[T]he strategy for Democratic lawmakers in 2019 seemed simple.
Fresh off of an election in November that strengthened the party’s grip on the House chamber, Democrats appeared poised to enact party priorities, despite resistance from the Republican governor.
With 93 blue seats, and a group of Independents and Progressives likely to vote with them on key issues, the party had gained a “supermajority:” the 100 votes needed to override a governor’s veto.
This could allow them to push through their priorities, like a paid family leave program and a $15 minimum wage. They thought their overwhelming numbers would also pressure the governor to come to the table and negotiate with them on policy earlier in the session.
But as the session unfolded, it became clear Gov. Phil Scott wasn’t the only one who Democrats would need to pressure. In the remaining three weeks of the session, another hard fight for Speaker of the House Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, and party leaders will be to rein in members of their own caucus.
Some Democrats are concerned raising the wage to $15 per hour by 2024 could burden small businesses and Medicaid funding. Others say the House’s paid family leave program, which passed earlier this month in a vote of 92-52, is too costly, and should not be funded by a mandatory payroll tax.
For Democratic party leaders, opposition within the caucus means they can’t win on numbers alone. Instead they will have to win over moderate members, or find compromise with the governor if they want to see their priorities become law this year.
If Democrats aren’t able to reach an agreement with the governor on paid leave, and he vetoes the measure, the party would need to flip at least two votes for the bill to become law.
And while the minimum wage bill (S.23) has not yet gone to the House floor, its outlook could be even more grim for Democrats. Last year’s vote on the $15 minimum wage in the House was narrow: it passed 76-69, with eight Democrats voting against the proposal.
The governor’s chief of staff, Jason Gibbs, has said if the minimum wage proposal that reaches the governor’s desk resembles last year’s plan, lawmakers “can expect a similar outcome.” The current legislation is identical to the bill Scott vetoed.
This year, while the minimum wage legislation will see broad support among party members, political observers still expect there will be a sizeable block of Democrats who oppose the measure, and would likely prevent it from overcoming a veto.
“I think there’s enough moderate Democrats from rural constituencies who aren’t convinced of the merits of $15 right now,” said Eric Davis, professor emeritus of political science at Middlebury College.
Davis estimates there are about 10 Democrats who will vote against the minimum wage, and some lobbyists tracking the proposal say that number could be closer to 20.
“They’re not beating a veto,” one Democratic Party insider said of the prospects of the minimum wage bill. “I would be stunned if they actually bring it up for an override vote.”
House Majority Leader Jill Krowinski, D-Burlington, disputes the idea that caucus is divided and calls it “premature” to project the result of a veto override vote.
Krowinski said the caucus does not want the minimum wage proposal to fail, and that members are working to ensure it is enacted.
“There is still time for the committees to look to see if there are any possible solutions to make the bill better and get more support,” she said.
Knowing there is opposition to the measure in the House Democratic caucus and in the governor’s office, Democratic leaders in the Senate say they are willing to compromise on the details of the minimum wage bill if it means an increase becomes law this year.
Speaking for the Democratic caucus, Senate Majority Leader Becca Balint, D-Windham, said the legislative body wants a $15 wage. But senators could be open to a slightly lower wage increase, or a longer phase-in of the increase, to get something done this year.
“What we want is 15 and we are working with the House and we are saying we need to get Vermonters a wage increase — period. It has to happen,” Balint said.
“We have to be flexible because we’ve been through this already,” she said. “We went through an entire session, no increase for Vermonters, don’t want to be there again.”
Meanwhile, in the House, one possible compromise has already been shot down.
As minimum wage was still being debated in the House Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs, Rep. Matt Birong, D-Vergennes, put forward an amendment that might have appeased the governor, assuaged concerns from moderates, and given Vermonters a raise.
Under his amendment, the $15 minimum wage increase would be rolled out over seven years instead of five. Birong said that if the House doesn’t find a compromise, like the one he offered, “we have a veto and no override votes.”
Many Democrats believe there’s still ample time to build the consensus needed for the minimum wage and paid family leave legislation to become law, and find possible compromise with the Scott administration.
“I don’t think you’ve seen people pull all the tricks out of their hat yet,” said Shap Smith, a former Democratic speaker of the House. “I’m cautiously optimistic that there are ways to find compromise on a number of these issues.”
Those who are concerned with the paid family leave program (H.107) passed by the House say it ends up burdening the low- and middle-income Vermonters it aims to help by relying on a mandatory tax.
“I voted against it because there was not the right balance between the benefits and the costs that were imposed on the workers and employers,” said Rep. Linda Joy Sullivan, D-Dorset, one of the moderate Democrats who voted against the legislation.
The governor, who also opposes the House bill, proposed his own voluntary paid leave plan earlier this session. But Democrats say that requiring universal participation makes paid leave more affordable and accessible.
If the Legislature and the governor fail to compromise on paid leave, it could mean the only way the program becomes law is through a veto override.
Smith, who himself led two successful override votes, said “it’s not impossible but it’s not easy” for the House to muster a successful override on the proposal, even though Democrats may only need to flip two votes. Getting representatives to change their minds on key pieces of legislation can be difficult, the former Morrisville representative said.
“It is reasonable to think that it is an outcome that can happen,” Smith said. “But the challenge is different people have individual reasons that they didn’t vote for bills and sometimes it’s very hard to overcome those individual reasons for voting against the bill.”
Former Republican Gov. Jim Douglas said if it comes to overriding a veto, Democrats who do not support the bills will be pressured to change their votes by leadership. But it’s far from certain this strong-arm tactic will work.
“I think there are some that are pretty independent and I’m not sure if they will be persuaded by that and they may feel more allegiance to constituents than their party leaders,” Douglas said.
Unlike last year, Scott has taken a more measured approach with lawmakers, and has not publicly threatened to veto Democratic legislation. Instead, the governor has repeatedly called for compromise.
Throughout the session, Democrats have echoed the governor’s tone. However, time is running short on finding agreement on major economic priorities.
At the same time, Scott and House Democrats could be close to their first legislative compromise on another key bill.
On Friday, the governor held a closed-door meeting with Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee to discuss a possible path forward on a bill (S.54) that would legalize recreational marijuana sales.
The governor and some Democrats have been at odds over the controversial roadside saliva test, which Scott says is necessary if Vermont goes ahead with a legal marijuana market.
One Democratic lawmaker in the meeting, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the matter, said the governor and Democrats both signaled they are open to compromise on saliva testing and will be continuing the dialogue.
Douglas, the former governor, said that with Scott taking a more “conciliatory” approach this year, Democrats may be pressured to meet him at the negotiating table on major policy questions.
“If he is reaching across the aisle to try to find some common ground on a bipartisan basis, they don’t look good if they are just pushing back for purely political reasons,” Douglas said. “So I think they are looking to work with the governor.”