MONTPELIER — A panel of Vermont legislators took the rare step of recommending that the full House and Senate reject Superior Court Judge Rachel Malone’s application to remain on the bench when she faces a “retention” vote next week.
The Judicial Retention Committee’s recommendation March 12 stemmed largely from concerns over how Malone, who has heard court cases in Bennington and Windham counties, took longer to issue many of her rulings in recent years than Vermont Judiciary policy suggests, according to interviews and materials provided by a lawyer who said he is part of a team lobbying for Malone to be able to keep her job.
Meanwhile, days after the committee’s vote against her retention, Malone and Judiciary leaders agreed to a plan to “improve management of my workload and timeliness of written decisions,” the plan states, as well as “improve the quality of my writing and the clarity of my reasoning.”
Malone acknowledged issues with her past work in an interview Wednesday and said she was doing her best to address them. The House and Senate will vote on whether to keep Malone on the bench, along with five other judges, on March 25.
If lawmakers reject Malone, it’d be the first time they vote down a judicial retention since 1993, according to records provided by Senate Secretary John Bloomer.
Malone was appointed to her position in November 2023 by Gov. Phil Scott after a judge retired before the end of their term. Most recently, Malone, a former public defender, has been assigned to the Bennington Family Division. That means she hears divorce and child custody cases as well as considers Relief from Abuse orders.
In Vermont, legislators evaluate all state superior court and Supreme Court judges on a six-year cycle and determine whether they are qualified to continue serving. The cycles are based not on when a person was appointed but tied to the seats themselves. That’s why Malone is up for “retention” this year, after less than three years in her post.
The full Legislature will consider the Judicial Retention Committee’s recommendations but does not have to follow them. Malone was the only judge the eight-member panel did not vote to unanimously recommend for a new term at its meeting, instead declining to endorse her application on a 3-5 vote.
Those voting in favor of keeping Malone on the bench included the committee’s chair and vice chair — Rep. Angela Arsenault, D-Williston, and Sen. Brian Collamore, R-Rutland, respectively — as well as Rep. Conor Casey, D-Montpelier.
Those voting against were Rep. Alicia Malay, R-Pittsford; Rep. Thomas Oliver, R-Sheldon; Sen. Ruth Hardy, D-Addison; Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick, D-Chittenden Central; and Sen. Terry Williams, who’s a Rutland Republican.
The retention committee went into an executive session last week to discuss each judge before coming back into a public session to vote on recommendations. But Arsenault said in an interview Wednesday that members’ concerns stemmed from Malone taking too long to issue many decisions, which has been a “hardship” for litigants in her court.
“They were more concerned about that — which is a valid concern — than they were confident that it wouldn’t happen again,” Arsenault said of her colleagues.
Malone said in a letter to lawmakers that Vermont’s judges are expected to issue decisions in less than 30 days when possible, and always in less than 90 days. As of about a year ago, in March 2025, she had 51 decisions that were pending for more than 30 days, and 23 that had been under advisement for more than 90 days, Malone wrote.
Most of the decisions were in civil court, and some were in family court, she said on Wednesday. Of the committee’s vote against her, she said, “I totally understand.”
“I was not happy with the length of time it was taking me to get decisions out — and I take full responsibility for the impact that those delays had on individual litigants as well as court staff that had to, sort of, be the front line response to those concerns,” Malone said Wednesday. “That’s certainly not the kind of work that I want to do.”
Last spring, Malone said she started working with a more senior civil judge to improve her work and sought out and received a diagnosis for ADHD. After starting on medication, she said, her performance began improving.
As of this month, she said she no longer has any decisions that have been pending for 90 days or more, and has six decisions that were past 30 days. She said she hopes that progress will show lawmakers she is up to the job, when they consider her retention next week.
“I hope they would appreciate that the progress that I made in addressing the backlog of overdue decisions was the result of months of hard, committed work — and something that I will keep doing,” she said.
