[T]he Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union distributed a survey to state’s attorneys candidates last month hoping to increase accountability for some of the most powerful, but least known, politicians in the state.
Instead it got a “collective” response from more than half of the incumbents, and no response at all from two of them, undermining the effort to give voters greater insight into the individual policy positions of their elected county prosecutors, the ACLU said.
The state’s attorney’s association said the group response was issued to time constraints and the “presumptive” nature of some of the questions, but that it still felt it met the goal of making the candidates’ positions known.
“All of the candidates were asked to respond to a voters’ education survey in their own words, stating their personal views on issues of critical importance to Vermont,” James Duff Lyall, executive director of the Vermont ACLU, said this week.
Eight of the 14 incumbent county prosecutors submitted a “collective” response, and four other incumbents used large parts of that “collective” response in their submissions.
“It’s unfortunate that more candidates didn’t respond in their own words and we hope that they’ll reconsider and provide their constituents with more personalized information,” Lyall said. “Vermonters deserve to know what these candidates’ views are before they go to the ballot boxes.”
Four candidates, two incumbents and two challengers, did not respond to the survey questions at all, according the ACLU.
A state’s attorney is elected for a four-year term in each of the state’s 14 counties. The position pays about about $110,000 a year.
The ACLU provided the candidates for state’s attorney across Vermont the 20-survey question, posting the response on its website this week. The survey questions sought candidates’ views on a range of topics, including bail, sentencing, transparency and accountability by law enforcement.
The “collective” response to the survey was submitted by the state’s Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs Association, with eight incumbent state’s attorneys signing on.
“Thank you for inviting the Vermont State’s Attorneys to participate in the ACLU Survey,” the submission reads. “In response, several of the State’s Attorneys have responded independently to your survey, and others are choosing to submit this collaboratively-authored response to your survey.”
Those incumbent state’s attorney signing on to those “collective” survey answers are:
Jennifer Barrett (Orleans), Lisa Warren (Caledonia), Douglas DiSabito (Grand Isle), Will Porter, (Orange), Tracy Kelly Shriver (Windham), Jim Hughes (Franklin), Sarah George (Chittenden) and Paul Finnerty (Lamoille).
John Campbell, executive director of the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs Association, said the process of drafting the “collective” answers still allowed the incumbents clarify their positions on the issues.
“The attorneys thought by providing what they considered to be collectively the major policies of the offices, that this was in fact addressing the issues the ACLU wanted to touch upon,” Campbell said.
He said that was partly due to the time required to the answer all the questions as well as the “presumptive” nature of many of the questions that led several of the incumbent state’s attorneys to work together on it.
For example, he cited the following survey question:
“In assessing sentencing options, would you consider alternatives to the Field Supervision Unit (F.S.U.) form of post-release supervision that do more to reduce re-incarceration rates for technical violations? Please give a clear “Yes” or “No” and any explanation.”
Campbell said that question “presumes” that people are getting violated on “technical” or “minor” violations.
“They didn’t ask what is your policy regarding this, it didn’t ask how many of these cases do you actually take,” he said. “It assumes that we take, or prosecutors take, every violation that is submitted to them and prosecute it, so I think that one is unfair.”
Campbell added that when it came to questions regarding sentencing defendants, prosecutors only recommend sentences to the court, and it is the judge who actually hands them down.
One of the questions asked the candidates if they would commit to speaking out in support of legislation to reduce incarceration even if the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs supported the measure.
“Please give a clear ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and any explanation,” the question reads.
In the collective answer, the candidates speak of their indepence.
“This question cannot be answered with a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ because the premise is false,” according to the response.
“The Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs has a long history of supporting criminal justice reform and alternative justice programs, including: extending family court jurisdiction to 18 and 19-year olds; expanding expungement eligibility and automating the process; reducing pre-trial detention; and sentencing reform.”
The response adds, “Each State’s Attorney, as an independently elected official, can determine his/her own position on any legislative proposal; and reducing incarceration, when appropriate, is a position that the State’s Attorneys and Department support.”
For the most part, the incumbents for the state’s attorneys position in each county are facing little challenge.
Sparse competition
There are three contested primaries, in Bennington, Essex and Lamoille counties, and at least three contested general election races, with races in Addison, Lamoille and Orleans counties.
“We often say that state’s attorneys are the most powerful politician you’ve never heard of,” Lyall said in announcing the survey of candidates for state’s attorneys in June.
“If we’re going to build a smarter, fairer system of justice in this state, that has to change,” he added. “Every day, state’s attorneys make life-altering decisions in the name of their constituents, and Vermont voters have a right to know if those decisions reflect their priorities and their values.”
The initiative is part of a nationwide ACLU advocacy effort aimed at criminal justice reforms called Campaign for Smart Justice.
Among those listed as not responding the survey are incumbents David Cahill, the Windsor County state’s attorney, and Vince Illuzzi, the Essex County state’s attorney.
Illuzzi said that he intended to sign onto the “collective” responses submitted by many of his colleagues from other counties. He said at the annual meeting the state’s attorneys in June “a consensus” of the prosecutors agreed that the department would respond on behalf of the state’s attorneys.
“I thought we were all doing that,” he said. “I didn’t want to upset the apple cart, I thought it made some sense. Although we’re all individuals, we tend to agree on the substantive issues.”
Asked if he thought voters in his county would have benefited from him answering the questions himself, he replied that he believed people knew where he stood on the issues.
“I think I keep in pretty close touch with my county,” he said.
His opponent, St. Johnsbury attorney Amy Davis, responded to the survey with a one-paragraph submission stating her top priorities include bringing “closure to victims of violent crimes, provide children with safe and stable homes, and combat the opioid epidemic by focusing on both treatment and prevention.”
David Cahill, Windsor County state’s attorney, also is listed by the ACLU as having declined to respond the survey.
Reached Tuesday, Cahill provided a three-paragraph response he submitted to the ACLU survey questions, saying that he was “struggling with the survey’s requirement of a binary yes or no answer to many questions where the most accurate answer would be ‘It depends upon the facts of the case. Let me explain….’”
He added, ‘For this reason, I am unable to provide you with a completed survey.”
Cahill cited the survey’s instructions, which read in part, “Where neither ‘Yes’ nor ‘No’ is selected, or if you choose not to complete this survey, we will indicate in the Voter Guide that no response was received.”
Lyall said this week that he had a different reading of the instructions, and said the organization did post answers from candidates in which neither “yes” nor “no” was selected.
And, in one case, a candidate started off an answer, “Yes and no.”
Lyall said if Cahill still wanted to submit a survey, the ACLU would be happy to post it, even if a “yes,” or a “no” were not selected for each answer.
Cahill said it’s something he’ll consider, but is still leaning against it.
The Windsor County prosecutor said he prefers to stand on his record, rather than a single voter guide. He listed off the numerous news organizations who have reported on cases in that county over the years.
“I would prefer to be judged by my deeds,” he said.
The survey can be found here on the ACLU of Vermont website.