The House has advanced a reform package aimed at keeping people out of prison and reducing recidivism with one lone vote opposed.
S.338, known as Justice Reinvestment II, passed second reading Wednesday afternoon in the House by a vote of 135 to 1.
Several changes have been made to the bill, which still needs final approval in the House, since an earlier version passed the Senate with no opposition earlier this year. Lawmakers in both chambers are already preparing to reconcile the differences between the two.
“We’ll have discussions with the Senate on the changes we’ve made,” Rep. Butch Shaw, R-Pittsford and vice chair of the House Corrections and Insitutions Committtee, said during his presentation Wednesday of the legislation. “I’m sure they’ll want to talk to us, too.”
There apparently is no public record of who cast the only vote of dissent on the legislation Wednesday from the virtual House floor. While William MaGill, the clerk of the Vermont House, shared the tally with members after the virtual voting had been completed, a roll call wasn’t requested.
When the House convenes in person, the exact tally for a voice vote is not recorded, as representatives respond either in favor or against the bill en masse. Representatives’ individual votes are only recorded when a member requests the vote be taken by roll call. But technology the chamber is using as they convene remotely during the Covid-19 crisis allows for a precise count — though, according to the speaker of the House, that doesn’t mean the chamber tracks the votes of each member.
“It was officially a voice vote,” House Speaker Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, wrote in a later email to VTDigger in response to the question of who voted against the measure, “so that is not recorded.”
The bill earlier this month sailed through the House Corrections and Institutions Committee. The legislation includes measures aimed at streamlining the state’s Department of Corrections furlough system and adds an earned good time provision of seven days a month for those serving prison sentences.
The legislation also establishes “presumptive” parole for most inmates, releasing them when they have served their minimum prison sentences. Those convicted of the most violent crimes would not be eligible.
The bill calls for several reports to be produced, including one by a study panel to “identify existing data that explores the relationships between demographic factors and sentencing outcomes.” That group is also asked to study how sentencing patterns across Vermont may exacerbate racial disparities and make recommendations for legislative action.
Rep. Kevin “Coach” Christie, D-Hartford and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which also worked on the legislation, said the collection of data regarding racial disparities in the criminal justice system is “critical.”
Christie, who is one of the few black lawmakers in Vermont, told his fellow lawmakers that while Vermont’s population is about 1.4% people of color, the percentage of the prison population who are people of color in the state is many times that.
“That’s very telling,” Christie said. “So for us to identify that disparities are there and it is important for us to do everything we can to remediate speaks volumes about our work.”
The legislation follows months of work from a group made up of lawmakers, state officials, and advocates with assistance from the Council of State Governments.
In the majority of cases when someone who is out of prison on furlough is sent back behind bars in Vermont, the reason is not a new crime or criminal actions, according to research from the Council on State Governments.
In tracking furlough violations in 2019 the council found that 77% of the people readmitted to prison committed technical violations, such as the loss of housing, use of drugs and alcohol, violation of curfews, or “program or work failures.”
During House discussion of the bill, lawmakers removed a one-time $2 million appropriation included in the bill that had been offered to increase support for people transitioning from prison to the community. That investment in those services is projected to lower future costs by reducing recidivism resulting in the incarceration of fewer people.
Rep. Mary Hooper, D-Montpelier and vice chair of the House Appropriations Committee, presented an amendment to the bill Wednesday, which passed, removing the $2 million.
A source for that funding still needs to be found, she said, as budget-writing lawmakers also deal with massive budget gaps resulting from the coronavirus pandemic.
Hooper said the move will allow the two chambers to iron out the policy differences in the legislation without having to slow down the process as work continues on where the money would be found.
“It is our expectation that when we see the bill again we will have figured out a way to fund the excellent investments that it makes in the community,” Hooper said.
The bill follows Justice Reinvestment I legislation passed more than a decade ago in Vermont.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a video meeting earlier Wednesday morning on the legislation, with Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington and panel chair, seeking ways to resolve the differences between the two chambers without sending the bill to a conference committee.
Committee members also acknowledged the limited time before the Legislature adjourns and then comes back for a summer budget session.
“If we run into a conflict with the House, we’re out of time,” Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia and a Senate Judiciary Committee member, said during the meeting. “Does the whole project go down the tubes? I don’t want to go there.”
Among the differences between the bills that passed the two chambers is a provision approved in the Senate that allowed for people on probation to earn a day credit off their minimum sentence for each day they are on probation.
That measure was removed from the House version after an association of state’s attorneys objected, contending, in part, that it could lead to increases in sentences to allow for time for a person to complete programming that may be included as part of a resolution of a case.
Also, the House version did away with a provision in the Senate version that allowed for “compassionate parole” eligibility for prisoners 65 and older, who are not serving a life without parole sentence and have served five years, and have completed their minimum sentence term.
Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham and a Senate Judiciary Committee member, spoke out strongly in favor of the need for the compassionate parole provision for older inmates.
The Senate committee took no action Wednesday.
Sears said he intends to ask James Baker, interim commissioner of the Department of Corrections, to testify on concerns he has raised over a new court review process for appeals by inmates of department decisions when revoking furlough and sending a prisoner back to jail for more than 30 days.
That testimony is expected next week.
