Politics

Ashe lays out where he plans to focus his influence

Tim Ashe
Tim Ashe gives a speech last week after being sworn in as Senate president pro tem. File photo by Anne Galloway/VTDigger
The head of the Vermont Senate said Tuesday he was not prepared to throw his political weight behind a controversial measure to require background checks on most gun sales in the state.

President Pro Tem Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden, said the measure had caused a division within the Democratic Party caucus. Even though he supports the idea, Ashe said he wanted to poll all the party members before deciding whether to use the power of his office to advance the measure.

“At this time I’m not going to use this office to force that issue if a majority of the Senate isn’t ready to move forward with it,” said Ashe. Sen. Philip Baruth, D-Chittenden, has sponsored legislation requiring background checks for essentially all sales, whether by a licensed dealer or a private individual. At the Statehouse on Tuesday, gun control supporters held a rally.

Ashe said the Senate Judiciary Committee would take up the bill and that a majority of its members still oppose it. Ashe was on the panel when the proposal came up before and failed to advance on a vote of 3 to 2.

The Senate leader warned of going against a committee recommendation, which he said he could recall happening only twice, including on the “death with dignity” legislation that ultimately passed in 2013 after several failed attempts.

To go against the majority within a committee, Ashe said, would essentially undermine the committee process.

“What’s the point of having committees if their majority position doesn’t matter anymore? I’m saying that as a general rule,” Ashe told reporters at a briefing in his office.

Ashe said he wanted to talk to all of the senators and “will get more guidance” from the Democratic and Republican Party members, “and at that point I’m happy to come back to this question.”

The Senate leader also addressed whether the cleanup of Lake Champlain could be accomplished without raising taxes or fees, as Gov. Phil Scott has declared. Ashe said costs for the cleanup would have to be far below the current estimates, $68 million a year for 20 years, to be done within “existing resources,” as the governor has pledged.

Ashe said the goal of the Senate would be to essentially find the sweet spot between the least amount that could be spent while also being effective at reducing phosphorus in the lake.

Ashe warned it was imperative that if any new revenue source produces measurable results within years, the public must continue supporting it. He noted the administration of former Gov. Jim Douglas spent as much as $100 million on lake pollution efforts without measureable reductions in phosphorus levels.

Ashe also said some $50 million in pollution money the state receives annually from the federal government could be in jeopardy with the election of Republican Donald Trump.

The Senate leader said he would ask committees to focus on bills that could help bridge the economic divide between the “two Vermonts” — the more prosperous Chittenden County and economically depressed rural areas.

Ashe also said he would push for additional efforts to combat the opiate addiction problem and to help reduce the number of mental health patients waiting in emergency rooms for psychiatric beds.

If you read us, please support us.

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer.

We moderate every comment. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

Mark Johnson

Recent Stories

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Ashe lays out where he plans to focus his influence"
  • robert bristow-johnson

    “What’s the point of having committees if their majority position doesn’t matter anymore? I’m saying that as a general rule,”

    Well, Tim, the point of having committees is to distribute the workload of exploring and investigating proposed legislation. To allow a little “specialization”. But the point of having committees is not to eclipse or usurp the will of the citizens of the state as expressed by their elected officials.

    Committees should consider legislation before the legislative bodies and report to those legislative bodies (as well as to the constituents). Committees have a lot of power in filtering out poorly-conceived proposed bills (and reporting that) and in rejecting better conceived legislation that just doesn’t meet with the committee majority’s preference.

    But I would ask: “What’s the point of having a legislature voting on legislation at all, if the committee’s decision should always eclipse the will of the legislature?”

  • robert bristow-johnson

    However Sen. Pro Tem, “help[ing] bridge the economic divide between the ‘two Vermonts’ ” is extremely salient. It’s what we need to do throughout the nation and, in fact, throughout the world.

    No better place to start doing something good than at home.

    Dunno how to do it, but it’s a concern legislators should not forget.

  • chris halpin

    We now look to our State and local representatives to respond to the People.

  • Gary Murdock

    A lofty goal, but impossible given the number of reps Chittenden Cty. sends to the capital. Redistricting and increasing the population represented per rep, limited to Chittenden Cty. to cut the reps they send by half would be a good first step. Or I could really dream and suggest moving the N.Y. state line from the middle of the lake to encircle the county, that would work to!

    • Michael Badamo

      Obviously unconstitutional. One person, one vote.

      • Todd Morris

        Just like at the national level it is unhealthy for a society when a few large urban areas carry outsized political weight as compared to the many more rural areas. The experiences, lifestyles and needs of rural areas is vastly different than in the urban areas. I believe it would be better to give each county 2 senators. Then alliances and compromise would be in vogue

        • John Zuppa

          Thanks Todd….I keep trying to point this out…BUT…I have found that very few Vermonters realize that the Vermont Senate is not equally representative (of the small counties) like the US Senate is of the small states…

          Where would Vermont be if the US Senate was also population based…???

  • If Senator Ashe is serious about easing the geographic economic divide in Vt, a place to start is an analysis of where the State spends its money and whether it could spread it about differently without sacrificing service or violating constitutional rights .