Final Reading: Prop 2

Members of the press observe the House of Representatives from the chamber’s balcony on the opening day of the Legislature at the Statehouse in Montpelier on Jan. 4. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger

Republicans and Democrats on the House Committee on Government Operations expect a proposed constitutional amendment removing references to slavery and indentured servitude to sail to the House floor next week.

But that doesn’t mean lawmakers are done grappling with some big questions about the implications of the measure, called Proposition 2. At a meeting of the committee Tuesday morning, they wondered: Would this revision have real-world effects, beyond making a statement on Vermont’s values? Are there downstream legal impacts they have yet to consider?

“Is there anybody today that points to that language and says that it’s OK, that slavery’s OK, or forced indenturetude is OK? Can anybody give me an example of that?” asked Rep. Rob LaClair, R-Barre Town. “I know this is gonna go through, and I’m not advocating that it shouldn’t.”

Rep. Sarah Copeland Hanzas, D-Bradford, who chairs the committee, recounted prior testimony the panel heard suggesting that when incarcerated people are required to work, paid little and generate profit for others, it equates to a form of slavery.

“And I guess when you look at it, just purely on the surface, I agree with that,” Copeland Hanzas said at the committee meeting. “I agree that somebody who is not paid a fair wage, is required to work as a person who is incarcerated, and for whom profit is made off of that labor, is not fair. And should be prohibited.”

“I respect the opinion, but I very much disagree,” LaClair said.

At other points in the meeting, lawmakers raised questions about other kinds of labor with unconventional pay. What about apprenticeship programs, or farmworkers who are compensated, in part, with housing?

In an interview later Thursday, Copeland Hanzas described the committee’s discussion as “a group of citizen legislators who are just trying to wrap their brains around what expressions of unpaid work look like in the current economy.”

The Department of Corrections is not under her committee’s jurisdiction, and she didn’t have enough information to comment specifically on Vermont prisons, she said.

LaClair, in an interview, said he was “a little surprised and a little disappointed that something that could have been, arguably, so pure and so specific, is now getting very diluted with things that are, I would deem, very, very controversial.”

“When I hear that people are equating that, slavery, to people that are incarcerated, and that have duties and responsibilities assigned to them, personally, I totally disagree with that,” LaClair said.

— Riley Robinson

IN THE KNOW

The House is back at the Statehouse in a hybrid format, but senators are in no hurry to head into the building. The Senate Rules Committee voted 5-0 in a brief meeting on Thursday to keep the upper chamber’s all-virtual status quo in place for at least two more weeks.

— Lola Duffort

The Vermont House gave preliminary but unanimous approval on Thursday to a $358 million package that spends tens of millions of dollars on housing and one-time bonuses for frontline workers, and funds a one-time payment required to seal the deal on a tentative plan for pension reform.

The budget adjustment act is usually a sleepy affair, passed in the opening weeks of the Legislative session, that makes minor tweaks to the current year’s annual budget. Larger policy debates are reserved for the budget — or the Big Bill — which gets hashed out in the waning days of the session.

But with the state flush with federal cash — and under pressure to spend quickly as both labor and housing shortages come to a head — this year’s budget adjustment is a different story.

“No one in memory has seen something like this. It is extraordinarily different,” said House Appropriations chair Mary Hooper, D-Montpelier.

— Lola Duffort

Lawmakers have begun to take testimony on S.254, which would end qualified immunity for police officers in Vermont.

Qualified immunity is a widespread legal doctrine that protects public servants from facing litigation for violating citizens’ civil rights while on the job. As it applies to police officers, some lawmakers and advocates say it prevents citizens from getting justice when their rights have been violated, such as when they’ve been victims of police misconduct.

Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, who is championing the bill, said Thursday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he supports police, but also “believe(s) in civil rights and the right to redress if you’ve been harmed by the government.”

“The way it works now, with little rhyme or reason, some victims gain access to justice, while others have the door slammed in their face, even when the police misconduct causes serious harm,” Sears said.

In her testimony to the committee, Wilda White, a consultant for the Department of Public Safety, said that she disagreed with the notion that citizens’ ability to sue police officers would restore faith in police officers.

“For me, it tells me that this Legislature is giving up, in fact, and is saying, ‘Hey, you know, we’re going to consider harm caused the cost of doing business, that we can manage through insurance,’” she said. “I think efforts are better spent on prevention. I certainly don’t want my legacy to be a wrongful death suit. I would rather have my safety and life preserved.”

— Sarah Mearhoff

The Vermont Community Broadband Board launched a $116 million broadband construction grant program Thursday, which will fund projects beginning this spring.

Vermont’s nine communication union districts, small communication carriers, and internet service providers that are working alongside the communication districts can all apply for the funding.

“These grants are important to drive down the entry cost,” Christine Hallquist, executive director of the community broadband board, told the Senate Finance committee on Thursday. Funding broadband through grants, rather than bonds, decreases the consumer cost, she noted.

The community broadband board’s goal is to provide universal broadband access throughout Vermont with upload and download speeds of 100 Mbps. Currently, just 29.2% of Vermont households meet that standard, according to Clay Purvis, director of the telecommunications and connectivity division of the Department of Public Service.

Read more here.

— Ethan Weinstein

IN THE FEED

Democratic Lt. Governor Molly Gray posted a picture to Twitter Wednesday that, in a non-pandemic time, would have likely gone completely unnoticed.

But the snapshot of Gray speaking at a podium before a roomful of apparently unmasked members of the Central Vermont Chamber of Commerce was quickly seized upon — by those on both sides of the mask mandate debate.

“On the day the 500th Vermonter died of COVID, @mollyforvermont bravely defied Montpelier’s mask mandate to schmooze with wealthy donors,” remarked one Twitter-ite. “Um, MASKS?” said another.

Republicans jumped in, hinting at hypocrisy. “Look forward to the Legislature being allowed to conduct business like @LtGovGray. Check out the picture!” Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe, cheekily wrote.

Asked for comment, Gray’s chief of staff, Andrew Gillespie, said the lieutenant governor had worn a mask during the event but removed it to speak. Gray, he said, “shares the concerns of constituents and continues to support a statewide mask mandate.”

“Guidance and mask wearing,” he added, “remain inconsistent.”

— Lola Duffort

The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and Seven Days published a political cartoon this week by cartoonist Tim Newcomb pondering what Vermont’s three Democratic candidates for U.S. House “bring to the table.” By Thursday, Vermont political aficionados had descended on the drawing with tweeted accusations of sexism and racism.

The cartoon depicts the three candidates riding in the car with former Gov. Madeleine Kunin, seen gritting her teeth at the wheel. Lt. Gov. Molly Gray and state Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, D-Chittenden, are pictured in car seats, while Senate President Pro Tempore Becca Balint, D-Windham, is depicted riding shotgun.

Vermonters have been celebrating U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy’s five-decade career as he nears retirement — a length of service only mathematically possible because he first ran for office at 34 years old. But apparently two female politicians under 40 in 2022 are seen by some as toddlers. Sad!

— Sarah Mearhoff

IN CONGRESS

In a last-ditch but ultimately unsuccessful effort to pass national voting rights legislation, most Democrats in the U.S. Senate, including Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders, voted late Wednesday to kneecap the filibuster.

The parliamentary rule dictated that to move the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to a full vote (in what’s known as a cloture motion) would require 60 votes instead of a simple majority. With the Senate divided 50-50 and Republicans united against the bill, Democrats’ last hope was to change the rules to get it across the finish line.

Leahy, the fifth-longest-serving senator in U.S. history, has long been skeptical of changing Senate rules. But in a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, he attempted to appeal to his colleagues’ sense of duty, saying that senators should at the very least allow the bill to be debated in full and come to a final vote.

Democrats were ultimately unsuccessful, with their two moderate colleagues, U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, siding with Republicans on the filibuster vote. Sanders, who has for months publicly battled with the two moderates, visibly lost his patience with them Wednesday night on the floor.

“If you think this bill makes sense, and if you’re worried about the future of American democracy, and if you’re prepared to vote for the bill, then why are you wasting everybody’s time and not voting for the rule change that allows us to pass the bill?” he asked. “You know, it’s like inviting somebody to lunch, putting out a great spread and saying you can’t eat. If you’re gonna vote for the bill, vote to change the rules.”

Read more here.

— Sarah Mearhoff