Secretary of State Copeland Hanzas and Governor Scott - Integrity of Voter Registration Data 8/25/26

Good morning everyone and thank you all for being here today. Today I'm joined by the Secretary of State and other officials to discuss actions recently taken to ensure the integrity of our voter roles as we prepare for ballots to be mailed to all active eligible registered voters next month. First, I want to say Verona should be proud of our elections and the actions we've taken over the years to make voting easier and accessible, including our universal mail-in voting system for general elections. Despite what some say, voting by mail is secure, safe, and reliable. And I've long advocated we look for ways to expand this practice. We've seen the impact it's had on voter participation, and it should be everyone's goal to make sure as many people as possible are engaged in the democratic process. As the state prepares to mail ballots next month, DMV working closely with the Secretary of State's office and ads discovered some errors that led to a number of people who did not wish to be registered to vote to be sent to the Secretary of State office. The team here today has worked closely together to audit and assess the situation and have taken action to ensure the voter checklist is accurate ahead of this fall's election. I want to thank the secretary and members of my administration for their hard work to get this right and for their commitment to further collaborate moving forward to assure Vermoners that our systems and processes are strong and accurate. And before I hand it over to the Secretary of State, I want to acknowledge the narrow Supreme Court ruling yesterday on the president's misguided efforts to limit mail-in voting. There's still a ways to go on legal challenges and we haven't heard the final word, but I want to be clear. Voting by mail is safe, secure, and reliable. The federal government has no business encroaching on the states on how we administer free and fair elections. Mail-in ballots work well in Vermont, and I remain committed to defending our system from federal overreach. With that, I'll turn it over to the Secretary of State. Thank you so much, Governor Scott, and uh I want to say a big thank you to Secretary Riley Hughes, Secretary Flynn, and Commissioner Collier for this collaboration. Uh we're gathering here today to announce that we are administratively removing uh less than 900 voter Vermonters who were registered to vote in error. Uh they have never demonstrated an intent to vote uh and have never voted in Vermont elections. uh and they were sent to the voter registration roles via an administrative error. Uh we became aware of this problem when a Verter contacted our office. Um we began to explore the issue with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Um Commissioner Collier and I uh collaborated on some additional training materials and uh and created a video for uh frontline staff at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Um and uh more recently when the New Jersey news uh came to the forefront, we decided it was best to do a proactive um deep dive. And I want to say at the outset that our DMV system is not the same system uh that is used in New Jersey. Um these errors are not the same errors uh as as New Jersey has experienced. Um both the governor and I uh are committed that automatic voter registration at the department of motor vehicles is uh is something that is important for Vermonters. Uh it has resulted in Vermont consistently maintaining um a very high rate of voter registration among eligible voters and we intend to uh to continue automatic voter registration. Um, this audit took a 20-year look back. Um, and we looked to determine whether people who said, "No, I don't wish to register to vote had ever shown any intention of registering to vote." Um, and for all of the Verters who were added to the voter registration roles against their wishes, uh, we have now administratively removed them. Uh folks may be wondering why we're doing this today. And I think it's important for folks to understand uh in the run-up to the November election, we pull the mailing list for all active registered voters as of the beginning of September. We wanted to make sure that we could complete this audit and administratively remove people who didn't intend to register to vote before those ballots go out. uh because there's nothing uh that that we want to do uh that puts a ballot in the hands of somebody who said no, I don't want to be registered to vote. Um this has been a really strong collaboration between the Department of Motor Vehicles uh with the help of ADS and the Secretary of State's office. Um and it's been really critical to have all eyes on this problem. And I want to say, you know, with all honesty that at the same time that we are admitting to a mistake that registered people who did not wish to be registered, this is actually a really good and strong example of the people and processes that have eyes on our election systems coming together to make that system work better. Um we have a strong commitment between our office and the department of motor vehicles uh to look at the ways that these errors happened and to ensure going forward that they don't continue. Uh but we felt it was really important to be honest and upfront about this administrative mistake. I think what I would like every Vermoner to understand right now is that you have the ability to uh look at your voter registration list and to see your name uh in your voter portal. So vote.vermont.gov. You can log in with your name, date of birth, um and either your driver's license number or the last four of your social security number. Once you're in the voter portal, you can update your mailing address, which we really hope you'll do before September 1st because we want to make sure that your ballot gets to you. Um, and if for some reason you do not want wish to be registered to vote any longer, you can contact your town or city clerk and request to be removed from the voter registration roles. Your town clerk's uh contact information and office hours are available in your voter portal. Um, so this is uh a promise that we will continue this strong collaboration between our office and the DMV to be sure that we head off future administrative errors. Um, and I just want to say that uh the this moment in time that we're in right now was only made possible by the fact that both the DMV and the secretary of state's elections office have upgraded our IT systems in this past year. a year ago, we wouldn't have been able to have the the kind of visibility into these administrative errors that we have now. And so, we feel very hopeful and optimistic that because of the improvements in these two important IT systems, uh, that we will be able to iron out any wrinkles and be sure that we, uh, we don't have administrative errors like this in the future. um and for the assistance of the the Agency of Digital Services in deploying these IT systems. I want to say a heartfelt thank you to uh Secretary Riley Hughes. Um and now I would like to hand this off to Commissioner Collier. >> Thank you, Secretary. >> Good morning, Commissioner Andrew Collier from the Department of uh Department of Motor Vehicles. I'm here to discuss our work to ensure the accuracy integrity of voter registration data that flows between the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles and the Secretary of State's office. The DMV became aware of certain voter information uh that the Secretary of State's office had concerns over. We determined human error or that human error on these records and address them promptly. We have used this to do a comprehensive look back over 25 years on the motor voter data that DMV supplies. Working with the Secretary of State's office and the Agency of Digital Services, we conducted an internal audit of the information transmitted from the DMV's motor voter registration process. Our goal is simple, to ensure the accuracy of each person's state of choice at the DMV and it is transmitted correctly to the Secretary of State's office. As part of this effort, we have implemented improvements in our processes. These changes help us better identify and prevent records from being sent when a customer has marked no to the voter registration during a new credential or renewal. We have also strengthened quality checks, increased training with DMV staff, and clarified and improved communication between the DMV and the Secretary of State's office. So, if an issue arises, we they are caught early and resolved quickly. Two points are important. First, we found an incorrect record that was sent by the DMV. We responded quickly. We worked closely with our partners and we were transparent about what we were doing. Second, this is not a one-time fix. We will continue monitoring, auditing, and improving to ensure voter intent is respected and the data we transmit is reliable. I want to thank the Secretary of State's office, the Agency of Digital Services, and our DMV staff for the collaboration and professionalism in this endeavor. Thank you. >> And now, um, Sarah Haskins, who is the, um, town clerk and treasurer for the town of Morristown and the village of Morrisville. And the rest of your title you can do. >> Hi. Uh, good morning. My name is Sarah Haskins and I am the town clerk, treasurer, delinquent tax collector for the town of Morristown, the village of Morrisville, and the Loyal South um supervisory um unified union district. Um but I am here today as the first vice president of the Vermont Clerks and Treasurers Association. Um, you're not supposed to share about your favorite part of the job, but um, elections holds a very dear part um, in my heart and I still remember the first time that I worked on an election. I had just turned 18 and I volunteered to work the checklist at my local town meeting and I still remember the feeling that day of being there in my community and I still remember the lessons that I learned about the importance of helping my neighbors be part of the democratic process. I think that that day is what really led me to um becoming a town clerk. Um, voter checklist is just one just one of the many duties that a town or city clerk does in their daily routine, but it is really one of the um most essential and important duties that we perform. And we do this work closely working with our local uh boards ofi civil civil authority and with the elections division of the secretary of state's office. I'm really happy that the clerks are here today and I'm able to represent them and be part of the discussion. The um VMCTA has um mentioned concerns over the years about some of the um data that we have received from the DMV and um we're we're glad um to be part of this conversation. Um and um today the DMV data is just one way that we receive um voter registration information, but it's vital and it's important uh that it is accurate. the um V the VMCTA would like to applaud the collaboration between the DMV and the Secretary of State's office um to help ensure that that voter registration data is as accurate as um it possibly can be and that all eligible Vermonters um have the chance to participate in Vermont elections and we um are happy to be part of that um continued discussion and um improvement. Thank you. >> We'll now open it up to questions. >> Can you um describe who these 900 or so people were? Are there uh similarities between them? Are they people who were eligible to vote um but just didn't want to be registered to vote or were they inel ineligible to vote for some reason? how the Secretary of State answer those questions, but I think it'd be important for you to describe first of all for everyone that you're you opt out. You know, you're you're automatically opted in. So, you have to opt out and if you are already a voter, you might say no. So, there's there's that component. >> Yeah. So, um I think it's helpful for folks to understand and thank you for the question. Um, we did a 25-y year look back of all data that has um come in through the motor voter process and from that we identified people who had checked no and then what we needed to do was look to see if there were other indicators that that person intended to be or had previously been registered to vote. So, we filtered out people who had had a subsequent or prior interaction with their clerk's office or with a voter registration drive. Um, because as the governor said, you may say no if you're already registered to vote. Um, we uh I think it's helpful for people to understand that the Department of Motor Vehicles is in the business of issuing driver credentials uh not in the business of determining eligibility to vote. The checks that go in front of the driver as they are going through the driver's license process are intended to um to be sure that people are affirming that they are eligible to vote when they register to vote. uh in the event that someone who would otherwise be ineligible to vote um was a part of this less than 900 voters, we have taken them off the list uh because they never intended to be registered to vote and were added uh by an administrative error. >> I'm not sure I answer that last part. Um in terms of eligibility, do we know how many of these 900 people were ineligible to vote? No, we don't because as I said, the Department of Motor Vehicles only determines um uh citizenship and only for the small portion of Vermont drivers who are there to get an enhanced driver's license. um and they are not in the in the business of collecting information about um about the the eligibility to vote including citizenship for for any other people who are just there for a a standard real ID or a driver privilege card. >> Did any of these 900 people vote in any elections in the last 25 years when they shouldn't have? >> No. No. This this list includes only people who said no, I do not wish to register to vote were registered anyway, but have not had any other contact with uh with the election system. >> Commissioner, can you talk a little about what exactly the administrative error was? Was this inputting data? Was this user error? Like what what exactly went wrong at the DMV? >> Yeah, thanks for the question. Uh well, we determined majority of the data came from the legacy system. uh and it was around the time uh when the automatic voter change uh to opting out happened. So it looks like that data field kind of it was a subset of folks within that data field around that time. Uh we did have some data just uh to be open about it that were was human error on the DMV side and that was when we did from the old legacy system into the new uh new VT trips current IT system. We had a lot of data cleanup and a lot and some of those errors were human made as we were cleaning up the data and transferring that data over. >> What years were those two events? The change to opting out and the and the shift to remove the data. >> 2015 was the law. 2016 was when uh when the law became uh active. So the the majority of folks uh who were in this uh larger subset came in 2016, 17, 18, and 19. >> And so they've been on the roles for about a decade. Many of these >> and have not Yeah. and have not voted and have have not had any other interaction with a a town clerk or a voter registration drive that would lead us to believe that they um intended to be registered to vote. They may not know they were registered to vote. So to that end there, has there been any identified harm here? Has there been any kind of thing that has happened that should not have happened other than their inclusion on the roles? >> Well, the immediate harm that we're trying to head off in doing this administrative action right now is uh is in sending people a ballot if any of the folks on that list are not eligible to vote. And so it was important to me uh to ensure that we did not send a ballot to people who did not wish to be registered to vote. Um and some of them would have they would have had ballots sent to them in the past presumably right if they've been on the rolls for a decade. So that could be a potential harm in theory >> in theory but nobody as I said nobody on that uh on that list has executed a ballot. Nobody has voted in our elections. Um and so uh we are simply heading off any future action that that uh that might someone might take. >> Can you also uh describe the action at this point if someone of the cohort of 800 900 um determine that they should be on the roles they can? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. Oh yeah. Thank you. That that's really great. Um, if if you wish to be registered to vote and you try to log into your voter portal and don't find your name on the list, um, it is really easy to register to vote through our online voter registration. In fact, at dinner the other night, family dinner with my 18-year-old nephew, um, he said, "Hey, I want to register to vote." So, I called up the the website to register to vote. handed him the phone and in the matter of eight or 10 minutes he had pulled out his driver's license, taken a photo, sent that in and and got himself registered to vote. So, it's really simple and easy to register to vote online. It's uh easy to register to vote in person at your town or city clerk's office. Um and so if anyone uh finds that they are not on the voter registration list and they wish to be, uh it's very simple to do that. What do you say to those people who look at a situation like this or in New Jersey and say, "Excuse me, this is why we need a federal system that that there are errors with a state system." So I think the strength of our system right now is really in the people and in the processes in the 247 town and city clerks and the thousands of members of their boards of civil authority who go through very carefully uh every other year and look at the eligibility of people to vote and challenge people who they believe are not eligible. Uh maybe they moved uh maybe they've passed away. Uh in addition to that, we are part of an interstate uh agreement uh through the ERIC system that helps us to exchange information between other ERIC states about people who may have moved from Vermont to another state, people who may uh be a registered Vermont voter who who was deceased in another state. and we get that information out to the clerks on a regular basis so that they can use that to update their voter registration uh lists as soon as we have that information. Um, I don't think that uh a a a giant bureaucracy a thousand miles away in Washington DC is going to do a better job than the human beings who uh who love elections, care for their communities, and want to ensure that every eligible Vermonter has the opportunity to vote. >> Can you say more about that interstate data sharing? because my understanding and I think we've discussed this before is that there's been a reduction in federal support for some of these interstate data sharing systems. Like is it are you still confident in the the ability of information to pass between like here and I don't know Pennsylvania? Like how do you feel about about that? >> So the ERIC system is uh is a system that states voluntarily opt into and pay a subscription for. Um, and so the limitation of the ERIC system is that it is only exchanging data between states who have chosen to be a member of this system. Obviously, it would be much better if every state were a part of the same system so that whether someone moves to Texas or California or Massachusetts, we're getting that information where wherever they happen to move. Um, and so that system is not federally funded. Um and it it certainly is possible that there are some states who uh who are not a part of it because of the budget line item that it would cost to be a part of it. Uh it would be very helpful if we were all sharing that information. We are a poorest nation. People move all the time. Uh and we would love to be able to share that data back and forth with every state in the union. >> Um were any of the folks on this list uh people who had gotten driver's privilege cards rather than driver's licenses? I don't have a I don't have a way of drawing a distinction between um how someone was given a driver's license um except for the fact that the enhanced real ID um shows us that that that person demonstrated their citizenship. I don't know if commissioner Collier wants to uh talk about that. >> Yeah. So just clarifying piece on this. So we have the real ID uh and enhance. So those get run through. So for instance, uh if you are here on a visa and you come to get a real ID, your term length on that is the expiration date. So if say it's just for even numbers, one year, that term will show and that's how we're able to check against uh the federal databases on the on the immigration side for that on the save uh fields. the nonreal ID uh portion of it is we're unable to check on the citizenship question on that uh and if someone elects on the prompt on that and that's where we're doing that secondary verification to make sure that um they're not registering if we don't have those correct documents in place. I guess what I'm really driving at, as you might imagine, is do we have any reason to believe these are non-citizens who are on the >> I'll defer that to the Secretary of State's office on >> um so because we don't have um the the Department of Motor Vehicles is uh is in the business of issuing uh driver credentials. So their their sole mission in the world is to uh determine whether someone is able to operate a motor motor vehicle and should be given a driver's license. The only subset of that population is with respect to the real and enhanced IDs and everybody else is um is simply getting a standard driver's license and we don't have uh visibility into that. Um but it it is reasonable to expect there may be a few people on that uh on that administrative removal list who uh who were not eligible to vote because they weren't citizens and we have removed them >> but the audit didn't probe that question looked into >> I mean that was that was not a question that we could ask because we don't have a complete data set and and that's you know one of the challenges all along has been that Um, we are asking the Department of Motor Vehicles if they can attest to something that is not in their uh requirement and is not in their business process. So, that's not a question that we could answer. Um, each person who goes through the the process of um filling out their driver's license form and opting to register to vote is asked to attest to that question. Are you a resident of Vermont? Are you 18? Are you a citizen? And that attestation is similar to the paper uh voter registration form that someone might pick up at uh at their town clerk's office and similar to the questions asked when someone goes to register online through our website. >> How did this I think you alluded to this earlier on, but how did this problem come to your attention? It was a a query from somebody or >> Yes. Yep. um a resident of Vermont reached out to us and said I was registered to vote and I did not want to be registered to vote. I am very sure that I uh opted out of registering to vote. And so that that got us doing the thinking and the exploring and trying to figure out how these sorts of things happen. And I and I think um you know we talk with town and city clerks all the time who have had frustrations with the way information is transferred between the department of motor vehicles and the election management system for their purposes. And so we already had a a sense that maybe there were some process improvements that we could make. Um, and so we're really thankful for the opportunity and the and the commitment here to uh to iron out some of those wrinkles going forward so that we are not mistakenly registering someone who did not wish to be registered and so that we're getting all the data um correctly from the DMV to our town and city clerks. >> So just regular citizen got in touch. Regular verter >> a regular verter. Yes. >> And sorry I mean citizen and and and when did that person get in touch? when and when did these different things take place, the audit um and then the >> Yep. Great questions. Um it was mid- winter when we were contacted by this Vermonter and we uh we started having conversations and and I I want to give all due respect to the Department of Motor Vehicles because they were in the middle of the you know immediate weeks after having launched their new IT system. And so uh the conversation was a bit slow at first. um and uh and and didn't advance as quickly as it uh has in the past several weeks uh because they were up to their eyeballs in making sure that their uh that their new system deployment was able to be used effectively by all of their frontline staff um and that it was operating as expected. And we have great sympathy for that because we just launched our new election management system uh a year ago and that has been quite a steep learning curve. Um, so when the New Jersey news came out, we decided it was time to do a deeper dive and a and a bigger look because we wanted to make sure that if we had any indication that there was any issue similar to what happened in New Jersey that we were identifying it and taking care of it immediately. Um, and so just want to reiterate that uh the system that we are using is not the same system as New Jersey. the mistakes that were made were uh were not system mistakes. They were not IT system mistakes. These were uh a combination of human error and uh and so correcting it by administratively removing people who didn't wish to be registered to vote seemed like the cleanest thing to do. >> And so when did the audit take place and when were people removed? >> Uh we've been working on the audit numbers for about the last three or four weeks I think. Um, this has been a a careful uh collaboration between us and the agency of digital services and the department of motor vehicles because each of us has our own privacy uh requirements in terms of how we share data and what data we share. And so we had to enter into a a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies with uh with the tech folks at ADS as um as the intermediaries to help us do this analysis. We've gone back with a number of additional questions to probe because it was really important to me that we make sure that we are not removing somebody from the voter registration roles who uh who has been an active voter or or who at one time had said yes but more recently said no. So we we've done a lot of iterations of probing this data to make sure that we are only removing the people who've never showed any uh intention of voting and said no don't register me. >> So were they removed over the course of those several weeks or were they did someone press a button like >> we pressed a button yesterday? >> Yesterday. So everyone was removed yesterday. >> Yes. >> Okay. And so the primary obviously just took place uh well it was a couple months ago but might >> this feels like two years ago. >> Um but uh the you obviously knew about this problem ahead of the primary but you were not able to resolve it before the primary. Was that on your mind? Was it something you were trying to get done before the primary? Are you >> is it concerning that you didn't? Um, >> you know, it's because the primary is not yet a universal votebymail election, although the governor and I both have interest in um in exploring how we can make it a universal voteby mail primary. Uh, the urgency wasn't there. Somebody has to proactively go to request a ballot or to show up on election day in order to vote in the primary. And it feels different to me um when we're doing a universal vote by mail because that is the government sending you a ballot and if you never intended to be registered to vote, we wanted to correct that. >> And the audit went back 25 years. Is that what you said? >> How was that chosen? Was that a a tech issue? >> Um why why did we limit it at 25 years? I don't know. Um, >> why did you choose? I It seems like a long time, but >> yes, >> I I think the the simplest terms and I I'll default to the uh Secretary Denis Riley Hughes on this. Our we can only trace our data back to 2001. So, we don't have uh previous data going back before that. >> Madam Secretary, I understand you guys are excuse me working on the solution uh between both departments, but what could the solution look like here? Does this mean not having voter registration at the DMV anymore? I I mean just where where do we go? >> No, we remain strongly committed to automatic voter registration um because we know that not only is it the best way to ensure that every eligible Vermonter has the opportunity to register to vote, but in fact it is a very critical tool in terms of making sure that our voter roles are as accurate as they can be. If a voter moves from Morrisville to Stow and uh and renews their driver's license, then the Morrisville clerk is going to get a a notification that that person has left the voter roles in Morrisville. If we did not have this automatic touch point to determine when somebody has changed their their physical address, our voter roles would by the very fact of, you know, humans moving uh would be much less accurate. So, we're strongly committed to continuing to have automatic voter registration. And I think the the great opportunity that we have at this point is the mutual commitment to uh to look at the systems and the processes and make sure that you know your average ordinary person who is here to do a department of motor vehicles transaction understands what these other questions ask. And um just as a PSA, if I'm a registered voter and I move to another state, you know, what what should I do in that situation? >> Ideally, before you go or anytime, uh alert your clerk uh in the community that you previously lived in so that they can take you off the voter registration roles. Uh we don't want people to linger on those voter roles um past the time that they've moved. Uh that's part of the reason why statute requires that the board of civil authority meet uh every oddnumbered year to discuss whether they know somebody has moved out of town and uh and can challenge those voters. Uh voters who've been challenged through the BCA process are not part of the automatic vote by mail. Um but they are still on the voter roles and we'd rather that that people took themselves off. The governor alluded to it at the beginning, but the US Supreme Court decision that came down yesterday about the postal service being able to come up with lists of who's going to receive a ballot. I know Vermont is one of 23, I think, states that are in active litigation over this, but for just the average Verter out there, I mean, what would what does this potentially mean for people being able to vote by mail later this this year? >> Yeah. So there were two challenges in process uh with respect to that executive order. One was the challenge from the 23 um uh universal vote by mail states of which Vermont was a part. Uh that was the one that uh that the Supreme Court looked at yesterday and said it wasn't ripe. There's another challenge and another stay on the executive order that was brought by the League of Women Voters on behalf of voters. And I think at the end of the day, the you know, we as universal vote by mail states can talk about the challenges and the added cost and the the impossible timeline of training up all the people who would need to be able to know how to use this weird new system um is one challenge from our perspective. Uh but the deeper and more troubling uh problem with its executive order uh at its very essence is that it purports to allow the federal government to tell the states who's allowed to receive a ballot and that is completely backwards. >> I would also add if I have this right um but the it was determined yesterday the Supreme Court ruled on the standing of the litigants. So that was the narrowness of of this uh this challenge. So it wasn't they weren't weighing in as to whether ballots should be mailed or not b m mailed. It was more about whether they had standing and they determined they did not. So there's still this other other challenge that's uh that's in the works. >> And and we all remember 2020. I mean we lived through that and the president's uh multiple attempts to challenge the election results played out in the courts and the vast vast majority of them failed. I guess I'm just wondering if you look at this ruling, I mean, do you see this maybe as a bellweather about how the conservative court might rule on a future challenge later this year? >> Again, it was very narrow and they just determined that they didn't have standing. I think that's far different than weighing in on the the ballot issue. >> What about voter confusion? I mean, I've got to imagine people reading the court about the court decision are thinking, what's the story? Well, I think I think the president won in that area. Um, he's creating confusion and that's what he wanted to do, I believe. Um, so we'll see where it all goes. Hopefully the Supreme Court will uh rule on the other initiative and that may clear a few things up. We'll see. We'll see what happens. >> On that question of voter confusion and trust in elections, um, I would imagine that there were quite a number of behind the scenes conversations about how even to reveal this at this situation. Um, and I'm wondering if perhaps you both would discuss that. Um, you know, I'm guessing you probably thought it made sense to be as transparent as possible when you could be to to ensure that people have trust in the system, but when people read our stories or see our stories or hear our stories, um, they might just think, "Oh god, another problem in our election systems, um, you know, we can't trust this system." Um, can you kind of walk us through your thinking on how to convey this publicly? >> Well, again, uh, that's going to be up to you. Um but uh but we thought we should hit this right straight on and uh admit uh to uh the the challenges we face in this area rather than trying to sweep it under the carpet. It was more important to verters that they hear the story and that we uh took a proactive approach and I think it's a good news story in some respects uh because we caught it and uh and so we'll continue uh to work to make sure that it's as safe as possible. there's in any system there's going to be errors and when you ask the question about you know should this be federalized and I would say absolutely not uh because these errors will happen no matter who has control of the system and I believe that we uh we do a pretty good job here I mean where else in the country in this day and age of so much polarization and partisanship uh would a would a secretary of state who's a Democrat a governor who's a Republican stand here side by side in front of a podium and talk about this issue uh to to to try and convey to verers that we have this and and admit to some of our shortcomings. Where would that happen other than here? So that should give trust, I believe, to verers that we've we're we're dealing with this head on. We want to make sure that they they understand the issue that we were facing and what we've done about it. >> Yeah. Yeah. No. Um I echo everything that the governor said and and I would just add that it was really important to me that the the thrust of the story that comes out of this is to verters that you have insight into your voter registration and you have the control to either register or withdraw from being registered. Um and the vote.vermont.gov gov is uh is the tool that we provide to voters to be able to do that. So uh we wanted to be sure that we removed uh as many people as we could determine should not have been added to the voter registration roles and then to come out very publicly with this information about how people can see whether they're registered to vote, can update their mailing address, or um or can register for the first time online if they're not there. Um I hope this question makes sense but um there are 900 people who are removed and those are people who um opted out and also took no other steps as I understand it to register some other time before or after that moment. Um presumably that means we're talking about a much larger universe of people who opted out and whose data was sent but you subsequently learned they had registered previously or subsequently. Um how many people uh fit into that category? Like what was the overall number of people who were errantly sent over? Um >> I it was in the range of tens of thousands around 20,000 people I think over time had said no, don't register me to vote. But uh folks should understand that um that that could have included me because I haven't moved in the last 20 years. And so if I go to renew my driver's license, I check no because I'm already on the voter registration roles. Um it could include people who don't want to register to vote because they worry that they'll get called for jury duty. It could be people who don't want to register to vote because they don't care to participate. So, um, we had to look at that, uh, that larger group and whittle down with whatever data points we had between our system and the DMV system to see whether previously they had said yes, registered me to vote because of course I did once upon a time say yes. >> Can anyone be a little more specific about that number? 20 is 20,000 the number. >> Yeah, it's it's around 20,000. >> Yeah. And the 900, I'm sorry if you said this already, but the 900 that were removed, um, have they all been notified they're removed? >> No. >> And why not? >> Um, because this we determined that this was an administrative error that they never, um, asked to be registered to vote. And uh and so we're coming out with this publicly to let all Vermonters know that um people who uh who have never expressed an intent to register to vote, have never had another touch point with their town clerk have been administratively removed. >> We're just going to switch over to the phones. We'll come back. >> Um Keith Wickham, Rutland Herald. >> Uh yeah, was um both of mine were asked already. Um, was AI involved in any of this at any point or do you have any thoughts of maybe using it or not using it in the future? >> I'm going to I'm going to pass that to Secretary Riley who's I don't believe so, but >> actually well, so I do want to just comment on yours on where your heart is. Um, I have never been thanked so many times in one press conference. So, thank you all. uh we did actually leverage um a utility that took advantage of artificial intelligence so that we could correlate hundreds of thousands of records uh with specific intent over the course of the audit. Um this wasn't independent of AI and if you keep a mind on our artificial intelligence code of ethics that we had a human in the loop through the process. The interesting piece is what we were able to do using this was taking DMV information that only DMV has taking Secretary of State's information and not we correlated the two but secretary of state's office only had their own data as it came to the correlation of the two data sets. DMV only had their own data. So the that trust and integrity re retained throughout the course of that audit process. Thank you, >> Tim Vermont. >> Okay, I don't think >> no questions. Thanks, Amanda. >> Thanks, Tim. All right, to the room. >> Um, I just wanted to ask the secretary if you had an update on the uh DOJ's attempts to get access to Vermont's voter data and that ongoing litigation. And I don't know if there'd be any interplay with what we're talking about today with that litigation, but where does that stand? >> Yeah. So, we had our hearing on our motion to dismiss the DOJ lawsuit um back in April. Um we argued on the basis of Vermont law being very clear that we don't share our uh voter registration information with any foreign entity, with anyone for commercial purposes or with the federal government. Um and we are waiting for the judge to make her ruling on our motion to dismiss. There have been 23 other states uh who have gone before us uh who have all prevailed in their motions to dismiss. Um and so we are uh waiting and hoping that uh that that will be the case in our case as well. Um and certainly we'll continue to push back against this notion that the federal government has any standing to demand that information from Vermont. >> Separately, um cyber security has been in the headlines for other varying reasons, but I wanted to ask in terms of cyber security for election integrity in Vermont. How are we tracking cyber security in elections? Are there threats? Uh how is that handled? I'm just trying to get a better insight as to how the state handles cyber security. >> Yes. Um this is another strong collaboration between our office and the agency of digital services. Um we know that they have expertise that our teenytiny agency wouldn't be able to maintain on its own. Um we are doing our best to strengthen all communication lines between um our office and other secretaries of state's offices so that if they're seeing threats, they're sharing them with us. Um we are uh we are in a a state of of constant awareness. Um I I think that it's fair to say that you know your work on cyber security is never done. Uh we're always looking to ensure that our systems are um are remaining safe. I think what Vermonters should understand a little bit with respect to cyber security is that with uh with votabulation and determining who the winner of an election is in Vermont, none of our elections equipment is connected to the internet in any way. It is kept under lock and key with a strict chain of custody at the town clerk's offices and the town clerks test the accuracy of uh of that tabulating equipment before they use it. and then nobody else lays hands on it and it does not uh communicate with uh with the outside world through any uh electronic means. Um, and so we always have paper ballots to go back and look at in the event that that somebody were to think that the tabulators got it wrong, but we do um maintain that very strict chain of custody on the tabulating equipment to ensure that the vote totals that we see on election night are um are accurate and and correspond to the votes that Vermoners have cast. Just to go back to the timeline question again. Um the this um person got in touch last winter. What what what month do we know? >> I don't recall. It was mid- winter. So maybe December, January, February. I I don't I don't there were a few things going on there with respect to our DOJ lawsuit and and other things. So, >> and and if I heard you correctly, which I may not have, um it seems like much of the activity to address this has taken place in the last 3 to four weeks or so. >> I'm a little bit >> I'm not understanding about that great amount of time between when you learned about it and when that activity picked up. Is that because that's when the New Jersey >> when the New Jersey news hit um you know, in the back of my mind I was thinking we have heard of instances. This was a a one-off, but we've heard of other one-off instances where someone was registered and then asked to be removed. And uh when the New Jersey news hit, I I said, you know, now is the time. We've got X number of weeks before we pull the mailing list for the general election uh vote by mail ballots. And I wanted to be sure that we could say with a straight face that we did everything we could to ensure that our voter registration list is as accurate as possible. And >> why not before then? I mean, it Why did it take that to come to that realization? >> Um, I think that that was a real eye openener for a lot of folks to be able to realize that um, you know, geez, if if New Jersey can have a a big issue like that and we're hearing incidents of, you know, one-off uh, mistakes here, maybe we ought to take a a closer look. And and at that point um the Department of Motor Vehicles agreed that that that was the right thing to do and we started the process of uh of coming together with our data as the secretary of ads talked about. >> Governor, just briefly any comment on the bipartisan resolution that was passed last night in Burlington calling on the state to do more to address the situation in town? Yeah, I I don't want to get into off topic, but I the one thing I will say is um haven't read it completely. I was disappointed when I just did a brief scan of it. Um because we've done a lot for Burlington and if I was sitting in Newport, I might wonder what more can we do for the one of the most affluent areas of the the of the state uh when they're suffering in other areas as well. So, I'll take a look at it and uh we'll take it up at a future press conference. >> Thank you all very much.