By Peter Eisler

(Reuters] – Vermont lawmakers are considering legislation to ease the prosecution of people who try to threaten electoral officials. Proposed legislation in Maine would increase penalties for intimidation. State senators in Washington voted to make the threat of election workers a crime this month.

The measures follow a Reuters series of investigative reports documenting a nationwide wave of threats and harassment against election administrators by Donald Trump supporters who embrace the former president’s false voting-fraud claims. All three states’ sponsors and supporters have cited Reuters reports as a reason for recommending tougher enforcement.

Washington state Senator David Frockt, a Seattle Democrat, said the reports “gave us more evidence” to build support for legislation to hold accountable those who threaten election officials.

In Maine, a bill authored by Democratic state Representative Bruce White would enhance penalties for anyone who “intentionally interferes by force, violence or intimidation” with election administration. The testimony of Secretary Shenna Bellows supporting the bill cited the Reuters report.

“This is unacceptable,” she said, noting that two municipal clerks in Maine were threatened with violence.

In all, Reuters documented more than 850 threats and hostile messages https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/THREATS/mopanwmlkva to U.S. election officials and workers. Nearly all the communications echoed Trump’s baseless claims that he lost the 2020 election because of fraud. According to attorneys and law professors who examined them, more than 100 threats might have met the threshold that would allow for criminal prosecution.

Prosecutions in such cases have been rare https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-law-enforcement. But on Friday, a U.S. Department of Justice task force on election threats announced its first indictment https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-charges-texas-man-threatening-georgia-government-officials-2022-01-21, charging a Texas man for posting online threats against three officials in Georgia https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-threats-georgia-exclusiv-idCAKBN2IP0VZ. An assistant attorney general said the case is among “dozens” being investigated by the task force, which was formed shortly after Reuters in June published the first in the series https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-georgia-threats of reports on election-related threats.

In Vermont, menacing voicemails to Secretary of State Jim Condos and his staff – and a decision by police and prosecutors not to seek charges – spurred lawmakers to reconsider state laws that enshrine some of America’s oldest and strongest free-speech protections. This month, two measures were introduced to make it easier for suspects to be charged with criminal threats.

A first round of hostile emails were left by an unidentified male shortly after Condos’ 2020 victory. The same man then left voicemails threatening Condos’ office and his staff last fall. Two Reuters journalists had also been interviewed about the threats.

“Justice is coming,” the man warned in an October message. “All you dirty c‑‑‑suckers are about to get f‑‑‑ing popped. I f‑‑‑ing guarantee it.”

Condos claimed in an interview that the threatened caller was unlikely to face consequences. Police and prosecutors already had reviewed the caller’s earlier messages and decided they were protected speech.

Condos was frustrated and wrote to half a dozen lawmakers, asking them to look into legislation that would align state law with federal statutes, as well as to establish a more clear standard of prosecution.

“These voicemails do cross the line,” Condos wrote in an October 27 email to lawmakers, which was reviewed by Reuters.

Officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation considered these threats to be serious enough to warrant an investigation. Two local police officers confirmed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened an investigation into the threat to October after Reuters inquired Vermont officials.

Condos stated that Condos sent the email because he was concerned about the possibility of intimidation turning into violence. “It also was recognizing the world we are in,” he said, “and understanding we had to do something.”

Public calls for stronger legislation in Vermont emerged after Reuters published the October threats in a Nov. 9 story https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats along with details of the caller’s earlier messages. State authorities declined to pursue the case, saying the anonymous calls amounted to protected speech and were “essentially untraceable.” Reuters journalists, however, were able to contact and interview the man, who admitted to making the threats but declined to identify himself. The man said that he was sure he did nothing wrong.

The week after the Reuters report, Vermont Governor Phil Scott, a Republican, and state Senator Richard Sears, a Democrat, told reporters https://www.benningtonbanner.com/local-news/scott-will-consider-legislation-to-protect-election-workers/article_a4f7a134-4672-11ec-b04c-67156aea69cf.html that they would consider changes to state laws governing criminal threats.

New legislation was also advocated by newspaper editorials. “This case makes it clear that Vermont law needs to change,” the Manchester Journal said in a Nov. 11 editorial https://www.manchesterjournal.com/opinion/editorials/our-opinion-protecting-election-workers-protects-the-democracy/article_0d50e134-7aad-5c63-a00a-979ec69a4b6a.html, referring to the threats reported by Reuters against Condos and his staff.

THREATS VS. Free Speech

The bills in Vermont and other states wouldn’t alter the free-speech protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution to all Americans. The Vermont bill’s supporters claim that the intention is to align state laws with federal standards. This makes it simpler to prosecute violence threats.

Vermont’s bills will sharpen the definition and eliminate several obstacles to prosecution. These include the requirement that the threat have to target an individual, and the additional burden to prove the suspect is capable of carrying out threatened violence. A second measure would increase the penalties for public officials who make threats.

“This is about not tying our hands” with statutes that are “too narrow or unduly restrictive,” says Rory Thibault, a state’s attorney who advised lawmakers in crafting the legislation.

It is not easy to strike that delicate balance in Vermont. Vermont codified its extensive free speech protections almost 250 years ago. This was more than a decade prior the U.S. Constitution.

In 1777, the independent Vermont Republic enacted a constitution that guaranteed “a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments” – language that remains in the state’s constitution today. In 1798, one of the state’s first members of Congress, Matthew Lyon, was re-elected while jailed under the Sedition Act for criticism of President John Adams, whom Lyon had described as having “an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp.”

Several years ago, state legislators tried to make criminal threats easier to pursue. However, it was rejected by the legislature amid fears that it would infringe speech rights. Like many other states, Vermont is currently battling violent anti-government sentiment, white nationalalism, and extreme political speech, which has strained its freedom-of-speech tradition.

In 2018, Vermont’s Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member on two counts of disturbing the peace. Two women (one Black, and one Hispanic) were targeted by pro-Klan flyers that the defendant placed on their cars. According to Vermont law, the court found that the flyers were protected speech.

Bennington, a town in Black America, paid $137.500 for the services of a legislator. The municipality also apologized to publically that it failed to adequately respond to racist harassment by an unidentified white nationalist. In 2018, Kiah Morris was elected as a legislator.

Proponents of the criminal-threats bill have not seen significant public opposition to it so far. However, they expect this will change after hearings open. American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont indicated that they are monitoring the bills and have not made a decision.

Sears (who is also the chairman of the Judiciary Committee) plans hearings about this legislation in March. Passing the legislation wouldn’t ensure that people threatening public officials will go to jail, said Sears, who sponsored one of the bills. “But we know that if we don’t make these changes, there’s no chance anything will happen.”