“I hope the next time there’s an invocation, when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands.”
In Montana, those are words that can get you barred from speaking on the floor as a state lawmaker.
On Wednesday, state lawmakers there voted on party lines to formally punish Rep. Zooey Zephyr, a Missoula Democrat, for a speech she made last week opposing legislation to prohibit doctors from performing gender-affirming care on transgender minors. Zephyr, who is transgender herself, admonished her colleagues for passing the bill, which, she said, would ultimately put transgender youth at even higher risk of suicide.
Accusing her of breaking decorum, Republican leadership in subsequent days refused to recognize Zephyr on the House floor, prompting Statehouse protests at which demonstrators shouted, “Let her speak.” On Wednesday, Montana Republicans voted to formally bar Zephyr from speaking on the floor for the remainder of the legislative session. Zephyr is only permitted to vote remotely.
Two thousand, four hundred, thirty-four miles away from Helena, Zephyr’s battle hits close to home for Vermont state Rep. Taylor Small, P/D-Winooski. Small, who is Vermont’s first and only openly transgender legislator, is close friends with Zephyr. In an interview Thursday, Small said the two lawmakers’ friendship began when Zephyr cold-called Small asking for advice when she was first thinking of running for office.
In the months since the Montana Democrat was sworn in, Small said she has watched from afar as Zephyr has participated in fierce debates over LGBTQ+ rights and faced repeated harassment by her colleagues.
“It was at that point that they said that she broke decorum,” Small said, referring to Zephyr’s “blood on your hands” speech. “After people had misgendered her on the floor, after people had said horrific things about our communities, after they had lofted their own attacks against LGBTQ people — they had the audacity to say that she was the one breaking decorum at the end of the day for this one comment.”
Small and Zephyr face dual realities in their respective statehouses. While Montana lawmakers plow forward with bills targeting transgender people, Vermont lawmakers on Thursday cast their final votes for two “shield” bills which will expand protections for gender-affirming treatment. In a patchwork nation of disparate laws regarding trans rights, Small told VTDigger on Thursday that she wants Vermont to be “a refuge state for those who are marginalized.”
Still, Small is not complacent. A state formerly lauded for its independent nature (sound familiar?), Montana’s political shift to the right has been recent, swift and fierce. Asked if she thinks about the potential for extremist views to take hold in Vermont, Small answered, “often.” She pointed to the Take Back Vermont movement of the early 2000s — a backlash to the state’s legalization of civil unions. “That could absolutely happen again,” Small said.
“That’s why I try my best to highlight in this role that we are not immune to the hate that we’re seeing across the nation,” Small said. “We do love to promote ourselves as progressive and forward-thinking, and I am not diminishing that by any means. I think we are unique in a lot of ways, in our ability to really talk across differences and engage in those difficult conversations.
“And yet, when we start to polarize, it forces us away from those conversations and pits us against one another.”
— Sarah Mearhoff
IN THE KNOW
Vermont lawmakers have spent months considering legislation to strengthen state anti-harassment protections for workers.
The bill, S.103, would relax the standard for worker harassment claims and ban pay discrimination based on race, national origin or disability status, as well as implement other employee protections.
But one question has drawn opposition from education officials and appears to have divided lawmakers: Should anti-harassment protections apply to students in Vermont’s schools?
— Peter D’Auria
As the biggest climate change bill of Vermont’s legislative session approaches the end of its journey through the Statehouse, a debate over the meaning of its language has consumed the conversation.
Lawmakers who support S.5 and their lawyers say the bill would require the state’s Public Utility Commission to establish a clean heat standard and design its blueprint — but not implement it without explicit consent from the Legislature through a separate bill in 2025.
Gov. Phil Scott and some lawmakers who oppose the bill say its language does not obligate the Legislature explicitly enough to sign off on the plan two years from now. Rather, they argue, it establishes channels for a clean heat standard to be implemented and enforced sooner.
— Emma Cotton
ON THE MOVE
There are many ways one can describe Westley Pitcher: An 18-year-old senior at Essex High School. A snowboarder in the winter and track runner come spring. A cat-lover. A server and a cook at a local restaurant.
“I’m just a regular kid, really,” he told VTDigger in an interview this week.
Earlier this month, he occupied a new role — that of an advocate. Sitting at the head of a long table in the Vermont Statehouse with his father by his side, Pitcher implored a panel of lawmakers to move forward with legislation that aims to preserve access to gender-affirming care for transgender patients within state boundaries.
Having received final approval in both the House and Senate this week, the two bills are headed to Gov. Scott’s desk, where he is expected to sign them.
— Sarah Mearhoff
The Senate has given a final thumbs up to its version of H.494, aka this session’s Big Bill. Lawmakers also agreed to two technical amendments — one relating to organic dairy, the other to a school construction task force — and another requiring that laborers on state-funded capital projects receive Vermont’s prevailing wage.
But the upper chamber voted down a proposal by Sens. Nader Hashim, D-Windham, and Tanya Vyhovsky, P/D-Chittenden Central, to add another $20 million in one-time money to the budget to extend a pandemic-era motel program for homeless people past July 1. To partially fund their proposal, their amendment also would have axed the $1 million budget for Vermont’s worker relocation incentive program included in the Senate’s $8.5 billion state spending plan.
Hashim said he was grateful for the money already included in the budget for support services, permanent housing and shelter. But he argued that alternatives simply wouldn’t be ready by July 1 to catch the thousands exiting when the program ends this summer. Critics, including Sen. Jane Kitchel, D-Caledonia, the chamber’s chief budget-writer, countered that there was no way to pay for Hashim and Vyhovsky’s proposal without deficit spending — or cutting from other areas. And she further added that the $20 million sum put forward by her colleagues wouldn’t actually fully cover the benefits they hoped to extend. The measure failed by voice vote.
The spending bill now heads to the House, which will request a conference committee so that the two chambers might hash out their many differences.
— Lola Duffort
ON THE FIFTH FLOOR
Gov. Phil Scott has been saber-rattling about a budget veto for weeks, and moments after the Senate passed out its budget, he released a statement decrying what he views as runaway spending by Democratic lawmakers.
“Saying ‘yes’ to almost every ‘want’ is not a luxury a majority of Vermonters have, but unfortunately, it’s what the Legislature is doing,” the governor wrote, adding that “growing the base General Fund budget by over 13 percent could set us up for severe fiscal challenges in future years.” After all, he noted, the Legislature’s own economists predict a downturn in 2024.
But on the Senate floor, Sen. Jane Kitchel, D-Caledonia, who helms the chamber’s appropriations committee, disputed the 13% figure, which Republican lawmakers have also been citing. That 13% spending increase includes both one-time and ongoing line items, she said. In actuality, Kitchel added, the Senate’s budget only contemplates a roughly 6% rise in spending when looking at ongoing, or “base,” commitments.
“We worked very hard not to build a base that was going to create the pressure, unrealistically, on outer-year funding,” she said.
— Lola Duffort
WHAT WE’RE READING
As more incarcerated witnesses detail David Mitchell’s death, advocates plan a Statehouse rally (VTDigger)
State programs help towns express their character through public art (The Commons)
With coveted wood facing restrictions, musicians who use bows face a choice (Valley News)