The reforms brought forward by H.474 relate to revising the candidate nomination process for major parties and making changes to campaign finance rules.
Summary:
H.474 originally proposed significant reforms to Vermont's election laws (the House version included ranked-choice voting, but this was struck by the Senate) and revising candidate nomination and campaign finance regulations.
The bill amends various sections of Vermont's election laws related to campaign finance reporting and the auditing of voter checklists. It replaces the term "independent expenditure-only political committee" with "public question campaign," which operates independently of candidates.
New requirements for candidates and political committees regarding campaign finance reports are also introduced, particularly for those with significant expenditures or contributions. The bill clarifies the appointment process for recount committees, modifies deadlines for filing petitions, and allows towns to start their annual meetings earlier. It also includes provisions for validating municipal meetings and specifies the roles of constables and tax collectors, allowing towns to vote on whether to restrict constables' law enforcement authority. Overall, H.474 aims to enhance transparency, accessibility, and accountability in Vermont's electoral process.
The Details:
-
Double Jeopardy: Candidates who lose a primary election are barred from being nominated by another party or running as an independent for the same office in the general election.
- Candidates who lose in a primary could still be nominated by the SAME party they lost primary for.
- This would prevent a candidate who loses a Democratic primary from being nominated by the Progressive party, or losing a Republican primary and being nominated by the Libertarian party, etc.
-
Reports:
- The Secretary of State is required to provide a report on allowing electronic ballots for voters who are ill, injured, disabled, as well as military or overseas voters.
- Creates some additional reporting requirements from municipalities about the elections of their select board members.
- Requires town clerks to send absentee ballots to military/oversees voters earlier to ensure they receive them.
-
Write-in candidates:
- Will now be required to register by 5pm on the Thursday before an election.
- Will have a higher minimum number of votes required. The new floor will be half the number of signatures required to be collected for the office sought (in current law it is only half).
- Will have their votes placed in a special "vote without requisite filing" status if they do not file in time. And those votes will be listed as "other write-ins" in the official election results.
- Campaign Finance:
- The current campaign finance reporting threshold of $500 is eliminated. Instead candidates will need to file campaign finance reports as soon as they receive or expend any funds.
- The registration threshold for PAC's is lowered from $1k to $500.
- The campaign finance reporting threshold for local elections is lowered from $1k to $500.
-
Defines “independent expenditure-only political committee” and clarifies rules for contributions, expenditures, and electioneering communications, including identification requirements
- Voter Checklist and District Boundary Audits:
- Town clerks are required to audit their voter checklists to "ensure that those checklists accurately correspond to the prescribed district boundaries." These audits are expected to be completed and reported to the Secretary of State in September, 2025.
- Updates penalties for voting more than once.
- Extends period for processing absentee ballots from 30 to 45 days before an election.
- Updates voter registration via motor vehicle license applications, requiring attestation of U.S. citizenship or DMV proof
The Good:
|
The Bad:
|
Analysis:
It is unfortunately that ranked-choice voting (RCV) was removed from the bill as it encourages majority support in an election. In RCV, a candidate needs a majority (over 50%) to win. If no one gets that initially, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated, and their voters’ next preferences are counted. This process repeats until a candidate reaches the 50% threshold. This means the winner often has broader support than in a "first-past-the-post" system, where someone can win with, say, 35% in a crowded field.
There is also some evidence suggesting that campaigns in RCV systems tend to be less hostile. Candidates have an incentive to appeal to more voters as a second or third choice, not just their base. Mud-slinging might backfire if they alienate people who could’ve ranked them lower down.
Perhaps most importantly, RCV allows you to vote your conscience for a long-shot candidate (say, a third-party option) without feeling like you’re "wasting" your vote, since your later preferences still count. Places like Maine and Alaska have seen this play out with growing independent candidate interest.
Aside from the lack of RCV, however, some concern about new limitations on write-in candidates. These new requirements could create ballot access challenges for candidates who enter the race late or those who wish to offer an alternative after an existing candidate who has become unfavorable. We will have to see how these things play out in reality.
The lowering of reporting thresholds for campaign finance is also helpful as we will get more information about who is funding a campaign and get it earlier.
Current Status:
The bill passed the House and the Senate and was signed by Governor Scott on June 25th, 2025.
News coverage on H.474 |
Read the Bill |
More bill summaries |
Last updated: 7/9/2025
DISCLAIMER: Generative AI used to assist in the production of this report.
Be the first to comment
Sign in with