The following highlights some of the important legislative work accomplished in the 2025-26 Biennium.

Education

Despite the best drastic efforts of our school districts, education spending is growing faster than non-property tax revenues (sales tax, etc.). Property taxes need to increase to make up the difference. The spending growth cannot be attributed to any one cost, but is a mix of special education, healthcare costs, mental health costs, inflation, and infrastructure needs. In this year’s yield bill, Act 169, the legislature was able to offset tax increases for Vermonters at a time when many are struggling to pay their bills, by making a one-time transfer from the general fund. 

Because of the hard work of school boards across the state to tighten spending, and the legislature’s agreement to use one-time funds, average property tax bills across the state are expected to increase by 3.5% next year. This marks a considerable improvement from the 11.9% increase projected back in December. The law gives older Vermonters, veterans, and low-income property owners greater assistance by increasing the limits for the “circuit breaker” tax credit for the first time since 1997 and providing renters with larger renter credit during an inflationary time when rent increases are outpacing wage increases.  

Last year the legislature passed Act 73, which began the transformation of Vermont’s education governance, delivery, and finance systems to build a system that works better for kids, communities, and taxpayers. This year, the legislature passed Act 170, which takes the next steps in transforming Vermont’s public education system, and the Yield Bill (Act 169), both of which continue the work of making Vermont’s education financing system more sustainable. The legislature designed Act 170 to incorporate more local control over mergers and create a framework for lowering education costs through a shared services model called Cooperative Educational Service Areas (CESAs). 

Act 170 creates seven mandatory statewide CESAs that will achieve efficiencies, regional-service sharing, and cost savings. The formation of a CESA helps member supervisory unions and school districts access specialized programs and technical assistance that individual districts (especially small and rural districts) might otherwise need to purchase at a higher cost. Each of the CESAs must offer services in the following areas: special education, business and administrative services, and union school district creation, consultation, and facilitation. 

The second major element of this law addresses school governance consolidation by funding seven facilitators—one in each CESA region—to start merger study committees. These regional groupings will have to work collaboratively to explore the advantages of school district consolidation. If a study committee concludes that a merger is advisable, the report goes to the Secretary of Education, the State Board of Education, and the voters of the school districts that will form the new union school district. Merger questions will go to local voters in the March 2028 Town Meeting elections. 

Act 170  also includes the next steps in implementing the tax policy created in Act 73. Over the next few years, Act 170 will make our education finance system more equitable, sustainable, and affordable.  It will shift the state from a property tax credit system that has provided relief to fewer and fewer households over the past several years to an exemption system that will support a wider spectrum of household incomes and property values. It will also implement regional assessment districts to ensure that every municipality reappraises properties at least every six years so that property taxes are spread fairly across the state. The law moves to a foundation formula for education funding in which the state uses a standard per-pupil calculation to determine how much funding each school district will receive versus the current system of funding locally passed budgets, guaranteeing resources to students regardless of their zip code. And it also implements a tax on second homes to raise additional revenue for our school system and relieve pressure on homestead and business taxpayers.

In addition to Act 170, this year’s Yield Bill contained provisions to reduce the excess spending threshold. This year’s yield bill incorporates a plan to gradually lower that threshold – to 115.5% next year, 114.5% the following year, etc. – as a way of providing a ramp to the estimated amount districts will receive under the foundation formula (implementation scheduled for FY 2030).

Other components of the law include further detail on school construction aid and a study regarding how to account for pre-K education within our education finance system.

Critical Dates:

• Within 30 days of passage: CESA board member appointments
• Within 45 days of passage: First meeting of the CESA board
• October 1, 2026: Merger study committee facilitators hired 
• October 15, 2026: Study committee assignments and first meeting 
• September 2027: Study committees final reports due
• By March 7, 2028: Voting to form new districts

Act 122  is an act relating to chronic absenteeism of Vermont students. Currently, about 25% of Vermont students are chronically absent. Absenteeism affects not only the individual and their loss of learning and connection to the school community, but also the entire school community, missing large groups of students. Act 122 represents a shift in mindset. Research has shown that punitive measures like fines and court appearances are not effective in getting children back to school. The law outlines state-level strategies that consider the root causes behind absenteeism and the impact of absenteeism on communities rather than individuals. It also establishes definitions that can vary from school to school: namely, what is an excusable absence and what is not excusable. The act calls for a collaborative approach developing a model policy that includes all major stakeholders. It does not completely remove truant officers or the possibility of prosecution for those parents or guardians who refuse to comply with state law; rather, that process is better defined and consistent, and serves more as a last resort.

Act 125 creates immigration protocols in schools. The law’s intent is to secure the rights of every Vermont child to access their education safe from intimidation and fear, regardless of their immigration status. This law empowers our school officials, superintendents, principals, heads of school, and their designees to designate certain areas in the schools as not open to the public. The act establishes an immigration resource guide for schools, informed by the Office of the Attorney General and the Vermont Agency of Education. Under this law, school districts and schools cannot share student information, including immigration status and citizenship, unless they are required to do so by state or federal law. Entry by any law enforcement official into any school now requires a judicial warrant that specifically names a student or school staff member. This act helps safeguard Vermont schools, all children who attend, and the adults who work there. 

Housing

Act 69 expands housing support programs and increases funding for accessible and affordable housing. It also prioritizes assistance for people experiencing homelessness, individuals with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations. The law creates new programs to support manufactured home repairs and housing infrastructure improvements. It also provides for a statewide tax increment financing tool designed to help Vermont communities unlock housing opportunities by investing in critical public infrastructure. In addition, the law strengthens tenant protections by banning rental application fees and expanding anti-discrimination protections. It also establishes new housing planning initiatives, updates residential safety standards for smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, and aims to improve housing equity, infrastructure, and development statewide. The bill became law in June 2025.

Act 179 is an innovative housing law designed to stimulate housing development in Vermont through financial tools, pilot programs, and planning reforms. The legislation authorizes municipalities to issue revenue bonds backed by special assessments, supports mobile-home infrastructure and off-site modular home construction, broadens the Vermont Economic Development Authority’s (VEDA) financing authority for certain multi-unit housing developments, and adds new municipal housing-planning requirements. 

Act 155 updates and modernizes laws related to manufactured homes and limited-equity cooperatives. It streamlines the process for transferring ownership of manufactured homes, including their deeds, and ensures that they are treated the same as other types of housing under local zoning laws. The law also addresses limited-equity cooperatives, which are designed to provide affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents. It requires the Department of Taxes to prepare a report that inventories these cooperatives and evaluates whether they are being treated fairly and consistently. To help preserve long-term affordability, the law prohibits subleasing cooperative units unless a hardship can be demonstrated, which will help prevent profit-making from affordable homes. In addition, all mobile homes are now exempt from sales tax, with transfers subject instead to the property transfer tax. To reflect the fact that these homes are factory-built, permanently installed, and not readily movable, “mobile homes” will instead be referred to as “manufactured homes” and “permanently sited.” This change helps eliminate the common misconception that these homes can be easily or routinely moved once installed. 

Act 143. After years of work trying to address the needs of Vermonters experiencing homelessness, this act overhauls the state’s approach for roughly 4,000 unhoused Vermonters. It creates a tiered system moving households from prevention and diversion through various shelter options to permanent supportive housing, with motels as a last resort. Motel use is capped at 700 rooms nightly in warmer months and 1,000 in winter, with individual households limited to 70 motel days per year in the warmer season. The act also focuses on supportive services, including case management and housing navigation.  Lastly, the Act establishes a state-funded rental assistance program as a bridge to the currently-closed Section 8 federal rental subsidies. 

Health Care

Act 55 (H.266) limits hospitals to charging insurers no more than 120% of the average sales price of certain prescription drugs. This legislation had the immediate effect of reducing Blue Cross Blue Shield premiums. It also reduced health care premium costs for school employee health insurance from an anticipated 12% increase to less than a 7% increase. (In comparison, New Hampshire saw a 23% increase in premiums in the same time period.) The law was a major contributor to the overall cost savings to the Vermont health care system of approximately $230 million. 

Act 68 of 2025 enacted reference-based pricing, which is a health insurance model that sets maximum reimbursement limits based on an external benchmark, in this case, Medicare rates charged for the service. For example, the reference might limit the cost of a service to 250% of the amount Medicare charges for the same service. This legislation requires the Green Mountain Care Board (GMCB) to establish reference-based prices as the maximum amounts Vermont hospitals can accept as payment for certain services. This limit applies to services including those delivered outside a hospital setting, like primary care.  All stakeholders–hospitals, the Department of Financial Regulation (DFR), insurance companies such as Blue Cross Blue Shield and MVP, and the GMCB–agree that it is essential to implement reference-based pricing, which will result in downward pressure on the costs to the Vermont health care system. Legislators determined that Act 68 had an overly ambitious timeline of implementation; the GMCB is still in the rulemaking process and the metrics are still being designed.

Act 68 led to S.190, a bill that would have implemented the beginning of reference-based pricing for the coming year by targeting the savings to important groups: individuals, families, many nonprofits and small businesses on the Qualified Health Care Plan Exchange (QHPs), and school-employee health plans. Unfortunately, the Governor vetoed this bill.

Act 173 continues the process of establishing a program of universal primary care that is accessible and affordable for all Vermonters, to improve population health, reduce costs, and obtain the information necessary to develop a framework for its implementation.

Act 132 relates to Array RX, a non-profit drug-prescription savings card introduced by the State Treasurer that offers low-cost prescription drugs to any person with a Vermont address.  Vermont is the sixth state to join the non-profit consortium. The Array RX card is free to participants; offers generic drugs at about 20% of cost and name-brand at 80% of cost; protects enrollees’ privacy; includes compensation for pharmacists in its pricing; counts toward a member’s existing plan deductibles; and is projected to save Vermonters millions of dollars.

Act 119 allows pharmacists to test (for Covid, for example), and then prescribe (Paxlovid, for example) immediately, rather than requiring the patient to make a doctor’s appointment before receiving a prescription. This legislation allows the pharmacists to prescribe the necessary medication in a timely way, improving outcomes and saving unnecessary system-wide costs.

Act 92 approves and expands the ability of Physician’s Assistants (PAs) and Advanced Practice Nurse Practitioners (APRNs) to be Medical Attending Officers in hospitals without involving an M.D. This avoids long and unnecessary delays in getting timely care, provides for a responsible health care provider under the Patient’s Bill of Rights, conforms with existing practice, and saves costs to the system.

Act 84 expands the scope of practice of psychologists to prescribe medicine, with additional training and certification by the Office of Professional Regulation. This eases the harm of a psychiatrist shortage and allows those suffering from mental illness access to treatment. This expansion is also expected to save costs to the system. 

Act 172 creates a pathway for internationally-trained doctors to become licensed in Vermont. There is a shortage of doctors in Vermont and this law would enable doctors already present in Vermont, and already highly-trained, to practice medicine, mostly in much-needed primary care. 

Act 156 regulates the use of artificial intelligence in mental health services. This legislation ensures that when mental health services are being offered, the clinician (not AI) must make a therapeutic decision and diagnosis, and decide treatment options. AI may only be used as a helpful tool. The law provides enforcement and penalty mechanisms for violations. 

Act 76 authorizes the Vermont Department of Health to recommend immunization schedules that may differ from CDC guidelines, as informed by the Vermont Immunization Advisory Council. The law does not mandate or prohibit vaccination, and Vermonters retain access to immunizations on the schedule at no cost. 

Act 148 modernizes Vermont’s tobacco laws by expanding the definition of “tobacco substitute,” banning deceptive tobacco products (including vapes disguised as everyday items like markers or clothing or embedded in games to target youth), broadening licensing requirements, increasing fees and penalties, decoupling tobacco and liquor licensure, transferring regulation and enforcement of wholesale tobacco companies from the Department of Taxes to the Department of Liquor and Lottery, and replacing criminal penalties for minors with stronger civil penalties on sellers.

Act 141 allocates around $7.6 million received as part of a national settlement to an Opioid Abatement Special Fund.  This fund be used for opioid-related services including outreach, recovery residences, syringe services, peer coaching in corrections, harm reduction, treatment beds, EMS buprenorphine training, and employment services. (Further funding for Burlington’s overdose prevention center will be contingent on it becoming operational and is not included in this act.) In addition, around $640,000 is appropriated for youth prevention programs out of the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund.

Environmental Issues

Act 112 bans the use of paraquat, a highly toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease, that spreads through wind-borne dispersion. Although over 70 countries outlaw paraquat, Vermont is the first state in the nation to prohibit its use.  

Small Steps for Smarter Solar:  Vermonters’ ability to save money from rooftop solar generation, sustainable heating and cooling options, and cleaner cars faces big headwinds from Trump Administration rollbacks and tariffs. With federal funding for low-income solar and solar-panel tax credits gone, the legislature focused on solar-siting policy and low-cost plug-in solar.  

H.710 would have made it easier and more cost-effective for developers to co-locate solar facilities on the same parcel. Beyond cost savings, this bill also supported smarter land-use decisions. Unfortunately, Governor Scott vetoed this bill. As Vermont political blogger John Walters commented on this veto:

Scott’s veto is remarkably tone-deaf to the moment. Trump’s pointless war with Iran just sent fossil fuel process through the goddamn roof. Isn’t this the time to promote our independence from oil? It’d be good for the planet and a boon to Vermont’s economy. The more energy we generate in-state, the fewer dollars we send to distant suppliers. And the less dependent we are on the swings and roundabouts of the world oil market[, the better].

Along with a growing number of states, the legislature passed Act 149 to regulate the usage of portable plug-in solar panels. Also called “balcony solar,” these plug-in photovoltaic (PIPV) devices are widely used in Europe where they allow apartment residents to offset their electricity usage, especially when paired with batteries. Act 149 clarifies that neither utility nor Public Utilities Commission approval is needed and ensures safe usage of PIPV by requiring that stringent national safety standards (UL-approved) are met. 

Data Centers: Widespread concern about data centers—based on huge electric demand, water usage, and noise—has led to calls for a moratorium on any large data center development in Vermont. But “dispatchable large loads,” which can ramp power usage up and down, can actually expand our electric grid capacity and bring prices down for regular ratepayers. H.727 would have created a strong and forward-looking regulatory framework to ensure that data center development could be allowed in Vermont, but only in ways that benefit Vermont’s ratepayers and grid while protecting our environment.

As laid out in H.727, any data center looking to site in Vermont would have been subject to full Act 250 review, which covers everything from air and water pollution to water supply, noise, traffic, scenic beauty, prime agricultural soils, wildlife habitat, and more. The data center would also have to sign a contract with its electric utility, approved by the Public Utility Commission, to lock in ratepayer benefits, maximize renewable power on-site, and make a substantial annual payment to help utility customers with energy efficiency projects. 

Unfortunately, Governor Scott vetoed H.727. The House attempted an override on the final day of the session, but the roll-call vote of 83-52 fell short of the 2/3 standard needed to succeed. 

Wildlife: Act 90 addresses barriers to posting one’s land from hunting and fishing and to allowing hunting and fishing by permission only. It is intended to reduce conflicts between landowners and hunters. 

Climate resiliency: We have over 1,000 dams across the state, including 77 high-hazard, state-regulated dams. High-hazard dams pose risk to human lives if they were to fail. Act 114 ensures that Vermont’s Division of Emergency Management can support municipalities downstream of high-hazard dams through development of emergency operations plans. The law ensures that emergency responders and municipal and state officials have a coordinated communication, evacuation, and response plan in the highly unlikely but very dangerous scenario of a dam failure or emergency release from a dam. 

Water quality: Act 174 creates a general permit at the Agency of Natural Resources to streamline permitting for connections to potable community water and to wastewater systems.  The Agency can also delegate permitting authority to municipalities in certain circumstances. 

S.218 addressed the overuse of road salt and the resulting chloride contamination of our surface waters, as well as impacts to drinking water, roadway infrastructure, and vehicles. It would have created best management practices for salt application to roads, sidewalks, and other surfaces, and a voluntary certification program to train commercial salt applicators in best management practices along with limiting liability for certified municipal and commercial salt applicators. However, the Governor vetoed this bill, leaving communities and landowners using more salt than necessary to protect public safety, often out of fear of liability. The Governor’s veto also leaves the state vulnerable to actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as more streams and waterways in the state become polluted with chloride.

Act 158 improves the bottle redemption system in Vermont. It makes bottle redemption options more convenient and efficient; ensures a minimum of three bottle-redemption centers per county and one per municipality over 7,000 people; modernizes the equipment used for redemption collection and sorting; and reduces manual sorting at redemption centers. This law does not expand the kinds of bottles that would be redeemable, nor does it increase the five-cent deposit. The law also includes important improvements to the collection system for household hazardous products.

Consumer Safety and Protection and Privacy

 Act 110 requires manufacturers of baby food and infant formula to test their products for lead, mercury, and other toxic heavy metals. They must also make the results of those tests readily accessible to consumers online and through package labeling. 

Act 65 requires businesses to protect minors from certain harms when processing the minors’ personal data. Under this law, businesses must have the default setting of their digital products at the highest level of privacy when those products are used by a minor. The act prohibits the collection or sharing of a minor’s personal data unless necessary to provide a service to the minor. It also restricts the ability of a covered business to allow someone to monitor the activity or location of a minor on its digital product without providing a conspicuous signal to the minor. Finally, the Attorney General is granted the authority to further define what design practices might lead to compulsive use of a digital product and to provide covered businesses with methods to estimate the age of its users while still maintaining their privacy.

Act 106 prohibits coerced debt, which is secured or unsecured debt incurred by deceiving, defrauding, or manipulating the debtor. The law also provides protections and remedies for victims of coerced debt. It allows Vermont banks to place holds on potentially coercive transactions to ensure that their customers do not get scammed. The act also offers a path for victims of coerced debt to pursue a remedy.

Act 109 enhances consumer protection in the event-ticketing market. It regulates the resale of tickets, improving transparency and preventing predatory and deceptive practices. Entities that resell or facilitate the resale of tickets must clearly identify online that they are a reselling site. The law prohibits these entities from using deceptive advertising practices. It also caps the price of a ticket being resold to no more than 10% above the original ticket price, including taxes and fees. Finally, the act limits the sale of speculative tickets. These practices have endangered the viability and credibility of Vermont-based businesses and cost Vermonters who just want to attend an event money and time.

Transportation Issues

With construction costs up over 60% in the last five years, it is increasingly challenging to fund road and bridge maintenance across the state. 83% of Vermont roads are municipally-managed and 17% are state-managed, yet only 10% of the Agency of Transportation (AOT)’s maintenance budget supports municipal needs. The legislature added an annual inflation adjuster to the funding formula for town highways and structures in the FY 2026 Transportation Bill (T-Bill). This year’s FY 2027 Transportation Bill further augments funding to municipalities by adding $3 million in one-time surplus, and by proposing a new Local Option Municipal Transportation Special Fund. Amidst these challenging finances, AOT budgeted to increase the miles of state highway maintenance projects in FY 2027 by maximizing available federal funds to make up for a below-average paving year in 2026. The 2027 T-Bill also instructs the AOT to consider bonding certain road and bridge projects to further leverage federal dollars and increase critical infrastructure maintenance.

The FY 2026 T-Bill funded the planning and implementation of the mileage-based-user-fee (MBUF) program that will charge EV users for road use. Owners of EVs currently do not pay into the gas tax, but do pay a higher registration fee that has been transferred to the Agency of Commerce & Community Development to fund level I and II EV chargers statewide. The FY2027 T-Bill lays out the MBUF launch for January 1, 2027, with payment tied to the annual auto inspection. MBUF revenue will go to the Transportation Fund.

The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) grant to install Level III electric chargers was frozen last year, but subsequently reinstated. One charging station in Bradford has been up and running since 2024; another eight locations across the state should be functional by year-end 2026.

The Transportation Alternatives Grant Program currently provides project grants of up to $600,000 in the areas of environmental mitigation, bike/pedestrian improvements, traffic calming, and historic preservation. Given a small surplus in this program (which includes federal funds), the 2027 T-Bill temporarily raises the ceiling on 2027 grants up to $1.2 million, reverting back to $600,000 in 2028.

The FY 2026 DMV Bill (Act 66) allowed for early renewal of Real and non-Real IDs and Non-Driver IDs to support marginalized Vermonters whose gender identity did not match their birth certificates or who may not have citizenship. 1574 Vermonters have already taken advantage of this early-renewal program.

The FY2027 DMV Bill requires the DMV to update its annual inspection manual to prioritize safety issues and provide relief from minor maintenance requirements. The law tightens accountability on trucks illegally passing through Smuggler’s Notch and on snowmobiles using VAST trails without a permit, and clarifies the illegality of individuals intentionally altering a Vermont license plate. Additionally, the law requires the use of a personal flotation device while boating in winter and improves regulations on motorcycle exhaust systems that affect ambient noise.

Miscellaneous

Act 117 supports gender equity in our correctional facilities. Specifically, it recognizes that gender transition is a personal experience that may involve some combination of social, legal, and medical transition. The law also covers safety concerns, addresses inconsistent medical and mental health care for gender transition, and supports a transgender individual’s ability to be recognized with respect and agency throughout the incarceration process.

Act 32 expands employee access to unpaid leave. The act updates Vermont’s Parental and Family Leave Act by expanding access to unpaid leave for those working for employers with 10 or more employees. It adds up to two weeks of unpaid bereavement leave following the death of a family member, and allows up to 12 weeks of unpaid safe leave for employees or family members affected by domestic or sexual violence. The law expands the definition of “family member” to include domestic partners, individuals standing in loco parentis, and those in other non-traditional family relationships. Lastly, the act requires employers to provide comparable job reinstatement when an employee returns from leave. The bill became law in May 2025.

Act 136 allows certified unaccompanied homeless youth (ages 16–17) to consent to medical care, housing, employment, banking, and school enrollment without parental consent; strengthens standards for transportation, restraint, and seclusion of youth in state custody; and prohibits the Department of Children and Families  from using foster youths’ Social Security benefits to offset state costs except in limited circumstances, aligning Vermont with most other states.

Taxing the wealthy.  This year, the House Ways and Means Committee considered legislation to support the critical needs in our state, including healthcare and education, by expanding progressive taxation and raising taxes on the wealthiest Vermonters. 

Income inequality and the wealth gap is one of the most important issues of our time. Over the last months, the Committee  heard countless hours of testimony regarding the very real affordability crisis so many of our constituents are facing: people being priced out of health care plans, seniors on fixed incomes struggling to keep up with unsustainable property tax increases, and working families living paycheck to paycheck and unable to keep up with grocery and fuel price increases. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to give tax breaks to the wealthiest among us, including cutting taxes for large corporations. 

Over the final weeks of the session, the House Ways and Means Committee was weighing two proposals:

• lowering taxes for low- and middle-income Vermonters 
• expanding healthcare access and affordability for those who lost their Affordable Care Act subsidies due to the Trump Administration’s actions

Both proposals would be paid for by raising income taxes on the top 1% of income earners in Vermont and levying additional taxes on unearned/investment income. 

These are extremely important policy initiatives that will have long-term consequences on our state revenues and affect the lives of tens of thousands or Vermonters. There are many significant outstanding policy questions, and there wasn’t enough time left in this legislative session to fully flesh them out. The conversation will likely continue in January during the next legislative session.

The House Judiciary Committee has continued its focus on improving public safety in Vermont. The Committee has recently approved three bills that meet that goal: H.642, which makes changes to the youthful offender (YO) law in Vermont; H.937, which lays out a structure to expand the pilot “accountability docket” to other counties; and H.410, which improves the availability of criminal justice data to guide the legislature’s work. 

Youthful Offender Law.  This law provides an alternative to adult criminal court for youth ages 14 to 22, allowing their cases to be handled confidentially in Family Court if certain criteria are met. A court can place an individual with YO status on juvenile probation, under the jurisdiction of both the Department of Children and Families and the Department of Corrections.

The focus of juvenile probation and YO status is rehabilitation with services like education, treatment, and job training. The goal of YO status is to prevent long-term collateral consequences for the youth and allow them to avoid having a criminal record based on behavior before their brain has fully developed. If the youth violates their probation, however, a court may revoke their YO status and transfer the individual back to criminal court for sentencing. 

H.642 would change Vermont’s YO law by strengthening provisions related to accountability and by expanding victims’ rights. The bill would extend the jurisdiction of the court’s Family Division beyond the youth’s 22nd birthday if there is a motion pending to revoke their YO status. This extended jurisdiction would last either until the court revokes the youth’s probation and sends the case to the Criminal Division or until the court discharges the youth from probation. This new provision addresses the situation where youths have “timed out” of their juvenile probation because they turn 22 while there is a pending motion for revocation of their YO status.

H.642 also clarifies the factors a court considers when ruling on a motion to revoke YO status; confirms that if a youth fails to appear at the probation revocation hearing, the court may order an officer to pick up the youth and bring them to court; and expands the right of victims to be heard at YO hearings.

Accountability Docket. To deter crime, there must be a real risk of being caught committing a crime and certain and swift consequences for criminal activity. A pilot rapid accountability docket in Chittenden County focused resources on the second deterrence requirement, ensuring certain and swift consequences. The pilot program, which helped clear a backlog of repeat-offender criminal cases, brought together judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and human services staff to resolve cases faster and connect offenders to the services they need.

In H.937, the Miscellaneous Judiciary procedures bill, we defined a structure for expanding this accountability docket concept to other Vermont counties.The bill sets forth the goals of an accountability docket, including: (1) accelerating court proceedings of repeat-offender cases with consistent and timely availability of judicial, prosecutorial, defense, Corrections, and Human Services resources; (2) connecting individuals with treatment, housing, and social services to reduce the circumstances that may contribute to recidivism; (3) reducing the number of pending criminal cases that involve individuals with multiple pending cases by providing targeted resources for a limited period of time; (4) improving accountability for those individuals providing immediate follow-up and a court schedule that makes it more likely they will appear; and (5) improving collaboration among law enforcement, prosecutors, and social workers to provide faster resolution of repeat offender cases.

For those counties that will employ an accountability docket, the bill requires the county’s State’s Attorney to convene stakeholders to develop a plan to implement the program that meets these goals. It also requires the courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, and the administration to provide resources for 90-day accountability dockets. And H.937 mandates data tracking and reporting to measure the effectiveness of the accountability dockets.

Criminal Justice Data. The Committee passed H.410 to provide ongoing criminal justice data to inform the work of the legislature. The bill creates a standardized definition of recidivism in Vermont law. Recidivism rates measure when individuals previously convicted of a crime commit a new offense. Currently, the definition of recidivism in Vermont is outdated and arbitrary, focusing on a narrow section of individuals. H. 410 brought stakeholders together to revamp the definition to make it relevant and usable in future studies and legislation related to criminal justice in Vermont.

The bill defines recidivism simply as a new criminal conviction following a prior conviction. The recidivism period for new convictions begins when an individual is released from incarceration or sentenced to a non-custodial sentence. 

H.410 also establishes a number of annual reports from the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center. The reports will include bail rates and information on individuals held pretrial in Vermont correctional facilities; recidivism rates calculated over three- and five-year periods; arrests and clearance rates organized by offense type; and information on the twenty crimes with the highest number of convictions, including sentencing data and total years of probation and incarceration imposed. The reports are to include demographic information, when available. H.410 improves consistency in how Vermont measures recidivism and provides Vermont with clear, comprehensive data on trends in our criminal justice system. 

If you have any questions or input on these or other matters, reach out to me at mlalonde@leg.state.vt.us.

The following is the floor report delivered by Representative Karen Dolan on H.410, which I sponsored and passed out of my committee on a unanimous vote.

H.410, as amended by your House Judiciary Committee, creates a standardized definition of recidivism in Vermont statute and directs the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) to produce annual reports on key criminal justice system indicators. H.410 improves consistency in how Vermont measures recidivism and provides Vermont with clear, comprehensive data on trends in our criminal justice system.

Recidivism is the measure of when an individual convicted of a crime commits a new offense. Currently, the definition of recidivism in Vermont is outdated and arbitrary, focusing on a narrow section of individuals. Due to the limited scope of the current measure, data related to recidivism is not effectively used in Vermont criminal data analysis. H. 410, brought stakeholders together to revamp the definition of recidivism in order to make it relevant and usable in future studies and legislation related to criminal justice in Vermont.

H.410 also creates a new chapter in Title 13 entitled, Criminology Measures. This chapter establishes a number of annual reports which will be generated by the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center related to measures such as bail rates, recidivism rates, and arrest and conviction data. Some may remember the passage of S.14 in 2023 (now Act 40) which launched an initial criminal justice data report. With the success of that report, H.410 provides a long-term plan for maintaining related reports- this is critical for future legislatures to make data-driven decisions related to our criminal justice system.

Now I will provide a brief review of the sections of the bill. You can follow along starting on page 1241 of today’s calendar.

Sec. 1. Creates a new chapter in Title 13 establishing a statewide definition of recidivism and directing the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) to produce annual reports on several criminal justice indicators.

Subsection 8121 Defines recidivism as a new criminal conviction following a prior conviction. The date of arraignment for the new offense is used as a proxy for when the offense occurred. The recidivism calculation period begins when an individual is released from incarceration or sentenced to a non-custodial sentence.

Subsection 8122 Requires Vermont’s SAC to submit annual reports by April 1st of each year to relevant legislative committees. The reports must include:

• Bail rates and information on individuals held pretrial in Vermont correctional facilities.
  
• Recidivism rates calculated over three- and five-year periods.
  
• Arrests and clearance rates organized by offense type using National Incident-Based Reporting System categories.
  
• Information on the 20 crimes with the highest number of convictions, including sentencing data and total years of probation and incarceration imposed.
  
• This section also requires inclusion of demographic information, when available, and directs state and local agencies to provide data necessary for SAC to complete the reports.

Sec. 2. Repeals the current statutory definition of recidivism used by the Department of Corrections, as the definition is now established in Title 13. This change was reviewed and supported by the House Corrections and Institutions Committee.

Sec. 3. Removes references to the prior recidivism definition and related reporting requirements that are replaced by the new definition and reporting structure in Title 13.

Sec. 4. Appropriates a total of $25,000 from the General Fund in fiscal year 2027 to support the preparation of the annual reports required in the bill. 

Sec. 5. States that H.410 shall take effect on July 1, 2026.

The Committee heard testimony from the following: 

• Office of Legislative Counsel
• Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs, Attorney General’s Office
• General Counsel, Governor’s Office
• Director of Research, Crime Research Group (VT’s current SAC)
• Director of Research and Data Analytics, Department of Corrections
• Executive Director of Policy and Strategic Initiatives, Department of Corrections
• Legislative Attorney, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs
• Defender General, Defender General’s Office
• Deputy Defender General and Chief Juvenile Defender
• Executive Director, Crime Research Group
• Deputy Division Director, State Impacts, Council of State Governments Justice Center
• Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary
• House Corrections and Institutions also reviewed the bill

In summary, H.410, as amended by House Judiciary, establishes consistent statewide measures for recidivism and other criminal justice indicators so that Vermont has clearer, more reliable information to inform policy decisions as we continue our goals to address public safety and criminal justice reform. With the long-term vision of H.410, Vermont will have a solid foundation to build on these efforts. 

H.410 as amended, passed out on a vote of 10-0-1 and your Committee on Judiciary asks for your support.

The following is the floor report delivered by Representative Ian Goodnow on H.642, which I sponsored and was voted out of my committee on a unanimous vote.

Before the chamber is House Judiciary Committee’s strike-all amendment to H.642, entitled “An act relating to youthful offender proceedings.” Madame Speaker, this bill proposes to make changes to two existing statutes related to the youthful offender laws in Vermont to both improve how revocation of the youthful offender status occurs and allow for more victim input in the process. 

By way of background, the Youthful Offender system allows the transfer of jurisdiction from the Criminal Division to the Family Division for cases involving youth aged 14 to 21 for certain alleged criminal offenses. This transfer of jurisdiction provides for a confidential process in the family court which is premised on the science related to adolescent brain development and data. The data tells us that when a youth’s case is prosecuted in the Criminal Division rather than in the family division, the outcomes as measured by recidivism are not good. H.642 deals primarily with the procedures related to what happens when an individual on youthful offender status  violates juvenile probation.  Specifically, what happens when there is a motion to revoke youthful offender status and send the youth to criminal court due to a probation violation. 

Moving on to the bill itself, Madame Speaker, Section 1 can be found on page ___ in today’s calendar. Section 1 proposes changes to 33 V.S.A. § 5285, and is related to  modifications or revocations of a youth’s juvenile probation. 

The first change to this section is to add a new subsection a(2) to 33 V.S.A. § 5285, which extends the jurisdiction of the family division beyond the youth’s 22nd birthday if there is a pending motion to revoke the youthful offender status. This extended jurisdiction would last either until the youth’s probation is revoked, or the youth is discharged from probation. This new provision addresses a serious issue that currently exists where youths have “timed out” of their juvenile probation because the youth turns 22 while there is a pending motion for revocation or modification. This change will allow for the youth to remain within the Family Court’s jurisdiction to either complete probation, or have their Youthful Offender status revoked and be transferred to criminal court or to the Department of Corrections’ custody..

Madame Speaker the second change in section one can be found on page ___ of todays calendar. Here we are still operating in 33 V.S.A. § 5285 related to motions for revocation of a youthful offender status. These proposed changes relate to how the court determines what to do once it’s ruled that there has been a violation of probation. The Court has multiple options as to what can happen once its made that ruling: it can continue the youth on probation with any modifications it feels are necessary, it can revoke the youth’s probation and transfer them to criminal court for sentencing, or it can revoke the probation and transfer the youth into the custody of DOC. 

H.642 proposes to provide a number of factors for the court to consider when deciding which of those outcomes to order. These can be found in the new proposed (c)(2) in 33 V.S.A. § 5285. The three factors proposed are 1) if public safety will be protected if the youth continues on probation 2) if the youth continues to be amenable to treatment as a youthful offender and 3) if there continues to be sufficient services to meet the youth’s treatment and rehabilitation needs. 

Further, H.642 clarifies that if a youth fails to appear at the probation revocation hearing, if good cause is not shown for why the youth failed to appear, the court may order an officer to pick up the youth and bring them to court. 

Moving on to Section 2 Madame speaker, H.642 proposes to make multiple changes to sections of 33 V.S.A. § 5288 relating to rights of victims in youthful offender proceedings. These changes can be found on page ___ of today’s calendar.  The primary change can be found in 33 V.S.A. § 5288 (a)(2), H.642 proposes to add language to allow victims to be present at the preliminary hearing to determine whether a youth should be considered for youthful offender status and, critically, to allow the victim to testify as to whether they believe youthful offender status to be appropriate for the youth. The further changes in 5288 align the language for court procedure to make clear the victim’s rights as it relates to youthful offender status. These changes are important, Madame Speaker, as a victim’s experience and ultimately the outcome of their case will be dramatically different depending on whether the youth is transferred to the youthful offender system or remains in the criminal court, and thus the victim’s voice should be heard and considered when the court makes that determination. 

The Youthful Offender System is an important tool in Vermont’s criminal justice system for young vermonters. H.642 will help to strengthen that system. 

The bill was reported favorably out of House Judiciary on a vote of 10-0-1 and the committee respectfully asks the House to join us in supporting its passage.

The following is the Floor Report delivered by Representative Angela Arsenault on H.606, which was passed out of my Committee on a split vote.

Madam Speaker, H.606 is a carefully-crafted public safety bill that proposes to address three specific firearms-related issues, mainly by relying on existing federal laws that have been upheld by numerous courts, including the United States Supreme Court. 

This bill carefully balances second amendment rights with the need to keep Vermonters safe. It helps improve Vermonters’ safety by keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who have been found by a court to be a danger of harm to themselves or others. It also mimics the existing federal prohibition on machine guns, which are not tools for hunting or self-defense. 

In short, this bill upholds the long-standing tradition of narrow, targeted, Constitutionally-sound restrictions on gun ownership in this country.

The text of the bill can be found on page TKTK of today’s House Calendar. Let us now walk through the bill. 

Section 1 amends Vermont’s existing grand larceny statute by adding theft of a firearm. This means that the theft of a firearm, regardless of the value of the firearm, would be a felony offense punishable by not more than 10 years in prison, a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. Typically, theft of objects or goods valued at less than $900 would be a misdemeanor charge. This change reflects the seriousness of the offense. 

The definition of “firearm” in this provision refers to 13 VSA § 4017, which expressly excludes antique firearms. This definition replaced a more expansive definition of “firearm” that was used in an earlier version of the bill – a change that was made at the request of gun-rights group the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. 

Section 2 proposes several amendments to the existing Vermont statute that prohibits possession of firearms by persons convicted of certain violent crimes. Similar prohibitions exist in all 49 other states and under federal law. Vermont’s law was passed in 2015 and provides that possession of a firearm after being convicted of a violent crime is a misdemeanor subject to a maximum penalty of two years in prison. Section 2 proposes to increase the penalty to a 3-year felony if a person commits the crime for a second or subsequent time.

In addition to persons convicted of violent crimes, there are several other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms under both Vermont and federal law. Current Vermont law prohibits possession by fugitives from justice and persons subject to relief from abuse orders or orders against stalking. These persons are also prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. At the request of the Department of States Attorneys and Sheriffs, Section 3 proposes to add to Vermont law another category of persons who are already excluded from firearms possession by federal law: persons who have been involuntarily committed by a court order because they were dangerous to themselves or others. Persons seeking voluntary mental health treatment will not be subject to this prohibition.

Federal law prohibits all persons who have been involuntarily committed from possessing firearms permanently, regardless of whether the commitment order is still in effect. However, Section 3 only prohibits possession by persons who are currently subject to the commitment or hospitalization order. Under the bill, when the commitment or hospitalization order ends, the state-level prohibition on firearm ownership ends. In addition, H.606 prohibits persons from possessing firearms if they were found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial for certain serious offenses. Section 3 adds the same increased penalties for second or subsequent offenses that were added in Section 2.

This section also includes a pathway for individuals to petition the court for relief from firearms prohibition using the same process as individuals barred from firearms possession for mental illness under the federal statute which is spelled out in 13 VSA § 4825.

Section 4 prohibits the possession of machine guns under Vermont law. Federal law already prohibits possession of machine guns, so by making it a state crime Section 4 permits a Vermont state’s attorney to bring a charge for the offense in a Vermont state court. The bill defines “machine gun” in the same way it is defined under federal law, namely, a firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot without manual reloading and with a single pull of the trigger. Included in this provision are the exceptions provided in federal law for machine guns that are registered under the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. 

And just like federal law, this section effectively prohibits devices that turn a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun, including auto sears like “Glock switches.” Such devices are easy to manufacture or 3D print and can shoot up to 1200 rounds per minute. They are present in Vermont and have been recovered at crime scenes. Twenty-eight states already prohibit these, and gun manufacturer Glock supports their prohibition.  

Machine guns that are still lawful to possess under federal law, and would therefore still be lawful to possess in Vermont, are those lawfully owned prior to 1986, when the federal prohibition went into effect, and those possessed by a state or federal government agency.

Again, if you own a machine gun legally under federal law, you will still be able to legally own a machine gun in Vermont.

Finally, Section 5 provides that the bill takes effect on passage

The bill passed out of your House Judiciary on a vote of 6-5-0 and we encourage members to vote “YES” in favor of common sense public safety measures. 

The following is my floor report for H.744.

H.744 amends Rule 3 of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule generally involves arrests without a warrant. It lists the types of offenses for which an arrest may be made without a warrant, including felonies, misdemeanors that a law enforcement officer witnesses, and some nonwitnessed misdemeanor offenses. Rule 3 also outlines procedures for the arresting officer to follow after the arrest. 

H.744 amends subsection (k) in Rule 3 related to temporary release. The language can be found on page 805 of today’s calendar. The provision requires the law enforcement officer making the arrest to contact the court to determine whether the alleged offender should be released or held. Often, this rule comes into play after hours when the court is closed. The arresting officer will contact an on-call judge or judicial officer in those situations. The arresting officer must provide the judicial officer with an affidavit or sworn statement, including information that allows the judicial officer to determine whether to release or hold the individual. 

Under the current rule, which the legislature passed in 2019, the arresting officer’s affidavit or sworn statement must indicate the crimes to be charged by the officer. This language is problematic and has led to the need for this amendment – an officer does not make charging decisions. It is the prosecutor who makes the charging decision.

H.744 fixes this problem by striking this sentence. In its place, the bill clarifies that the presiding judge for each court MAY require that prosecuting attorneys indicate the charge or charges that they intend to file. The presiding judge may also require the prosecuting attorney to request any conditions of release, bail, or orders to hold without bail. 

This additional clarifying provision codifies existing practice.

A bit more background is necessary related to this bill. Both the legislature and the courts have authority under the Vermont Constitution to amend judicial rules within the confines of separation of powers. The legislature generally cannot amend a court rule that involves an inherently judicial function, but Rule 3 is not such a rule.  Indeed, both the legislature and the court have amended Rule 3 multiple times over the years. In fact, it was an amendment to subsection (K) made by the legislature back in 2019 that H.744 is now revising. 

The judicial branch proposes rules through committees, including the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules. 

That Committee has proposed an amendment to subsection (K) different than the language in H.744. The Advisory Committee’s proposal would have provided that the presiding judge SHALL require the affidavit or sworn statement to include the charge or charges that the prosecuting attorney intends to file.  H.744, again, provides that the presiding judge MAY have such a requirement. The court’s proposal was mandatory, H.744 is discretionary.

According to witness testimony, H.744’s approach codifies existing practice. H. 744 addresses and clarifies the issues that the Criminal Rules Committee sought to address in its proposed Rule 3 amendment. In contrast, the Advisory Committee’s proposal would substantially change existing practice, and would place a significant, and often unnecessary burden, on law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys.

Accordingly, the Judiciary Committee has exercised its authority to amend subsection (K) in H.744, thus clarifying the legislature’s previous problematic amendment to that provision.

Under H.744, individual presiding judges will continue to determine if and when they need direct input from prosecuting attorneys as opposed to relying solely on law enforcement in determining whether to release or hold an alleged offender. 

The committee vote was 11-0 and we ask for your support.

I have become a big fan of federalism. The American political system shares and divides power between our national government in Washington and our 50 state governments. 

Under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, powers that are not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Under this Amendment, Vermont and the other states have authority to manage fundamental issues such as education, health, and public safety. The federal government does have exclusive authority over some areas and states share some authority with the federal government as well. And the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) provides that federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws.

These basic tenets of federalism and the intersection of these areas of authority are at issue in a bill that has already passed the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee will take it up soon.

Senate Bill 208 is an act relating to state standards for law enforcement identification.  It would require all local, state, and federal law enforcement officers to clearly identify themselves by name or badge number. It also prohibits masks or personal disguises for law enforcement, with exemptions for certain hazardous situations and deployments. 

In my view, Vermont has the authority under the Tenth Amendment to impose the requirements in this bill on not only state and local law enforcement, but also federal officers. Ensuring public safety has historically been and continues to be a function primarily left to the states. The federal government handles national security and interstate crimes, but the day-to-day responsibility for law enforcement falls to state, county, and municipal governments. 

Public safety is enhanced when we ensure transparency in law enforcement. With some limited exceptions, all law enforcement operating in Vermont should identify themselves. With such transparency, we can know if particular law enforcement officers are following the rule of law. The rule of law is a foundation of our democracy.

H.541, which originated in the House Judiciary Committee, grapples with the intersection of two other fundamental principles of our democracy: the right to vote without interference and the right to free political speech.  This bill focuses on election officials, voters, and activity around polling stations. Much of that activity will be political in nature and thus protected by the First Amendment. What was asked of the House Judiciary Committee was to craft a criminal statute, narrowly focused, which provides a way for the State to prosecute those who would interfere with State elections or voters while not infringing or chilling the protected First Amendment right to political speech. H.541 successfully strikes that careful balance.

H.541 provides that no one can intentionally or recklessly intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce others for the reason of obstructing their right to cast a vote or their right to choose who to vote for. It imposes possible criminal penalties for such interference. A leading constitutional scholar and the Deputy Solicitor General of the Vermont Attorney General’s office both testified before the Committee that the bill protects the right to vote in a manner that does not infringe on or chill free speech rights. The Vermont Secretary of State and town clerks also strongly supported the bill. H.541 passed the House on a unanimous voice vote and the Senate will take it up later in the session.

If you have any questions or input on these or other issues before the legislature, contact me at mlalonde@leg.state.vt.us.