After weeks of uncertainty, a bill that would prohibit the use of LGBTQ “panic” defenses in court has garnered enough votes to make it to the floor of the Vermont Senate.
The legislation, H.128, would prevent a defendant from justifying violent actions by citing a victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Such defenses have been used with success to excuse assaults on — and even the murder of — LGBTQ people.
The Vermont House passed the bill last month on a vote of 144-1, but it then hit turbulence in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Multiple committee members expressed reservations about the legislation and one drew fire on social media for using a racist trope to explain her opposition.
Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, and Sen. Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden — the chair and vice chair of the five-member panel — have consistently supported the bill. But until Wednesday, it lacked a third vote to make it out of committee and onto the Senate floor.
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, who previously opposed the bill, ended the suspense at the end of a committee meeting Wednesday morning by saying he would support it. A vote is now scheduled for Thursday.
Benning, a defense attorney, had initially expressed reservations about limiting legal arguments available to defendants. But, he said Wednesday, he is now looking at the matter through a different lens.
“The bill overall is making a political statement, and as a politician, not a defense attorney, I do feel the time is right to make a political statement,” he told his colleagues. “I’m probably coming out in favor of the bill itself.”
The remaining members of the committee — Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, and Sen. Alice Nitka, D-Windsor — did not indicate Wednesday how they plan to vote.
White was conspicuously silent in committee after setting off a social media firestorm earlier this month over the way she framed earlier objections to the bill.
During an April 2 hearing, White tried to explain that she, like Benning, was not in favor of limiting the type of information an attorney could use to defend a client. She argued that judges and juries could be trusted to take in all the information in a case and make the right decision about an individual’s guilt.
To make her point, the 77-year-old caucasian state senator employed a troubling example.
“What if I’m the nice little white woman, and I get attacked by or I think I’m getting not attacked, but a Black man is coming on to me and I say, it just made me so nervous that I had to shoot him?” White said before stumbling on.
“I mean, shouldn’t we, or, a guy from — with a motorcycle jacket on was coming on to me, so I’m so afraid of motorcycle people because I know about the Hell’s Angels, so I had to shoot him. I mean aren’t we going down some kind of a slippery path here,” she added.
By April 8, White’s comments drew the attention of Michael Harriot, a senior writer for The Root, an online magazine serving the Black community.
“I need to speak to the black men (especially if you own a motorcycle or a leather jacket),” Harriot wrote on Twitter. “I know it’s gonna be hard, but can you vow not to ‘come on’ to ‘nice, white’ Vt. Sen. Jeanette White? She’ll vote against shooting trans people if we promise.”
Harriot’s words have received more than 100 retweets and 446 likes, while an accompanying 40-second video clip featuring White’s comments has garnered more than 40,000 views.
Last Friday, White issued an apology of sorts at the start of a judiciary committee meeting.
“Over the past few days, I’ve received numerous emails and phone messages, some of them pretty vitriolic, accusing me of being racist, homophobic and in general not a good person,” White said. “First, let me apologize to anyone I offended for anything I said. My comments and questions were not meant to be hurtful, nor offensive.”
“I believe what I was trying to wrap my head around was — whether we should — why should a prohibition on panic defense shouldn’t be broadened to include more than just gender. That’s what I was trying to wrap my head around by that example,” she said.
Sears then defended his colleague, while also blaming legislative live-streaming for the dustup.
“I don’t think there’s any one of us who haven’t said things that can be misconstrued, and it’s unfortunate that in this kind of setting where we’re on YouTube where something can be taken and immediately question somebody’s motivations,” Sears said.
White did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon.
The legislation has now drawn controversy in both chambers of the Legislature.
The day before the House voted overwhelmingly to pass the proposal last month, Rep. Paul Martin, R-Franklin, privately admonished members of the Republican caucus who opposed the bill.
Three members of the GOP had voted against the legislation when it was up for preliminary approval, and Martin — a first term lawmaker — emailed his Republican colleagues to let them know he was disturbed by the outcome.
“I just wanted it to be known that I am absolutely disgusted with the nay votes on H.128,” Martin wrote in the email. “As a member of the LGBT community, I feel you voted in favor of someone using the excuse of me being gay to kill me.”
