You’re reading a web version of Final Reading, VTDigger’s nightly Statehouse newsletter. Sign up to get it delivered to your inbox Tuesday through Friday during the legislative session.
Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth is trying again to enact a ban on guns in bars — and this time, not just in his home city of Burlington.
The Democrat/Progressive has introduced a new version of a gun crime bill that cleared the House last month, keeping the House’s legislation intact but adding on a new section that would make it illegal to carry firearms into bars and other venues that serve alcohol.
His bill, S.329, had a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday. The idea is for the Senate bill to replace the House bill, which is H.606, he told his fellow committee members.
Baruth has been trying to get a ban on guns in bars enacted just in Burlington since last year, after voters there overwhelmingly elected to make the policy part of their city charter. The idea has been proposed before, but garnered new urgency after a fatal shooting in 2024 outside a bar and nightclub on Church Street.
Charter changes must get a sign-off from the Legislature and Gov. Phil Scott, though, before taking effect. And Burlington’s proposal, S.131, has languished in the House Government Operations and Military Affairs Committee, where it landed a year ago after passing the full Senate. The committee didn’t have enough votes to advance the proposal, with two Democratic members opposed, said Conor Kennedy, chief of staff to House Speaker Jill Krowinski.
Meanwhile, Scott, a Republican, has repeatedly said he’d veto the Burlington proposal, meaning there is little real chance it would become law, anyway.
Scott has said his main issue with the legislation is that he does not think bar owners could effectively enforce it. He’s also said he is opposed to banning guns from bars in one municipality, while no such policy exists elsewhere in the state — though added he would oppose a statewide ban, too.
Earlier this month, Baruth introduced his statewide ban on guns in bars proposal as an amendment to the House-passed gun bill. But the pro tem said he switched gears to a wholly new Senate bill in part to avoid a question of whether or not the amendment was legally germane to the underlying legislation.
“There are impediments either way, but it seemed to me that the impediments were fewer and more surmountable with a new bill,” he said in an interview Friday.
You might be thinking, wait — isn’t it a little late in the session for a hot new bill to enter the villa? The answer is yes, but Baruth got approval from the Senate Rules Committee on Wednesday to exempt his bill from the chamber’s normal deadline by which bills must first be filed with legislative staff, which was back in December. The panel’s vote was 3-2, with its two GOP members voting against.
If Baruth’s new Senate bill clears Senate Judiciary and then passes the full chamber, its next stop would be the House Rules Committee, Kennedy said on Friday. That’s because the bill would be “crossing over” after last month’s crossover deadline, so it would need special treatment.
From there, Baruth said he hopes the bill would be directed to the House Judiciary Committee — not the government operations committee that stonewalled the Burlington-specific proposal. The latter committee deals with charter changes, among other types of legislation, while the judiciary panel deals with crime laws.
Kennedy said Friday it was too early to say what the House would do with Baruth’s bill if the measure does, in fact, cross over. For his part, the pro tem said he hopes the new Senate legislation will get a vote in Senate Judiciary next week.
In the know
“Learn the truths about Election Integrity with all the fraud and corruption people have put on us, the American people,” read a Facebook post from a page called Vermonters for Vermont.
How could anyone resist that call? It brought about 20 people to the Statehouse on Friday to listen to a panel about election integrity in Vermont.
The panel was mediated by Gregory Thayer of Rutland, a former candidate for lieutenant governor. Among the table of lawmakers and concerned citizens were members of a national conservative organization called Election Integrity Network, which is trying to drum up support for the SAVE America Act, of which President Trump is a fierce proponent, around the country.
The act, currently being considered by the U.S. Senate, would transform voter registration and voting around the country, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and providing a photo ID to cast a ballot.
Lawmakers at the table included Republicans Sen. Terry Williams of Rutland; Rep. VL Coffin of Cavendish; Rep. Kevin Winter of Ludlow; and Rep. Michael Tagliavia of Corinth. Others on the panel included conservative blogger Rob Roper and East Middlebury Pastor Ed Wheeler.
Members on the panel praised the idea of requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship and photo IDs to vote. Sara Vieira, of the Election Integrity Network, said the organization’s number one principle is “we only want U.S. citizens voting in our elections.”
Williams and Coffin both said they thought the state should not provide voters with universal mail-in ballots in order to prevent voter fraud. Vermont’s secretary of state seemed unwilling to do that, Williams said, though he said he wasn’t going to “point fingers or make any accusations” about why.
Research by the American Statistical Association in 2020 found there’s no evidence that voting by mail increases voter fraud. Research by The Brookings Institution similarly found that mail-in voting had very low levels of election fraud.
Research, investigations and election audits have also found that illegal noncitizen voting is extremely rare in the United States.
Williams said he was especially concerned about electronic voting machines and software. Wheeler, the pastor, said he thought the state could only trust paper ballots. “All voting machines are hackable and unreliable for election integrity,” Wheeler said.
All voting machines used in Vermont already produce verifiable paper ballots.
— Charlotte Oliver
Lauren Higbee, the state’s deputy child, youth and family advocate, spoke with the Senate Health and Welfare Committee on Friday morning about the federal benefits due to children in state custody.
At present, Vermont reclaims some federal benefits from some particularly vulnerable children to help pay for the cost of their care. It’s not an uncommon practice, Higbee said, when states are in charge of kids who receive disability benefits or who have experienced the death of a parent. But the roughly $800,000 that the state redirects away from kids’ bank accounts each year should return to its intended recipients, she said.
“It happens in other jurisdictions across the country, but it’s clearly unfair and unjust,” she told the committee. “Most states are changing their practice.”
H.657, an omnibus bill adjusting practices at the Vermont Department for Children and Families, would require the state to instead allow children’s Social Security benefits to accumulate in a trust, or be spent on a child’s behalf for other needs. It’s a policy change that would align with requests from the federal Administration for Children and Families, which sent a letter to Gov. Phil Scott in December requesting his team make the change as soon as possible.
“This practice is contrary to the best interests of children,” Assistant Secretary Alex J. Adams said in the letter. “We are working to put an end to (it).”
In a memo to the committee earlier this week, leadership in Scott’s administration indicated that they would be supportive of such a change, which would begin to take effect in Vermont in 2027. H.657 has been approved by the House and faces further scrutiny by the Senate in the coming weeks.
— Theo Wells-Spackman
On the move
House lawmakers narrowly approved an education reform proposal Friday, advancing legislation destined for more political wrangling that could stretch well into the summer.
Democrats touted the legislation, H.955, as balancing the twin goals of tamping down the cost of education and expanding access to educational opportunities. Critics, however, said it’s unlikely the legislation will lead to the cost savings envisioned under last year’s wide-ranging reform package, Act 73.
Rep. Charlie Kimbell, D-Woodstock, a ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, said on the House floor that the plan “is not what the governor requested last January, nor is this plan reflective of the bill, Act 73, that we passed last year.”
“Frankly, it’s better than both,” he said.
But there was clear unease among House Democrats during hours of deliberations on the floor Thursday, leading to a narrow vote of 79-62. Republican lawmakers largely voted against the bill, as did about 10 Democrats — though for different reasons.
Read the full story here.
— Corey McDonald
On the trail
Daniel Quipp, a former chair of the Brattleboro Selectboard, is running for a House seat representing the town.
Quipp hopes to replace outgoing Rep. Mollie Burke, D-Brattleboro, who announced earlier this month that she wouldn’t seek reelection.
— Ethan Weinstein
