall on my sword over that's for sure. There are bigger fish to fry. Agreed I'm with Carol. I would vote to just leave it alone. Okay, I would agree. What about, but I thought will and Carol, we're also asking us to think about the statewide and the. They were, but the, I think the three of us think that we should just leave it alone. Because if, if john is correct, it's his vote. He should be able to vote who he wants to vote for, whether it's in a local or a statewide or a senate district. I think we should just ask the voters on this one, you know, after, after the south end primary, the candidates who are now our legislators from Burlington south end. We're very nervous and I said, honestly, even if Howard Dean decided he wanted to run after the primary, he probably wouldn't win because they, the voters have really sort of decided who won the primary and who they want. People use this in very specific cases. Sometimes something egregious to the candidate on the ballot, the person who people pick might not want to sort of say that they are running and that they don't necessarily want to sort of pile on to the person who doesn't look like the candidate of choice anymore but they don't want to kind of be make that intentional or clear I just think voters are pretty good at determining what they want out of this situation if there's a if there's a right and candidate to be had and that many people aggregating their perspective is a big deal, which was the case in house election and when you see which is very rare to have happened. Okay, so I'm going to, unless there's more to say, I'm going to move on to the next issue. Anybody. The sun is in my eyes here so you have to yell if you can. If you, because I'm having a hard time seeing my screen. Okay, so I don't the next one that was on our list is report the totals at the close of polls that we do that anyway right. Well, what's the language sender wait sorry I don't have it in front of me. It was on the list. Yeah, I'll call it up. It just said report the totals at the close of polls. Well actually, it says report total number of votes cast at the end of the day. Yeah. Oh yes, that yes. Total votes cast. I think this is connected to the postmark and accepting votes afterwards I think they kind of were all connected. I do not know what that's referring to. Okay, but we do, we do at the end of the day at the end of the day they, they report how many votes are cast right. Yes. Maybe it's maybe it's referring to during early processing is that is that the thought how many might know. So okay well we're going to move on from that unless we hear from other somebody else. So, voter ID required. I'm going to go there. And we do not will do you want to tell us what we currently require. And when we required. We only require form of ID to be submitted to the clerk. If you are registering for the first time in Vermont by mail or online. Once you're registered in Vermont. You don't have to show ID to either vote in person at the polls or to request or submit an absentee ballot. And if you're registering for the first time in person at your town clerk's office you don't have to show ID. Okay, does anybody have. Want to speak to this center columnar. Thank you madam sure how did you know I would want to. Because you put you unmuted yourself. Okay. All right, that's good. Yeah, I. I don't think I could convince the rest of the committee that to support this but I would support at least the first time you register to show some form of identification. I thought we did. I will say that I was surprised. I could see not going to the polls. I know that's probably never going to be something that Vermont does, but that's all. So, I also did think that the first time you registered to vote, if you did it at the town clerk's office that you showed your driver's license or, or something. No, I guess not. I mean, I'll just say registered hundreds of voters up the door. I give them the oath. I give them their pink form and I take forms to the clerk's office. Right. Yeah, I do that too but I thought when they do that that they were showing me their driver's license. They often are. They're giving you because you have to you have to write it down. And so the driver's license in full is an ID and it's on their voter registration. So, I, or their social security. We all met register masses of voters. So that is pretty standard.  And mostly people do their, you know, generally, people show me their driver's license. And don't we write that down when we read, there's a four, there's a place there where you read it or you write down their driver's license. Absolutely, but you, that's, that's great. So you have a form of ID when you register them that which is our point but the one where you don't have the same amount of identification is when they just use the last four digits of their social security and then it's coming on the secretary of state's office or the clerk's office to double check that. But will is telling us that if you go to the town clerk's office and register you don't show your driver's license or your social security number, you don't put that in. Is that right? You have to put it on the form. You know, yes. You're both, you're both right. You don't have to show it and produce it. Right. You have to write the number on the form in the space provided. Yeah, right. Talking about producing ID is my understanding. So how much follow up to the clerks do actually on checking up that the social security, the last four digits work and the driver's license is legit. It's one very nice element of our new election management system that we implemented in 2015. We get the nightly file of all DMV customers every night. So any new registrations and new DL numbers that are pumped into the system are pinged off of that file and verified. They're either verified or not. Same thing with the social security administration that happens less frequently. So every couple of weeks that we ping the SSN people, there's only one person there who's allowed to do that, which is interesting. So those numbers are verified. So a little more nuance, the way I've always understood the first time registrant by mail or online requirement is that idea is being provided essentially to show that they are the person who they say they are. I'm always careful to distinguish this with the clerks. It's not a proof of residency thing. So for instance, it doesn't have to be your Vermont driver's license people who haven't gotten one yet can show the one from the state they're coming from. It's a check on like whole scale fraud of some automated service of sending in forms with just random numbers on them. It's just to say, okay, you're the person, the name you put is who you are, and giving a little more personality to that application when it comes in the mail. For instance, what Senator Rahm was describing there's a exception for forms collected through a voter registration drive, because those are collected in person by a human who's seeing that there's a human handing them that form and signing under the penalties of perjury that they are who they say they are. So then you can bring a stack of forms to the clerk and say these are from a voter registration drive that was conducted by us in person, and there's no ID required to be submitted with those. And Senator White as you know we have very long debate about this four years ago I believe in both houses. Not to say it can't be debated again, of course, but I guess there's more appetite for doing this. I think Senator column or might be right that he's facing an uphill battle on this one, unless I hear from other people will move on to another one so committee members. Thank you for your understanding. Tolena. It's one of those things where I would ask what's what's the problem we're trying to solve so I would leave it alone. Okay. Senator Clarkson. I am good with how we are. Senator Ram. Just I appreciate Senator column or, you know, acknowledgement even if he feels passionately about the issues so just appreciating that noted. Thank you. Here here. Well, I was out voted for the one the last one, Brian, so it's, you know, it's Senator. Please don't think for an instant that I didn't enjoy that brief moment. Yeah, I bet you do.  The next one on the list is authorizing more multi party observers at the polls. And I thought we already did that. Carol can or john, can you address that. If we allow them. Yeah. With regards to poll watchers. They can have two poll watchers per party or per candidate. And I, so I, I'm not sure what exactly this might be referring to. So the each party could have two, two poll watchers at each poll. And each candidate could also have two, if they wanted to. This is currently allowable. Yeah. Okay. How often is that requested? Very rarely. I think it was more of an issue in this last election. We, yeah. And we just interesting note, we included a provision in one of our directives this year. That anybody wanting to engage in that activity this year should, should file with the clerk first. It was in an effort just to give a heads up of numbers of people that would be in polling places in terms of COVID capacity. And it wasn't aware of a single filing. So it's does sounds like it's not really even an issue. No, it's important, I think to have in the law and on the books if, if people want to do that, but I'm not sure why and it's certainly open to all parties. Okay. But it isn't on the books now. It is. We don't need to. Okay. All right. So the next one is same day registers. Okay.  So does somebody want to speak to that? That is currently they just get a regular ballot. It isn't provisional. Am I right? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Is there anybody? Oh, Senator. Thank you, Madam chair. It's just a clarifying question. I don't know if John could probably play in. How, how many people. If this were to go through and they get a provisional ballot, I'm assuming there would be an added step. For you folks later on. So, because you've got to separate it right at some point and then put them together again. So how many people are we talking about the normally in the very day of election and take advantage of that. So for the November election, particularly in a presidential year, that's always when it's the highest. We had close to 100. Through the course of the day. 100 out of how many people voted in your word. Just under 4,000. So it's not a lot. We've broken 102. And are you about 4,000 total as well, John? In terms of what we reported this last time was more like 45, 46. I guess I don't know how I feel about this. Well, Senator Polina. I'm just curious.   Is it like scarlet red or something? And put it aside in a certain while, just wondering like what happens to it? Is the stigma attached to it or work attached to it? Like what, what happens to it? When you get your little I voted sticker. It says maybe. Yeah. There's a question mark in front of the I voted. I thought all same day voters got provisional ballots. They get regular. They get regular ballot. Okay. I don't know why I thought that. I thought somebody said that the other day, which surprised me. So does it, does anybody want to go here and require that they become separate? No. No. No. Okay. All right. So we're done with town clerks. List. I mean that we're not done with the town clerks, clearly. We're not done with the town clerks. Okay. So we move on to candidates. I don't, I, and I have no idea what time it is. It's maybe it's three 15. Would it be a good, yes, a good, good idea. And, and well, when we take a break, we are now.  And Gail will put up a sign that says. We're on a break. Okay. And we'll move on to the live stream until we come back. Right. Okay. John Odom might have had something on this. But I just want to. John, I'm sorry. Oh, just mention a couple of things. Do my due diligence. My concerns about the. Tight filing deadlines for town meeting didn't make it on the list. I realized that. Yes. Oh, they did. It's under elections. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. General election. Nevermind that. And just the other thing that doing my due diligence as an elected clerk in Montpelier. I again, because I didn't quite see the logic for it would stress that we in Montpelier would. Really like the ability to send out. Mail ballots and to have that ability extended to schools and other municipalities because otherwise it will be. Yeah. Well, I think that what we will do is we will look at that when we look at the issue of. We have it here under. Coordinate the town and school. Elections. And the timing of. Under primaries, we have the look, the timing of local ballots. So we have kind of it. Yeah. John. When you raise your hand, raise your. Right hand. A little bit more easily. I'm right. I don't know why I'm doing this. Is in front of the window. I mean, so I can't see it. I'll do this. Oh, yeah. Oh, that's much better. Okay. All right. We'll be back in. 10 minutes. We're moving on to the. List under candidates. And the first one on there is requiring a potential candidate to have voted in all elections for which they're eligible. I'm going to not go there today because I want. Ella spots would from the AG's office could not join us today. And she's the. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't have a chance guru over there. But they couldn't join us today. So. We're going to put that. Yeah. If I may, Madam chair, when they come and I could email Ella directly, if it's helpful. I am one of the things I wanted to know from them is kind of the pros and cons of waiting until this goes to court. Well, I think we should have that discussion. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. No, I, I just meant. I think the. I think, you know, I think we should have a conversation like, are there pros and cons to, to let happen in court instead of. I've already done that. Yeah. I think our chairs. Okay. I was just. That's the Tia.  Why, why we are taking it up. Okay. So. So Will, do you want to tell us where that is right now? Sure. I'm not sure where this came from, Senator White, although I think you said it came from our office. You know, I don't know, but it's a question that's on here and so we should address it. Yeah. I want to check with Secretary Kondas about this issue because I know he's mentioned it, but I'm not entirely clear what his concern with the deadlines is right now. From an administrative perspective on my end, I think they're okay. It's set up right now that we get those independent and minor party candidates, which that you just asked about, only run in the general election. So you populate the general election ballot through minor party nominations, independent candidate petition filings, and then winners of the major party primaries. Those three things all come together and you'll get your list of candidates for the general election. And right now we get the independent candidates the Friday before the primary. And you all have had significant debate about that in the past, about whether they could be allowed to file after the primary or not.  Right now that's not an option because they have to decide and file as an independent before they know whether or not they won the primary. Although you can still do that, and then you withdraw your independent candidate nomination if you win your primary, or keep your independent candidate nomination if you lose your primary. Right now though, those are due the Friday before. And so we've got those in-house. Then you get the primary winners on the Tuesday of the primary. And then the Friday after the primary is when the minor party nominations are due. So from my perspective of ballot creation, that's really helpful because we have all the information we need for the ballot by the Friday after the primary. That's also when your choice of parties are due. So if you get nominated by more than one of those means, you tell my office by that Friday which nominations you accept and in what order you want them to appear on the general ballot. Okay, so I'm gonna open it up to questions and comments but first I'm going to tell you where I stand on this. And I know this is a losing battle. I do not think independence should have to declare their candidacy until after the primary.  Somebody may decide after the primary that they don't like any of the three party candidates. They don't think that they are gonna represent the district or at all. So they decide to run. They have no ability to do that. So I'm, and I know that as Senator Hallmore said it's an uphill battle on the issue that he brought up. I know this is an uphill battle for me here but I honestly don't think they should be declaring their candidacy before the primary is over. So anybody want to weigh in on this or where we are? Senator Clarkson. I'll just jump in and to give this, been that kind of a day. I would actually support the position we came to agreement on except for you two years ago. I think it's important for independence to declare and I think it's important for them to again own their candidacy before the primary. Anybody else Senator Polina? I guess I would, I mean, I guess I would ask what the downside is of letting people announce after the primary. I don't know. I know you don't have any good answers about that tonight, I understand but. Does somebody have a good reason for not allowing them to declare after the primary? If the parties themselves can, if the Democrats don't run somebody in the primary, they have until I believe the Friday after to nominate somebody. So if they can nominate somebody a week after the election, why couldn't the independence also nominate themselves? Can I just clarify? Are we, if you ran in the primary and you lost, are you still allowed to run as an independent in the? Correct, that's correct. Currently, you would have to declare your independent petition the Friday before so you wouldn't know if you've lost or not. But and the way I see this is if you lose, you should be able to declare as an independent, but it isn't just if you lose. Somebody may not have run in a primary at all. Right. Yeah, but so you are allowed to, but only if you declare your independent candidacy the Friday before the election. Right. So what does somebody want to answer and the Senator Paulina's question about what is the downside to allowing independence as opposed to party people and minor party people to run afterwards? Allison? Well, I mean, first of all, in the primary have in this situation have asked to be considered in a party and have used the party's primary slot and you know, that spot as a way to run. And then if they lose that it does, you know, that they've lost it. So I don't think they should get a second bite at the apple. I don't think that's fair. And I don't, I think if the party has an open slot a week later and wants to nominate somebody in that, you know, it would be obviously a little different, but I think that that is absolutely fair. The party has vetted them. There's a body who have vetted a candidate. I think letting people run who've lost, but it's like using, it's using the, I can't get over feeling like it's using a system and then disregarding it all together. But if the person didn't run in the primary, but after the primary was over, they said, you know, I don't like the Republican. I don't like the Democrat. And I don't like the progressive because none of them represent my community. Oh, then they can do a right in candidacy. We've just allowed that. But they can't declare their candidacy on the, they can't help me. So the change is that right now, they have to announce before the primary, the Friday before the Tuesday primary, that they intend to run as an independent after the primary regardless of the outcome. They have to do that. They wouldn't be, I mean, they wouldn't be able to then take the I if they had won a primary. They could take either one at that point. I mean, if they won the primary for the Democrats, but then they also filed as an I before, they could choose either one to run on the general ballot, right? Is that right, Will? I'm sorry. Can you repeat that Senator White? I was looking at the statute to make sure I've got this stuff right and I need to correct myself on something, but... If they win the Democratic primary and also file as an independent because they were afraid they might lose that, they then can either say, I've decided I'm gonna run as independent or as a Democrat, they can choose either one at that point. Correct, but not both. Right, but then could they, the Democrats not then fill in because then they would have an open hole with no candidate. They could then fill in that open slot. Right. By nominating somebody, right? So if somebody can clarify for me why it's okay for the parties to be able to have a week after the primary to nominate somebody, but an independent can't nominate themselves after the primary. That's the question that I have. Well, yeah. It's nobody, yes, Will, I will go for it. Well, I need to correct myself from previous. This is a real test, by the way, to be jumping through these election issues one by one and having a lot at the top of my head, but I appreciate it. I know. The minor party committee nominations are due prior to the primary. Minor parties need to file on the Thursday before. Oh, I thought they were the Friday after. I'm sorry, that deadline that I was thinking about is for the major parties that fail to nominate via the primary. And they actually have six days after the primary to do that. And the reason for that six days is so that they can, there's a five day notice on committee meeting hearings, committee meetings. So they can put out their five day notice and on the sixth day nominate for any offices that they failed to elect through the primary. And then what Senator Clarkson was referring to too, candidates can withdraw at any time up to the printing of the ballot really is the language in the statute. And then I would have to look back, but it's either seven or 10 days, Bruce may know that the party has to nominate somebody to fill in any withdrawal or death of a candidate. Bruce, do you know? I think it's 10. Bruce Olson, Vermont Democratic Party. I do not know the exact number off the panel. I would have to look it up as well. I can get it. With the time frame as well. Madam Chair, can I ask some other? Sure. Sure. So the current parties that have your party status in Vermont are D's, R's and P's. Is that right? And I's can never be a major party because they're not a declared party being a party. You wouldn't have a party if you're an independent. Okay. Okay. So then what I's have is the same as what minor party candidates have or minor party candidates also get something different, consideration-wise. Minor parties do it on Thursday before the election, before the primary independence do it and Friday before the primary and major parties do it the week after. So it's kind of a benefit of being a major party, which is a sought after designation and was when there were, when a minor party wants to go to a major party, that's a benefit you have of being a major party. Yes. Yes.  I know that this is, and I actually, one of my worst experiences on the floor was when we actually came to this compromise because it used to be that it used to be that independence declared after the primary. Then it was moved so that they had to declare at the same time the major party candidates declared. That's right. And we took a lot of testimony on that and I firmly believe that's unconstitutional because they're not running in the primary. So the compromise was to the Friday before and I dreamt that I reported it on the floor and was so upset about the compromise that then I went in the cloakroom and threw up. Jesus. Charming. I don't think I can ever go through the cloakroom again. But anyway, so unless others wanna pursue this, I'm just gonna drop it because I don't think there's any support for it even though I firmly believe I'm right. So. That's what we love about you. That's what we love about you, Jeanette White. You always firmly believe you're right. No, no, no. Every once in a while, every once in a while though, you do the big switcheroo-nee. And we live for those moments. Brian and I live for those moments. I do think I'm right here, but I'm not gonna pursue it if there's not the will to do it because I don't think it would make it through the house anyway. I mean, I'm just gonna ask clarifying AKA dumb questions until I understand things. So you might have been able to convince me. I just, in learning as I go about some of these really nuanced positions and when they've changed and who's affected, right? I think there's partially clerks are affected, but in many ways it's candidates and why they would choose to run and I don't have enough background in how this has tripped people up recently. I think the impetus for changing it was that it's the sore loser issue. And people really felt strongly and there were a few in the house that year that were sore losers and ran as independents. And I don't think that's a valid concern, but obviously a lot of people do so. So Senator Colomar. Yeah, I guess I'm okay with what we have now. Okay. I understand Senator Clarkson's point about using resources of the major parties, but I also understand your position too, but I don't think I feel it strongly enough to change what's current. As Carol said, I'm not going to fall on the sword for this one. You did say that. Senator Polina. I would leave it the way it is. I mean, I've mixed feelings about it, but I also have had the experience where I've been asked to endorse people who you would characterize as sore losers, people who lost the primary but said they wanted to keep running anyway and would I support them personally?  But on the other hand, I think announcing it independent after the primary would be okay. So I'm really mixed feelings about it. I think we'll drop it. Yep. Okay. So the next one is the ability to only run on one party in the general election, not be able to run as a DP or an RD or a DR. Well, that's kind of silly. Well, it was a suggestion that came up. So it's here. I know, I'm kidding. Anybody have any feelings about that? I mean, I don't even think I made our list, but I honestly care more when people run for like multiple positions than I do that they run under different parties. Yeah, that's true. Well, unless there's willingness to go ahead, I put everything on the list, I'm telling you, and this came from somebody. So I put it on the list. Senator Clarkson, do you have your hand up? I do. I do. So this is slightly different from the primary issue. We're gonna talk about candidates running in the primary and then switching parties. You have that listed under primaries. I have that listed next. Ah, okay. Because I do care about that. But let's either do away with this or have more conversation first on running it in only one party. Do away with it with the suggestion? Yes. Okay, good. So then the next one was the ability to run in the, that if you choose to run as your primary party as a D in the primary, then you shouldn't be able to switch and run as your primary party as an R in the general, even though you got both nominations. And I suspect this is more an issue for R's and D's, but for D's and P's.  Also, I remember, do you wanna? Yes, well, thank you, Madam Chair. For the Democratic Party, Vermont Democratic Party, we think this is an important issue. Just as I indicated last week, it goes to like truth and advertising. You know, what is a person standing for? And ultimately we were asking the question, is there a difference between the parties? And if there is some type of difference between the parties and if somebody runs in party A, and they win the primary and party A's primary, then they should run in that same party in the general election. Now, if they wanna be an A slash B slash C, we don't have a problem with that. That's fine. They can have multiple party endorsements, but their principal party should be consistent between the primary and the general election. We've had a lot of complaints about people switching. You know, I thought I voted for, for instance, I thought I voted for a Democrat. Now it looks like that person is running on a different party. So we just wanna maintain that consistency to truth and advertising and, you know, an indication that the parties actually stand for something different. Particularly if they're a major party, you know, they should, people should be recognizing that and running in the principles of that party. So I'm gonna ask Will before we have more conversation that I'm gonna ask Will after the election, I mean, after the primary, then you get, the candidate gets their, their nominating papers or whatever that, those are called their, whatever. And then they choose which party they want first. Isn't that the way the statute reads, they choose. And if they don't choose, then you choose for them. And you do it alphabetically or something. No, we don't choose there. That's also laid out in the statute. Okay. If they don't tell us, it goes the way you would probably expect, which is the one you were nominated for by primary than any committee nomination. Okay. But they, I think we actually said, just the example you gave to it would be any where you were the named candidate and nominated by that party primary. Then if you got written in on another major party, that would be second. And then any committee nomination would be third. But you can't be of written on two primary ballots. No. Okay. I just need to remind myself about, okay. You can't run on two in two primaries, yeah. I would just note though too, we talked a lot about deadlines, but the major party nominations, I would have to look back, but there's a wide range. So like most of the party nominations that we get from major parties come in during the summer sometime. So they'll be running in the party primary of one party. And then we get a party nomination from another party for that same person that sits on file in our office until the time they have to, after the primary tell us what order they want those to go in. And I just think that if a person is endorsed by wins the support of two parties, that means that both of those parties were supporting that person, knowing that the person had the option of how they declare themselves, how they name themselves. And I think it should be up to the candidates to decide. I mean, they got support from both.  I don't see why we wouldn't let the person decide for themselves, which is how they wanted to be listed. And I think, the reality is that these days, where things are at, I mean, by running in the democratic primary, for example, you get to actually spread your message to more people and get seen by more people, which then gives more people the opportunity to decide if they support you or not. So I think that it's, and then there wouldn't be as much competition in a progressive primary. So it actually is more beneficial to the process to allow people to run in, to get the support of both parties and then make a decision for themselves as to which to order they want them to be in. And frankly, I don't think for the voters, I could be wrong, but I don't think voters really care that much to tell you the truth. I mean, party people care about this stuff, but I've run under both parties and I don't think I've ever had anybody question me or ask me about why I did one or the other or I don't think anybody ever decided based on that order of the parties. I think voters vote for a person and they don't really look at whether it's got a D or P or an R, they vote for who they support. Senator Clarkson. I don't agree with Anthony. I think parties put a lot of resources into their primary candidates. And they open up primary candidates get access to stuff that they wouldn't get if they were necessarily in another party. And to not have to, if you win that primary, to not have to take that win and use it as the first letter of what you run as is really to me, you have been untruthful to the voters.  And that's where your name is printed. And that's, again, you own that candidacy to then turn around after the primary and say, well, really, I wanna be a PD. You know, that's not what the voters voted for.  And I think you need to own that. And I think that needs to be consistent with whatever letters you add after that. Fine to add a P afterwards, but the primary you win should be the primary that you are represented, that should be first represented in the letters that follow your name. I think too many resources and too much energy, too much is shared with, you know, it's unfair, it just strikes me as unfair and that the party system is being used. And people do care, actually, Anthony. We've had in close by, we had a race with somebody who switched. And, you know, it just didn't feel good.  Was she, had something happened that made her unhappy with us? What had we done? Yeah, that, you know, that's what it does. I have a clarifying question which is, is there a way for somebody to use the platform and resources of a party and then help advance the major party status of another party through that win? So I guess I'm curious, like, if everybody's running as a Democrat, how do the progressives maintain the major party status in that regard? Is it from the general election, not from the primary? Just trying to rank here. Well, we do have a list on here. And I think that to be a major party, you have to be organized in 30 towns and you have to be in seven counties or more. And we'll also, like, how many votes you got? Well, I tried to find that in here and I couldn't find it. Thought it was based also on percentage of votes. I did too. Will? Just looking at that to make sure I get this right. And it's a good point to raise, Senator Rom. One of the requirements to be a major party is to have received 5% or more of the vote with a candidate for statewide office. So you need a statewide office candidate on the general election ballot that receives 5% or more of the vote. There's also a provision. That's what I was just looking at that says that if you have a dual nomination, you have to tell our office which of those two parties you want the major part of the vote to go toward. And that needs to be the first one listed. In the general election. Correct. So just for an example, right this year, Lieutenant Governor Zuckerman ran in the Democratic Party primary, got nominated by the Progressive Party State Committee, informed us that he wanted his parties to appear as PD on the general election ballot. And so the 5% would go to the P major parties. So that's what feels like gaming a little bit to me is that you would run in one primary, take advantage of that platform, which Anthony, like you said, is valuable to get your message out there. But then your springboarding, your ultimate benefit to the party that you did not run on with the primary and helping their major party status, which does seem to present a challenge to me. So Anne option, that's correct. And Anne option, I am totally agnostic about this would be a requirement that the party in which you ran as the primary candidate, right? So if you ran in the primary for the Democratic Party that that has to be listed first. Right. And that that's the one that your vote totals for statewide office will go toward the major party consideration for. Right. I mean, I'm a little more agnostic about which one you put first. Just, I mean, and maybe it has to be this way. That's not my concern. I don't, if someone wants to say P first, that's fine. But if they're running in the Democratic primary that I believe is the party that should benefit from their general election, major party sort of vote count. That would be an option. That would be an option too. You're right. Regardless of the way you order them, we're going to look at the party in which you ran in the primary for that calculation. Yeah. So I'm sorry, I understand what you said there. You're saying, somebody will or Keisha said that you could run in as, you could decide which you want, which order you want the letters to go in. Yes. But the 5% rule would relate to the one that you ran the primary on. Right, I think with the letters, you're saying this is who I plan to caucus with. So you're giving the voter information about where you plan to put your allegiances once you get there, but you should not be able to advance the major party status of the party for which you did not run in their primary. Right, which is, I said less articulately than you, but which is why I feel that if you run in one party, in one party's primary, you should be obligated to run with that party first in your letter designation going forward in the general election. I guess I'm just, I'm personally, Alison, we may slightly disagree, I'm less concerned that I wanna give the candidate agency, but I don't think the party should benefit that didn't give them the platform in the primary. That's my same point. Oh, okay. Well, she, yeah, go ahead. I think Keisha is saying that you can choose whichever one you want first, but you shouldn't the prime, the party should not receive major party status based on your running in a different party.  And that means that maintains them as a major party. And Keisha's point is that regardless of how you put your letters, that you shouldn't profit the party that you... Right, I understand. You end up in the same place. I mean, we may have different reasons. I mean, I support that. But you don't end up in the same place. Which is, if you shouldn't be allowed to take advantage, you should, the party that you ran on in the primary should benefit with those vote totals in the general election. Yes, regardless of how you... How you order it, I could care less about the order. Regardless of the order. Yeah, but the order has impact on the vote. It doesn't have to, it doesn't have to do. We can change that. It doesn't have to be the order that assigns the percentage of the votes. That's what Keisha's saying. Right, and Keisha's saying that, but so that no matter which order it was put in, that whoever you ran in the primary would get the benefit of the tally, the benefit of the vote. I get that. And I guess I would say that I think it's, that I would go one step further and say that if you have benefited that fully from a primary with a party, you should have that party be first in your letter accumulations in all of your degrees that you list after your name. Bruce. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to kind of indicate that. We heard the like from a lot of voters in the last election that they do care about what the primary party affiliation is. To say that they don't care, I think is not accurate. I mean, and I may not be with every voter, but we heard from a lot of the voters that they were upset about that somebody could change their party affiliation, primary party affiliation between the primary and the general election. And they just did not feel that was fair. And it's something disingenuous. Again, do the parties mean anything? That's what we're really getting to. If the parties mean something, then you should be consistent in your party affiliation from the primary through the general election. Agreed. Anybody else want to weigh in on this one? Senator Colomar. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm glad I had a chance to listen to all the discussion because this was a really good discussion. And it's kind of like in my mind, everybody's right. So I understand what Senator Polina said and I agree with them. And I go back to John Odom's thing about when I go into a booth to vote, I'll make this distinction. I think it's different for a statewide candidate versus a local candidate. I think there's much more of a tendency on the local level for someone to vote for someone they know and not be as concerned about their party affiliation. I don't think that's as true in a statewide race as it might be on a local level, but the Board of Aldermen, a mayor, even our election, so the General Assembly, depending on the size that you're talking about, a very small house district, for instance, I think people know who you are and I don't think it reaches the same level of importance what party you belong to. So I take Anthony's point about people vote for the name. The name recognition is what we all began with, but I also feel strongly that Senator Clarkson and Romer are making good points in Bruce as well that if you've chosen to run as a whatever and you won, I think you do have a responsibility to state that way for the general election. So there you go. All right, so where are we here now? We have two suggestions, I believe, or we have three, leave it the way it is. Change so that if you, whichever party in which you ran the primary and if you win, and even if you get write-ins or nominations from another party, you have to use that one as your first identifying letter. And then the third option is let the candidate choose which they wanna put behind their name and which order. And but make sure that the votes that are cast are assigned to the party in which they ran in the primary. So it seems to me those are kind of the three options that we have and where do, anybody else out there have any feelings on this of John, Carol, Pat, Audrey who else is with us? Oh, you see Chris Winters is with us. And John? Well, since you asked, it's not really a clerk thing, but as someone who before my clerk life was a multi-time Democratic County clerk, Democratic staffer, when there was a conversation about the resources and Senator White, I think I was the one who provided you with your lists when you first ran it. Thank you. Crazy program I wrote that. Anyways, I think there's a couple arguments here. The one about where the 5% goes to is really administrative and it's just sort of a practical conversation. The PRD thing and Senator Polina will probably get a kick out of this because when I was a blogger, I was ruthless bugging him about running as a D and getting a D on there. But quite honestly, in my experience, that's not an administrative question and it has always been a question about members of different parties feeling that it's icky. And I don't think ickiness is a really kind of, I think I agree with Senator Rahm and Senator Polina. I don't know that inter-party icky feelings are probably a good basis on which to change something. So that would be my feeling. Is that a technical election term? Icky? It's a technical everything term. Okay. Well, I don't know how much longer we wanna talk about this, but obviously I appreciate John's thoughts. I don't like the idea that people are saying you're benefiting the party by running in their primary, therefore you owe them something necessarily. I don't think that's quite accurate. I think I would look at it as somebody who's appealing to two parties and gets the support of both of those parties because those voters trust that person. And I think those voters trust that person enough that they would allow that person to make a decision as to whether they want to go out as a PD or a DP or whatever it is, regardless of where the percentages fall. I think that it goes back to the question of letting the voters really having the votes and the voters really have meaning and they're voting for a person, they're not voting for a party. A lot of people will say, well, traditionally, my father, my grandfather, we all voted for Republicans, whatever, so I have to vote for party line. But I think in Vermont, people vote for the person more than they're voting for the party. And I think if someone gets endorsed by two parties, those people are trusting that person to make a decision as to how they want to appear on a general election ballot and where they want their vote totals to go. I think it's... No, I'm done. I may end up going to the Collinmore method on this one, I don't know. I'm gonna throw in a thought here that I think you're right in local elections and in house elections and probably even in Senate elections. In statewide elections, I'm not so sure that people had, most people had any idea who Beth Pierce was or Carolyn Branigan. I don't think people at the statewide level know who those people are. Who knows who Doug Hoffer is? I mean, but anyway, so I'm going to ask for some opinion here. Should we leave it alone? Yes. Yes. If you're asking for a vote. I'm just asking for it to get a sense of where we are. Should we leave it alone? Or are there, then there are two other options. So, Senator Rom. I'm kind of attached to my administrative change because it doesn't feel very major party to use another major party's primary and then switch your party affiliation in the general. So you're talking about the percentage of the votes. Yes, as John called it, administrative. I miss it. I'm happy to call it. Senator Clarkson, do you want to leave it alone? I've been pretty clear. I actually feel pretty strongly about this. I think that if you run. No, just tell me if you want to leave it alone or not. That's all we're doing right now. No, I do not want to leave it alone. Okay, great. And neither do I. So we have three people who don't want to leave it alone. Now the next question then is let's look at the question of the administrative issue and how that, and that does in my mind make a huge difference that you shouldn't run in the Republican, and I'm going to use Republicans here because we use DPs all the time. And that's the case here, but you shouldn't run in the Republican primary get 80% of the, or whatever and then decide that you're going to really be a tea party person and assign those votes to that party in order to make them qualify as a major party. That in my mind is totally wrong. So where are we with that? Because they don't necessarily go together but order or this. So where are we with that? Senator Polina. I don't like it. You don't like what? What you outlined. You mean that you can change, you can use your votes to the benefit of the other party to qualify them as a major party? Wait, I'm not sure. Ask the question again. I'm confused by the question. So here's, here's two things we're talking about. I'm just not sure which one we're talking about right now. What we're talking about right now is should people be allowed to run in the Democratic primary and then decide that they want, and then decide that they want, or yeah, I'll use Democrats and progressives because those are the parties that we have, run in the Democratic party, get over 5% of the vote, then switch in the general election to the progressive party and use that percentage of the votes that they got in the Democratic race to qualify the progressive party to be a major party. Well, they would have been endorsed by both parties and chose to put the progressive party to put the P first and the D second. Right. That's a different question of which they put first or second. What? We already lost that one, Anthony. Well, I'm really not sure which one you're on. I'm not sure you did. Okay. Will, can you just explain this? Will you ask the question, Will? Ask the question. Yeah. I want to see where the five committee members are on this issue of being able to assign your vote percentages to the party in which you did not run in the primary. You can do that right now. I know. So would you explain that so that we can, that all five of us understand that and we can get a read on it? Well, so somebody can run in the Democratic primary or a statewide office, get that, win that primary, also be nominated by another political party, including a minor party. Have a few of them, Vermont on and off, libertarians almost always organize in Liberty Union. Here's. So sorry to throw that curve ball, but by any organized party, which includes minor parties can then also nominate you just through the party committee process, right? And say we want you to be our gubernatorial candidate on the general election ballot. Then it's up to that candidate under current law to decide both things, the order of the names and which of those parties that are gonna appear on the general election ballot will benefit from. So which one we look at when we say, did the party that nominated him by committee have a candidate that got 5% in the general election? They tell us which party to apply that 5% to and to determine the major party status of that party going forward. What's interesting is the current law sets it up kind of the opposite of what you guys are talking about where it says, you tell us which party to apply that 5% to and that party has to be listed first. That's how the current law is written. So it's saying what Senator Clarkson kind of wants to be the case also that, but it allows them, the difference was from Senator Clarkson is it allows them to choose that one, but then it says you have to list that first, but you could choose the one that's not the primary winner. You guys are talking about whether we wanna say the 5% has to be applied to the party of which you win the primary. Yes, that's the question. That's the separate question. Do we care whether you then list that first, second, third? And I wanna separate the listing. And the other thing, right. And the other thing I wanna say, I don't agree that that's an administrative decision. That's a really sort of fundamental decision to the viability of major parties going forward. I can, that's an easy administrative thing for us to do. You just tell us which party to choose to look at. And on that note, I just want the committee to remember that what major party status means is that we, the state have to run a primary. Yes. And that means we have to produce the same amount of ballots for that party as we do for any other major party because we have to be ready to send all three in the current case ballots to every voter who requests them. You always need to assume that everybody might request any ballot. So it's a pretty large expense for the state in ballot printing costs to operate these primaries. And it will be more so if we're talking about a lot of mailing of ballots back and forth. We could actually, somebody, we could end up with a number of major parties if people can assign the vote counts to any party they want. I mean, where they were nominated. They were nominated by Liberty Union party. They could assign the vote. At one point, wasn't the Liberty Union party a major party? I believe before my time, maybe for a second. Yeah, they were for a little bit. Yeah. Okay, so where are we? Most democracies would appreciate having multiple parties. I seem to remember one of our statewide officers once ran with, this is a slightly different question, but ran with six party names behind his name on the ballot. That's right. And I won't say who it was, but so where are we with this question of assigning the vote counts? Does any, before I go to the committees, the committee for way in, does anybody else out there have any feeling about this Gwen, Pat, Carol, Audrey, Chris, Winters? No, I guess not. I didn't see any hands or any unmute. So, okay, so where are we with that? Senator Clarkson, this is not how you put the order in which you put it behind your name. We're gonna ask that question later. Clear on that. We're voting on the 5% rule. Yeah. And I think that the 5% should follow the primary win. Okay. Senator Rom, I agree with that. Senator Calamar? I agree. Senator Polina? Wait a second. Did we just lose? My battery just went dead. I just plugged in. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yes. I can't see anything. I mean, I'm just kidding. We can't see either. We can't see, but we can hear you. All right, there I am. I'm back. Sorry, my battery went dead. I'm not gonna ask you to say the question again. I think that it's up to the candidate to decide where they want the 5% to the percent to go. I don't know if that's a short-hand way of saying it. That is your answer, yes. I agree with, I think that it should go with the party in which they ran in the primary. So we have four here. So we can get that written up. Now let's talk about the order behind their name. Senator Clarkson? Everybody knows how I feel. Yeah, okay. Senator Rom. I feel that, you know, just like the 5%, the first place should go first position. I don't know how we want to refer to it, but if you win in a primary, you have to translate that win not only to the 5%, the 5% follows the primary win, so should the placement of the party letter. Okay. Senator Callemore? Well, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. They're all done with this. I know. I'm sorry. Well, can I ask a clarification? Oh, sorry. I thought you were thinking. No, it's getting clear. Okay, yes, clarifying question. Alison is convinced of me. I will agree with her on this. Do you have to keep the party, even if it's not first? No. Okay, so let's say the Republicans, you know, wrote you in, but you just don't want that label. You don't have to keep it. No, I have been written in two or three times, Republicans down here, because we don't have a lot of Republicans down here, and so they've written me in, and I did not accept the nomination just because I felt there was a difference in basic platforms in the parties, so I couldn't run as both, but you don't have to accept it, yes.  So I think of this as very separate, and I would wanna continue to allow candidates to put the party affiliations in whatever order they choose. Senator Polina. I would agree with Keisha because she just said, I think it's up to the candidates to decide what order they wanna put their party names on. I think we're basically changing something or we're fixing something that isn't broken. I think, you know, the ideal thing would be to leave it alone, but obviously that's not happening. Okay, so my vote is, I think there are many, many people in the state who think it's broken. There are many people who don't think it's broken, but I don't think that voters have any idea when they vote for somebody that the candidate can then choose whether they put the P or the D or the R or the D first. I think voters don't know that, they just vote for a candidate. So I am going to vote with Collin Moran-Clarkson here. Okay, it is. It's almost for 30. Yeah, there's one more issue that I'd like to just, I think we can get rid of it on our list right within three minutes. There was a suggestion that there ought to be a penalty for candidates who open the ballot box early. And I looked up the penalties, and I believe there is a $200 fine. So I'm not sure why this was an issue. Does anybody wish to speak to this? Well, I think it happened if I'm remembering the incident in Rutland County, but I don't really have anything to say about it. Senator Clarkson. Can I just clarify, how does a candidate even have access to the ballot box? I mean, isn't it the clerks? I mean, what are the candidates doing in there anyway? Maybe Wilkins office. I believe the BCA was where some members of it were asked to open seal ballots for the bag to see whether there was a particular number of votes for a particular party. Again, without knowing more about it, it was an issue in Rutland County. I know that and it was a house race, I believe. Or no, I'm not sure it was a house race. Do you remember, Wil, what this is about? Without using names, maybe it could just help us understand the issue. Sure. And I do, and I would really try to keep it quick since I know we're at the end here. Yes, a ballot bag after the election was opened. And the reason it was was, but it was, you know, and I wasn't there. I've heard what I've heard via emails and everything else. It was opened because the name, it's interesting how these issues we've discussed today all tie together in this story. The names of writing candidates have not been recorded. And as you know, there was why this loops in another aspect of what we've just been talking about, a writing campaign in the progressive primary for governor. And so they were trying to see what name had been written in on progressive ballots that were cast in this town. They immediately recognized the mistake they'd made and that they overstepped their authority. I wanna tell everybody that the BCH Air called me within an hour of realizing the mistake they made. They didn't look at the ballots.  But there was a candidate present. The results weren't changed at all. The ORV was not amended. There was a candidate present and it rightfully caused a lot of concern to voters in that area who heard that a ballot bag had been opened without the right authority. There's statute that gives me two reasons why I can authorize a town to open a bag. And then otherwise you have to go to court and get a court order. And the reason they were looking was neither of the ones I can authorize, which are if you seal your memory card in the bag by accident. So again, mistake was realized, but that's where it comes from. But Senator White, I think you're right. There are penalties in place for any kind of nefarious action taken with ballots. Yeah, I think there's very clearly one about the ballot bags. And like I said, there's also the statute in place already about the ballot bag. Yeah. Okay, so with that, I think that maybe we'll call it a day, should we? I think we need to go outside and catch the last piece of sunshine before. I know. And so we are going to next week, again on Wednesday so that we have kind of the full day. Start then with, we have the two candidate issues that the requirement to vote and the limit the number of candidates for JP by each party that they can nominate. And then we'll move to primaries, the issue there and the general election. And if we get there, we'll also move to, I'm hoping that we can move to the issue of mail out for the general election. And I'm thinking that all of these issues are really related to elections and that there's two issues here around campaign finance. And we might think about putting them in a different bill because they're related specifically to campaign finance. And the only other issue that has come up that we might wanna think about putting in here is the report of the reapportionment board. Their report is supposed to be to us by July of next summer. They aren't even gonna get the census information until July. So we need to move that date for them. And there's really no good place to put it. And I don't know that it deserves a standalone bill but that's the only other thing I thought of it that should probably be in here. Any other thoughts? It really sounds like it might be later than July too. Could be August or September. Yeah. So what I think we need to do is we need to, I wrote to Tom little and asked him what a safe date would be to put into the statute so that they can meet it. He's the one to ask for sure. Yeah. I'm just curious, Madam Chair, was there a recent time when the committee discussed putting yourself on multiple places on the ballot? We haven't discussed that yet. But it's a good one. You should be running for more than one office. Yeah. That wasn't ever listed as an issue, I don't think. But not this year now, but has it come up in recent testimony and passed? Yeah. And if we wanted to talk about it two years ago, and it was just sort of left alone, was it? Just, well, I think that did, I think the main decision was that it would be unconstitutional to limit anybody's right to run on any and even to run for incompatible offices. It says in the constitution that you have the right to run for any office you want. But if elected to two incompatible offices, you can't serve in both. And you choose. Yeah. Okay. I believe somebody has to be appointed then. So if you ran seven different offices and one of them and accepted it, you'd have six other offices to be appointed. Right, right. But the constitution, I think it's clear that the constitution says you can run for anything you want to. That's helpful. But we can bring it up again if there's concerns about it now. We did change it so that you have to have a separate petition for each office you're running for instead of, a friend of mine ran against me. He's in the, I don't remember which party he's in, one of those minor parties and he runs all the time. And he was at the co-op once with his petitions and it said for state senator. And I said, Ben, don't you want me to be elected? And he said, yeah. And I said, well, you're running against me. And he said, oh, okay. And he crossed it off and put us in it. So, okay. So we'll see you tomorrow committee. I'm using no.