politics

Vermont Can Hold Polluters Accountable, by Senator Nader Hashim and Representative Martin LaLonde

lalonde

When floodwaters tore through Vermont in July 2023 and then again exactly a year later, they left more than physical destruction in their wake. They also revealed to Vermonters the mounting price tag of climate change. While national media attention may have shifted to climate-change catastrophes in other parts of the country, Vermont families are still displaced, businesses are shuttered or drowning in debt, and communities are struggling to rebuild.

The financial toll of climate change in Vermont is real and ongoing. Every washed-out road, damaged bridge, and flooded home and business represents a cost someone must pay – and right now, that burden falls squarely on Vermont taxpayers. We see it through higher property taxes, rising insurance premiums, and reduced municipal services.

This dire reality prompted our legislature to pass the Climate Superfund Act, applying the same principle that has governed environmental cleanup for more than 40 years: Those who contribute to a problem should help pay for its solution. 

Overwhelming scientific consensus tells us that some of the world’s largest and most profitable fossil fuel corporations are at the root of the climate crisis. For decades, these corporations knew their products were likely to cause the kind of costly damage Vermont increasingly faces as the planet overheats. Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act applies this established polluter-pays approach to the mounting costs of our climate-related disasters, requiring these corporations to pay their fair share and help clean up the climate mess their products and activities have caused.

Americans across the political spectrum have long embraced the ethical standard that when someone makes a mess, they should help clean it up. Directing these massive fossil fuel corporations to contribute to recovery efforts isn’t radical, it’s basic fairness.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Vermont to stop the law from being enforced. DOJ makes several claims including that the Climate Superfund Act is preempted by the Clean Air Act, exceeds the territorial reach of Vermont’s legislative power, unlawfully discriminates against interstate commerce, conflicts with federal interstate commerce power, and is preempted by federal foreign-affairs powers. Last year, when we took up the bill that would become the Climate Superfund Act, he House and Senate Judiciary Committees vetted the legal and constitutional claims that could be made against the Act and we were confident that it would stand up in court.

As chairs of the Vermont General Assembly’s Judiciary Committees, we take our legal and constitutional obligations seriously. We appreciate the proper balance between state and federal authority. States have long served as the proving grounds for practical solutions to our challenges, and Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act continues this proud tradition. 

The law establishes a careful, science-based process to determine which companies should contribute and how much, ensuring fairness while addressing pressing needs.

This law passed with strong support from Vermonters of all political parties, but we knew that powerful interests would fight back. The recently filed lawsuits against Vermont and our neighbors in New York, who passed their own Climate Superfund Act, merely confirms what we already understood: Our approach is effective enough to warrant powerful opposition.

Vermont has always stood firm in defending our right to protect our citizens and preserve our way of life. From our founding days to the present, we’ve maintained that local solutions often best address local problems. We deeply appreciate the work Vermont’s congressional delegation and state officials are doing to defend our state’s authority, and call on them to continue that work as long as necessary. We must hold accountable those who profit while others pay the price.

Climate change presents unprecedented challenges but addressing them requires the same principles of responsibility and fairness that have always guided our legal system. Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act upholds these principles while protecting taxpayers from bearing costs they shouldn’t have to shoulder alone.

Reaffirming Our Commitment to Transgender and Nonbinary Vermonters

lalonde

Last week, the Vermont House of Representatives passed J.R.S. 15, a resolution that reaffirms our unwavering commitment to dignity, equality, and human rights for all people, especially our transgender and nonbinary neighbors, friends, and family members.

This public commitment should be uncontroversial and unnecessary. Unfortunately, it is neither.

The official policy of the United States government is that transgender and nonbinary people are not worthy of recognition and do not deserve protection of the law. Many states also have policies that echo this dehumanization and disrespect, putting their transgender and nonbinary citizens at risk.

The day after his inauguration, the president signed an executive order that sought to erase legal recognition of transgender and nonbinary people. The order sought to define these individuals out of existence. It went on to require federal agencies to remove all references to gender identity in their regulations and communications.

A later, similarly offensive executive order barring transgender individuals from serving in the military stated that being transgender is incompatible with “an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the military ban, finding that it was “soaked in animus.”

In contrast with these degradations, Vermont has passed laws that recognize and protect the civil rights of transgender and nonbinary people. From laws ensuring access to education, housing, employment, and public accommodations without discrimination; to policies that allow Vermonters to affirm their identities in vital records; to legislation that safeguards the right to access gender-affirming care and shields families and providers from out-of-state political interference. Vermont has not only stood by its values, it has led.

Transgender and nonbinary Vermonters are part of the fabric of our communities. They are our teachers, our nurses, our baristas, our students, our colleagues. They deserve to live freely and authentically, without fear of discrimination or exclusion. We made clear in this resolution that in Vermont, they are not only welcomed—they are valued.

J.R.S. 15 is not only a resolution. It is a reaffirmation. A reaffirmation that the state of Vermont will not waver in our defense of equity. And a declaration that we will keep fighting to ensure every Vermonter, regardless of gender identity, is treated with the respect and humanity they deserve.

J.R.S. 15 is a promise to transgender and nonbinary individuals that we have their backs, that we’re here to protect them in Vermont. As the resolution states, “all individuals are welcome here and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”

Public Safety Update

lalonde

Public safety continues to be a concern for many Vermonters. In his January budget address, the governor noted that Vermonters do not feel safe and incidents of certain types of crime have increased. He correctly noted that “one solution is more accountability.” The governor also said that taxpayers “made it clear they want us to fix broken systems, not just fund them.” 

The governor’s suggested fixes were contained in a so-called omnibus public safety bill. The bill was not introduced until late in this Session, but based on a preview of what it would contain, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees were able to start work on proposals in that bill in early January.

In the House Judiciary Committee, we tackled concerns related to juvenile justice, including the “raise the age” initiative. Vermont was the first state in the country to treat 18-year-olds accused of most crimes as juvenile offenders rather than adults. 

Based on research showing that young people’s brains are still developing into their 20s, the reform was set to gradually increase the age that youth could be sent to family court. There, cases remain confidential and offenders receive rehabilitative services aimed at helping them avoid future criminal behavior. Young adults accused of serious violent crimes, like murder and a handful of other felonies, would still be charged in adult court. 

In 2020, the state brought 18-year-olds into the juvenile system and 19-year-olds were set to follow in 2022. However, the Legislature has had to repeatedly extend the date for adding 19-year-olds, most recently to April 1, 2025.

After extensive testimony, it became clear that the administration, through the Department of Children and Families, was again not ready to proceed with raising the age to 19. In part, this was due to difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. It also stemmed from the challenge of holding 18- and 19-year-olds accountable when they are resistant to treatment and unwilling to change their behavior. In light of these concerns, the administration proposed repealing the law that would allow 19-year-olds to be treated in family court rather than criminal court.

Our committee agreed that adding 19-year-olds to DCF’s workload at this time would stretch its already over-stretched resources. But, given the recognized benefits to public safety of addressing most youth in family court and providing them with rehabilitative services, last week the legislature in H.2 instead delayed the addition of 19-year-olds to July 2027. The delay will give the administration and the legislature additional time to develop approaches to improve accountability for those treatment-resistant individuals in the older age group.

In the second half of this Session, the House Judiciary Committee will work on bills received from the Senate that also address provisions in the administration’s public safety bill. S.12 would create a uniform, simplified system of sealing – rather than completely erasing or “expunging” – criminal records. It would allow criminal records for certain crimes to be sealed automatically if the offender receives no additional criminal convictions over a defined time period. The individual would no longer have a criminal record, which would eliminate overly punitive obstacles to obtaining housing, employment, and education. Sealing rather than expunging these records would also ensure access for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes as well as for background checks necessary to ensure public safety.

The House Judiciary Committee will also continue to work on amendments to the State’s extradition procedures, bail revocation, and the definition of recidivism, also among the administration’s priorities.

I support these initiatives and some of them might bring additional accountability. But they won’t “fix” the system, despite the administration’s claims. True accountability for criminal offenses requires additional funding for the criminal justice system.

Our court system currently faces a backlog of cases and recently experienced a number of judicial vacancies, which exacerbated the problem. These vacancies have since been filled and the legislature approved three additional judges in the FY 2025 budget. The increase in judicial resources will help, but without additional resources for pre-charge diversion, as well as additional resources for prosecutors and public defenders, it will still take years to clear the backlog. And due to the backlog and a lack of resources, criminal cases are not being processed in a timely manner.

Funding programs to divert cases out of the criminal justice system and thus reduce pressure on the courts is a top priority of the House Judiciary Committee. The governor’s budget contains no funding to divert cases from the courts through the pre-charge diversion program. Pre-charge diversion occurs when individuals who commit low-level crimes are referred to community providers of restorative justice, such as community justice centers, instead of to court. Over the past three years, an average of 698 cases per year have been diverted from the courts prior to being charged. Act 180 of 2024 established a state-wide pre-charge diversion program, which should divert even more cases from the courts. But this program requires funding.

The governor’s proposed budget does not provide the resources the criminal justice system needs to ensure the public is safe. Accordingly, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that the budget include the resources necessary to enable cases to be resolved in a timely fashion. Only by doing so will individuals be held accountable for their actions as soon as possible after offending – a key to ensuring public safety.

This is admittedly a difficult budgeting year, with many needs but reduced resources. Nevertheless, to improve public safety by ensuring more expeditious resolution of criminal cases, it is critical that we find a way to provide the entire justice system with sufficient resources.

Statement from Public Safety Press Conference

lalonde

Even though Vermont is a very safe state, Vermonters are feeling less safe. Indeed, data has shown that over the past few years, some of Vermont’s crime rates have increased.

To tackle this issue, it is most important that we address the root causes of crime. These include insufficient resources to address the instability in people’s lives that may be caused by substance use disorder, mental health issues, homelessness, and poverty. Strengthening Vermont’s infrastructure in these areas continues to be a top priority, but the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction lies at the end of the line, the criminal justice system, when people have committed crimes. So, that will be the focus of my comments today.

Last year, the legislature passed a package of initiatives to improve public safety through the criminal justice system.

We targeted crimes that have specifically impacted our state, such as retail theft in Act 128, auto theft and trespass into an auto in Act 129, drug trafficking in Act 125, and the proliferation of ghost guns in Act 120.

In Act 138, we tackled issues related to conditions of release and bail. We clarified that when a court is determining whether a defendant presents a risk of flight, it should consider whether that defendant has violated conditions of release. And if the court finds a risk of flight, it is no longer limited to a $200 maximum bail if the defendant is a repeat offender. Act 138 also established a pretrial supervision program that includes electronic monitoring to ensure that people are complying with conditions of release as they await resolution of their cases.

We also provided additional resources to the state’s courts, prosecutors, defenders, and victim advocates so that our criminal justice system will work more effectively. And we passed Act 180 to expand restorative justice throughout the State as a vital part of our public safety package.

Some of these laws are already helping, including the changes to bail.  But it will take some time for our other initiatives to have an impact. For example, the three additional judges that we approved are only now taking the bench. Also, the pretrial supervision program is starting as a pilot in Orange and Essex counties.

Nevertheless, as the administration recognized when it unveiled its proposed omnibus public safety bill, there is more to be done. I appreciate that the administration is engaging in continuing to improve public safety. I applaud the Governor’s proposal to provide more rehabilitative help to Vermonters suffering from substance use disorder.  

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have already been working this session on questions raised in the administration’s proposal. For example, House Judiciary has been taking testimony to understand issues related to juvenile justice and how we can improve accountability in that system. Senate Judiciary is taking testimony on sealing and expungement, starting with a bill that the House passed last year but the Senate did not. That bill does most of what the Governor now seeks in his proposal on that issue. We will evaluate other proposals in the administration’s bill, including bail revocation and modifying the definition of recidivism.

But there is an important element missing from the administration’s proposals. And that is a focus on ensuring that our criminal justice system can deliver swift, certain, and fair consequences.

To deter crime, you need two things: first, the risk of being caught committing a crime and second, certain and swift consequences for criminal activity. 

These consequences do not necessarily have to involve incarceration. They can include probation, community restitution, deferred sentences, diversion, and mental health or substance use treatment. The key is that the consequences for offenders must be certain and swift.

But in Vermont, consequences for criminal activity have become uncertain and slow. Deterrence has therefore declined. Why has this happened? There is one major reason. Over the past several years, Vermont State courts, prosecutors, defenders, and victim advocates have lacked the resources to resolve criminal cases expeditiously.

How do we fix this?  How do we get our criminal justice system running more expeditiously? We can approach this problem in three ways. First, we can provide resources to the actors in the criminal justice system so that cases can be more swiftly processed. Second, we can take pressure off the courts by diverting more cases away from the criminal justice system. Third, we can examine other procedural or sentencing fixes to expedite court processing.

As to the first approach, last year, we did provide a boost in resources and we should see the impact of that investment in the coming year.  But additional resources are needed for prosecutors, defenders, and community justice centers. I am hopeful that the administration’s budget will recognize the primary importance of providing sufficient resources to Vermont’s criminal justice system.

As to the second approach – to take pressure off the courts, last year, we established a state-wide pre-charge diversion program to have certain types of cases resolved through restorative justice practices in community justice centers before ever reaching the criminal justice system. A well-functioning, well-resourced restorative justice system can ensure certain and immediate consequences, often with better outcomes for victims and offenders than the criminal justice system. Diverting more cases pre-charge will take pressure off the courts to allow the criminal justice system to take care of the current backlog and speed up case processing. This year, we must make sure that this program gets off the ground and is appropriately resourced.

As to the final approach, examining other fixes, last year we re-established community restitution, also known as work crew, which the Department of Corrections had ended. This was a tool that prosecutors, defenders, and the courts had used to quickly resolve many cases, but similar cases now languish. This year, we need to make sure this sentencing option is appropriately implemented.

We will keep working, including with the administration, to improve public safety in Vermont through responsible, holistic, system-wide solutions with the best interests of all Vermonters front of mind.

Looking Ahead to Upcoming Session – Public Safety

lalonde

On January 8, the Vermont General Assembly will convene its 79th Biennium. Based on what we have heard while reaching out to constituents, the legislature’s priority will be affordability, primarily as it relates to education and health care. I hope to continue to serve as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, where we will resume our work addressing concerns related to public safety.

In the last session, the legislature passed several initiatives to address public safety concerns. We targeted crimes that have specifically impacted our state, such as retail theft in Act 128, auto theft and trespass into an auto in Act 129, drug trafficking in Act 125, and the proliferation of ghost guns in Act 120.

We also tackled systemic issues. In Act 138 we established a pretrial supervision program that includes electronic monitoring to ensure that people are complying with their conditions of release as they await resolution of their cases. We re-established community restitution, also known as work crew.

The legislature also provided additional resources to the courts, prosecutors, defenders, and victim advocates so that our criminal justice system will work more effectively. And we passed Act 180 to expand restorative justice throughout the State as a vital part of our public safety package.

The criminal justice system has several important goals: rehabilitation of individuals who have committed crimes, incapacitation of violent individuals who pose a threat to society, and deterrence.

Effective deterrence relies on two factors: (1) the risk of being caught and (2) certain and quick consequences for criminal activity. The consequences do not necessarily have to involve incarceration. They can include probation, community restitution, deferred sentences, diversion, and mental health or substance use treatment. The key is that the consequences for offenders must be certain and swift.

In Vermont, consequences for criminal activity have become slow and uncertain. Deterrence has therefore declined. Why has this happened? There is one major reason. Over the past several years, Vermont State courts, prosecutors, defenders, and victim advocates have lacked the resources to resolve criminal cases expeditiously.

To get to a point where cases can be promptly resolved, the Vermont criminal justice system must address a significant backlog of proceedings, which pre-dated the COVID pandemic. During the pandemic, fewer cases were filed, but those that were filed were not being processed. After the courts fully reopened, a surge in new filings left the courts falling even further behind.

The courts use several metrics to track whether they are making progress on reducing the backlog. One of those metrics is clearance rates – the number of new filings compared to the number of cases the courts dispose of each month. Cases in compared to cases out. If the clearance rate is over 100%, that means the backlog is being reduced. As of the end of October of this year, the courts have achieved a clearance rate on criminal cases of 111%, an improvement over last year’s clearance rate of 106%. But our goal is to achieve a rate of 125%, which would allow the system to substantially decrease the backlog in the next four years.  

Due in part to the court backlog and a lack of resources, criminal cases are frequently not being processed in a timely manner. The Vermont courts track the time from when a case is filed to when the court disposes of it. They set forth disposition goals: for example, 98% of standard misdemeanor cases should be resolved in 180 days and 98% of standard felonies should be resolved in 365 days. Currently, approximately 50% of cases are meeting disposition goals. That means that, for many individuals alleged to have committed criminal offenses, the consequences are far removed from the offense, diminishing any deterrence value.

How do we reach these goals? There are two primary solutions. First, we can provide the resources to the criminal justice system so that cases can be more expeditiously processed. This past year, the legislature provided additional resources to the State’s courts, prosecutors, defenders, victim advocates, and Community Justice Centers.

Second, we need not rely solely on the courts to provide expeditious consequences for criminal activity. A well-functioning, well-resourced restorative justice system can also ensure certain and immediate consequences, often with better outcomes for victims and offenders than the criminal justice system.

Restorative justice is a community-based response to crime that focuses on repairing harm and making amends. It holds individuals accountable for the harm they have caused in a manner that centers on the victim and the community that has been harmed. 

For years, Vermont has successfully used restorative justice through its established court diversion program. Under this program, defendants charged with crimes can be sent to the diversion program as an alternative to being prosecuted. 

Some communities in Vermont also successfully use what is called pre-charge diversion. In these communities, for low-level crimes and first-time offenders, law enforcement or prosecutors can send an alleged offender to a community justice center before they are charged with a crime. They are diverted from the criminal justice system earlier, with better results for victims and the community and quicker accountability for the alleged offender.  

Pre-charge diversion had not been available or uniformly applied across the state. There was no pre-charge diversion program like there is for court diversion.

Act 180 corrected that problem. It establishes a state-wide pre-charge diversion program that will be overseen by the Office of the Attorney General, which currently manages the court diversion program. It sets forth standards for program implementation and access across all counties. It requires uniform data collection that will allow Vermont to more precisely evaluate program effectiveness and overall cost savings. Critically, diverting more cases pre-charge will take pressure off the courts to allow the criminal justice system to take care of the backlog and speed up case processing.

It will take time for the work of this past Session to have an impact on public safety. The pre-trial supervision program will start as a pilot in Orleans and Essex Counties before rolling out to the rest of the State. As to the courts, in May we approved the addition of three judges; in early September the Judicial Nominating Board recommended to the administration twelve candidates for the judgeships; and on November 27 the administration appointed judges from this list. Filling positions takes time, and there will be a learning curve for these new judges and for additional prosecutors and defense attorneys. 

Looking to the upcoming session, the House Judiciary Committee will monitor progress in addressing the backlog and will evaluate additional resource needs, including for the pre-charge diversion program. We will also consider other initiatives to ensure that our communities are safe.

Town Meeting Report

lalonde

This is from the report that I handed out at the polls on Town Meeting day.

H.850 Overview and Context for FY25 School Budgets

This year, we face a difficult school budget season as a perfect storm of financial pressures push education spending up across the state. These pressures are impacting every school district. School boards across Vermont — responsible for developing district budgets that must be approved by local voters — are struggling to deliver budgets that meet student needs and are reasonable for taxpayers.

Financial Context for FY25 School Budgets

Financial pressures at play this year:

●      The end of federal pandemic-era school funds

●      Rising healthcare costs and salaries for hard-working educators

●      Wear and tear on aging school buildings

●      High mental health needs and learning loss support for students in the wake of the pandemic

●      General inflationary pressures

 

Statewide education spending is forecast to rise by nearly $250 million for FY25, an unprecedented increase. Vermonters will struggle to cover the higher property taxes needed to fund this increase.

Increased education spending is the main driver of the spike in tax rates this year. When spending goes up, taxes go up. Other factors that are pushing up tax rates: rising real estate values; the reduction of sales tax revenue — which feeds the Education Fund — to normal pre-pandemic levels; and some legislative changes in Act 127 of 2022.

Act 127 and Pupil Weighting Changes

In 2022, the Legislature passed Act 127 with broad support and the Governor signed the bill. It updated Vermont’s “pupil weights” — a key factor in our complex education funding formula that accounts for the different costs to educate different categories of students. (Data shows it costs more, for example, to educate students in poverty and English Language Learners (ELL)). Act 127 is an important and necessary law for equitably funding education:  It was designed to increase the ability of districts with larger numbers of low-income and ELL students to fund vital education programming.

When passed, Act 127 also included a temporary 5% cap on annual homestead tax-rate increases at the district level. The goal was to provide relief for what was expected to be a relatively small group of districts that would be negatively affected by Act 127, districts that would need to have a higher tax rate to maintain their education funding.

However, as a result of education spending decisions across the state, every school district in Vermont is projected to see budget increases pushing them past the 5% tax rate cap. The entire state cannot be held to a 5% tax rate cap and still cover the projected new statewide education spending; tax rates must be set to raise enough money to cover the cost of the Education Fund.

Overview of Act 84

Therefore, to align school budgets more closely with the state’s ability to financially support them, Act 84 eliminates Act 127’s 5% tax rate cap mechanism. Signed by the governor on February 22, Act 84 provides a new mechanism that is more precise and will target only those districts that face higher homestead tax rates due to Act 127. While it aligns district spending with the resulting tax rate, it mitigates the predicted increase in property tax rates for those negatively impacted by the new weighting formula.

For the affected districts, this law provides a one cent relief on the tax rate for each percentage point of negative change to the district’s share of the statewide weighted pupil count. South Burlington saw a 6% decrease in its weighted pupil count due to Act 127 and will accordingly receive a six cent discount on its FY25 tax rate.

Law Enforcement and Public Safety

 

Last year the House Government Operations Committee focused on law enforcement training and accountability, as well as other bills focused on public safety. That work continues with efforts to increase courthouse security and improve training programs and recruitment for law enforcement. The Vermont Criminal Justice Council has made progress modernizing training and is hosting the largest classes ever at the police academy to fill law enforcement positions across the State. 

 

The Judiciary Committee’s Work to Promote Public Safety

Vermonters throughout the State have been reaching out to their representatives with concerns related to public safety. Although Vermont is considered one of the safest states, citizens are justifiably concerned about an increase in crime. The legislature has heard these concerns and is working to address them.

Most of the witnesses testifying in the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of criminal justice — representatives from the Vermont courts, State’s Attorneys, the Defender General, as well as victim advocates and others — emphasized that the two most effective ways to deter crime are 1) a high probability of being caught and 2) certain and quick consequences for criminal activity. 

The probability of being caught depends on the presence and availability of law enforcement. This factor is not under the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction, so we focus on the certainty and immediacy of consequences. These outcomes depend on a well-functioning, well-resourced criminal justice system.

One of the biggest challenges our court system currently faces is a backlog of cases, which pre-dated the COVID pandemic. During the pandemic, fewer cases were filed, but those that were filed were not being processed. After the courts fully reopened, a surge in filings left the courts falling further behind.

The legislature’s primary lever to address this issue is the State’s budget. The Judiciary Committee has been working with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that all elements of the justice system have sufficient resources. Unfortunately, although the Governor in his budget address explained that public safety is one of the administration’s priorities, his proposed budget does not align with this statement. For example, to meet the administration’s budget, the State’s Attorneys will need to cut up to six Deputy State’s Attorney positions. To properly address the deluge of criminal cases, we should instead be adding up to 15 additional State’s Attorney positions as well as additional victim advocates and administrative staff. The Defender General’s Office needs over one million dollars more than the administration’s budget provides just to maintain the Office’s status quo. Although the budget does include funding for two additional judges, it does not provide funding for the necessary court staff.

We believe that the Governor’s proposed budget fails to provide the resources the criminal justice system needs to ensure the public is safe. Accordingly, the Judiciary Committee will continue to work with Appropriations to ensure that the budget will include the resources necessary to enable cases to be heard in a timely fashion. Only by doing so will individuals be held accountable for their actions as soon as possible after offending – a key to ensuring public safety.

As we continue to advocate for proper criminal justice resources, the Judiciary Committee has been working on other public safety bills, including the following:

Filling Judicial Vacancies

When vacancies occur in the courts, it is critical that new judges are expeditiously appointed. When a judicial vacancy occurs in Vermont state court, the governor reviews and appoints judges from a list of candidates provided by a nonpartisan Judicial Nominating Board. The House passed H.780, which will help expand and diversify the applicant pool for judicial vacancies so a governor will have more quality potential jurists from which to choose. The bill will also expedite the process by limiting the number of times a governor can ask for additional candidates from the Nominating Board.

Expanding Offenses Related to Automobiles

The House passed H.563, dealing with motor vehicle theft, unlawful operation, and trespass. This bill closes a few gaps in our statutes, including the fact that current law does not prohibit a person from entering another person’s car without consent unless they are told to stay out or the car is posted with a no trespassing sign. This expansion of the law is designed to encompass instances of rummaging through someone’s car. Accidental entry into a vehicle (“I thought that was my green Subaru”) will not be criminalized.

 Codifying Pre-Charge Diversion

The House Judiciary Committee has been working on H.645, which would create and codify a state-wide pre-charge diversion program. Pre-charge diversion occurs when individuals who commit low-level crimes are referred to community providers of restorative justice, such as community justice centers, instead of court. The bill would allow law enforcement or prosecutors to divert more offenders from the criminal justice system before they are charged with a crime. If an individual does not complete the restorative justice program, they would be referred to the traditional court system. 

Some Vermont counties, including Chittenden county, already offer such a program. H.645 would stabilize those existing programs by placing administrative oversight in and funding through the Attorney General’s Office. By expanding pre-charge diversion statewide, our entire State will benefit from more timely interventions and reduced pressure on the courts. The Judiciary Committee voted out this bill, which will be considered by the entire House after Town Meeting break.

Addressing Repeat Offenders of Retail Theft

There’s no question that retail theft is a major issue in several towns throughout Vermont, including South Burlington, and retailers have been clear in their request for legislative action. The House Judiciary Committee passed H.534 to address this concern. The bill will reach the House floor after Town Meeting Break.

The bill includes a provision that would allow aggregation of the value of more than one retail theft. Currently, retail theft offenses can be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies depending upon the value of goods stolen. Anything up to $900 is a misdemeanor; over $900 is a felony. H.534 would enable prosecutors to charge individuals with a felony if the total value of goods stolen within a 14-day period exceeds $900.

The bill would also reinstitute community restitution (also known as work crew) as a sentencing option. Last year, the Department of Corrections ended this program, but we have heard from multiple witnesses (prosecutors, defenders, and the court) that work crew is an important tool for providing certain and swift consequences for persons charged with retail theft. The program allowed courts to sentence low-risk offenders to pre-determined employment or community service for a maximum of 15 workdays within 60 days. So long as the offender fulfilled the work obligations, they would avoid serving prison time.

Expanded Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence

Forty percent of all calls to Vermont law enforcement for violent crimes are related to domestic violence. This fact alone means any attempt to improve public safety must include efforts to prevent and address domestic violence.

H.27 is one such step. Passed by the House early this year, it adds “coercive controlling behavior” to the definition of abuse already in the civil statute, meaning that victims of such behavior may request a relief from abuse order.

During testimony, we heard chilling accounts of coercive controlling behavior that preceded physical violence, including domestic homicide. In one case, a woman’s husband removed the seats from the family minivan because he knew his wife would not drive her children in an unsafe vehicle. This action isolated her in their rural Vermont home, with no way to escape. He later killed her and their children. 

Current law requires seekers of relief from abuse orders to be physically harmed or in fear of imminent physical harm. The aim of this bill is to provide a pathway out of an abusive situation before physical violence occurs. 

Addressing the Root Causes of Crime

In the House Judiciary Committee, we deal with public safety issues through the criminal justice system. It is equally important, if not more so, to address such issues before they land in the criminal justice system. Thus, the work other committees in the State House are undertaking is critical to help address root causes of crime, including homelessness, substance use disorder, and limited access to mental health services.

Housing and Development

Many factors contribute to the current housing crisis in Vermont: decades of redlining; zoning that has prevented dense development in city centers; chronic under-investment in rental vouchers and affordable housing; an increase in housing demand combined with a decrease in the average number of people per household; new economic opportunities presented by converting long-term rental properties into short-term rentals; and a 57% decline in home construction since 1988.

From March 2020 through June 2023, Vermont invested over $1 billion — mostly through federal stimulus funding — into expanding our affordable housing supply and providing emergency housing assistance. These investments include constructing, acquiring and rehabbing affordable housing units through the Vermont Housing Conservation Board; bringing rental units online through the Vermont Housing Improvement Program (VHIP); supporting recovery housing; providing emergency rental assistance to tenants and landlords through the Vermont Emergency Rental Assistance Program (VERAP); supporting first-generation and missing-middle homebuyers; and providing non-congregate housing and services to homeless Vermonters.

Last year, the legislature passed S.100 (Act 47), which is a comprehensive housing law that updates our land-use policies to encourage development in vibrant, livable, and walkable downtowns while discouraging sprawl. These updates include zoning changes to enable more housing density, like allowing duplexes wherever single-family homes are allowed and at least five housing units per acre in areas served by water and sewer.

With the housing crisis and threats from a changing climate becoming dire, this year the legislature launched a deep examination of how to better protect our communities, air, water, wildlife, forests, and working lands. Since 1970, our statewide land use law, Act 250, has helped support compact development in downtowns and village centers while protecting forests and open lands. Last year, in Act 47, we changed Act 250 to make it easier to build housing in designated growth centers, downtowns, and village centers. We also made it harder to appeal much-needed housing projects.

H.687 is a comprehensive bill further amending Act 250 that is currently in the House Environment and Energy Committee. It seeks a balanced approach to improving the effectiveness and consistency of the Natural Resources Board in issuing Act 250 permits and handling appeals. It proposes new location-based oversight that defines three tiers covering (1) downtowns and village centers, (2) rural areas, and (3) the most ecologically sensitive areas.

Overcoming the Overdose Epidemic

All Vermonters deserve access to the support they need to live healthier and safer lives. That includes our neighbors, friends, and loved ones struggling with substance use disorder, who are increasingly at risk of overdose. Fatal drug overdoses are at an all-time high, causing immeasurable loss for countless Vermont families. The same public health framework used during COVID-19 can help us respond to the overdose epidemic.We have prioritized saving lives while appropriating millions of dollars into strategies rooted in scientific evidence. By bolstering our naloxone distribution efforts with vending machines, wall-mounted receptacles, and home mail order options, we are helping to make overdose reversal medications readily available in times of emergency. To address the increasingly lethal and unpredictable illicit drug supply, we have established high-tech drug testing programs. We have also removed unnecessary insurance barriers for Vermonters on Medicaid, so that low-income Vermonters aren’t left behind by our treatment system.We have also made investments beyond the Opioid Settlement Fund, including increasing resources to facilitate recovery through housing and peer support. We have funded youth prevention programs and strengthened connections between our mental health and substance use treatment systems. We have also created opportunities for workforce development for people in recovery.

Mental Health Crisis Response

Mental health care is a cornerstone of health care in Vermont and a priority this legislative session. To respond effectively and respectfully to the mental health needs of all Vermonters, we’re focusing on crisis response and community-based programs—specifically mental health urgent care, mobile crisis response, and the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline. 

Vermont has six mental health urgent care programs, including four brick-and-mortar centers providing psychiatric urgent care for children and adults. In addition, there are two “living room” models designed to be welcoming spaces where guests feel safe and meet with teams to get support. These provide alternatives to emergency departments.

A new statewide mobile crisis response also helps people experiencing a mental health or substance use crisis by providing mental health and welfare checks in lieu of police intervention. Services are delivered in the community by two-person teams who refer individuals to other forms of care as needed.

Connecting it all is the 988 Vermont Suicide and Crisis Lifeline that responds to calls, texts, and chats 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Through these and other programs, we are making sure there is always someone to call, someone to respond, someone to prevent, and somewhere to go.

Update on Public Safety and Access to Justice

lalonde

This session, the House Judiciary Committee has focused on addressing Vermonters’ concerns about public safety and access to justice.

Increasing Resources for the Criminal Justice System: Most of the witnesses testifying before our committee on criminal justice — representatives from the Vermont courts, State’s Attorneys, the Defender General, as well as victim advocates and others — have emphasized that the two most effective ways to deter crime are 1) a high probability of being caught and 2) certain and quick consequences for criminal activity. 

The probability of being caught depends on the presence and availability of law enforcement. This factor is not under the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction, so we focus on the certainty and immediacy of consequences. These outcomes depend on a well-functioning, well-resourced criminal justice system.

One of the biggest challenges our court system currently faces is a backlog of cases, which pre-dated the COVID pandemic. During the pandemic, fewer cases were filed, but those that were filed were not being processed. After the courts fully reopened, a surge in filings left the courts falling further behind.

The legislature’s primary lever to address this issue is the State’s budget. The Judiciary Committee has been working with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that all elements of the justice system have sufficient resources. Unfortunately, although the Governor in his budget address explained that public safety is one of the administration’s priorities, his proposed budget does not align with this priority. For example, to meet the administration’s budget, the State’s Attorneys will need to cut up to eight deputy State’s Attorney positions. To properly address the deluge of criminal cases, we should instead be adding up to ten additional State’s Attorney positions as well as additional victim advocates and administrative staff.  The Defender General’s Office needs over one million dollars more than the administration’s budget just to maintain the Office’s status quo. Although the administration’s budget does include funding for two additional judges, it does not provide funding for the necessary court staff.

We believe that the Governor’s proposed budget fails to provide the resources the criminal justice system needs to ensure the public is safe. Accordingly, the Judiciary Committee will continue to work with Appropriations to ensure that the budget will include the resources necessary to enable cases to be heard in a timely fashion. Only by doing so will individuals be held accountable for their actions as soon as possible after offending – a key to ensuring public safety.

The Judiciary Committee has been working on other public safety bills as we continue to advocate for proper criminal justice resources, including the following:

Filling Court Vacancies: When vacancies occur in the courts, it is critical that new judges are expeditiously appointed. When a judicial vacancy occurs in Vermont state court, a governor reviews and appoints judges from a list of candidates provided by a nonpartisan Judicial Nominating Board. The House Judiciary Committee passed H.780, which will help expand and diversify the applicant pool for judicial vacancies so a governor will have more quality potential jurists from which to choose. The bill will also expedite the process by limiting the number of times that a governor can ask for additional candidates from the Nominating Board.

Expanding Offenses Related to Automobiles: The House Judiciary Committee passed H.563, dealing with motor vehicle theft, unlawful operation, and trespass. This bill closes a few gaps in our statutes, including the fact that current law does not prohibit a person from entering another person’s car without consent unless they are told to stay out or the car is posted with a no trespassing sign. This expansion of the law is designed to encompass incidences of rummaging through someone’s car. Accidental entry into a vehicle (“I thought that was my green Subaru”) will not be criminalized.

Codifying Pre-Charge Diversion: The House Judiciary Committee has been working on H.645, which would create and codify a state-wide pre-charge diversion program. Pre-charge diversion occurs when individuals who commit low-level crimes are referred to community providers of restorative justice, such as community justice centers, instead of to court. The bill would allow law enforcement or prosecutors to divert more offenders from the criminal justice system before they are charged with a crime. If an individual does not complete the restorative justice program, they would be referred to the traditional court system. 

Some Vermont counties, including Chittenden County, already offer such a program. H.645 would add stability to those existing programs by placing administrative oversight in and funding through the Attorney General’s Office. And by expanding pre-charge diversion statewide, our entire State will benefit from more timely justice interventions and reduced pressure on the courts. The Committee will likely vote out this bill by mid-February.

Addressing Repeat Offenders of Retail Theft: There’s no question that retail theft is a major issue in several towns throughout Vermont, including South Burlington, and retailers are clear in their request for legislative action. The House Judiciary Committee has been working on H.534 to address this concern.

The bill includes a provision that would allow aggregation of the value of more than one retail theft. Currently, retail theft offenses can be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies depending upon the value of goods stolen. Anything up to $900 is a misdemeanor; over $900 is a felony. H.534 would enable prosecutors to charge individuals with a felony if the total value of goods stolen within a 14-day period exceeds $900.

The bill also would reinstitute community restitution (also known as work crew) as a sentencing option. Last year, the Department of Corrections ended this program, but we have heard from multiple witnesses (prosecutors, defenders, and the court) that work crew is an important tool for providing certain and swift consequences for persons charged with retail theft. The community restitution program allowed courts to sentence low-risk offenders to pre-determined employment or community service for a maximum of 15 workdays within 60 days. So long as the offender fulfilled the work obligations, they would avoid serving prison time. In the House Judiciary Committee, we deal with public safety issues through the criminal justice system. It is equally important, if not more so, to address such issues before they land in the criminal justice system. Thus, the work that other committees in the State House are undertaking is critical to help address root causes of crime, including substance use disorder, homelessness, and limited access to mental health services.

Access to Justice for Low-Income Vermonters

lalonde

Courts need to handle matters efficiently, processing and adjudicating cases in a timely manner. In addition to complying with statutory time limits, courts must deliver certainty and immediacy to all parties.

Efficiency is plainly important in the criminal context. Defendants’ individual liberties are at stake and victims are seeking prompt justice. For a deterrence effect, accountability must follow offenses as soon as possible.

Efficiency matters beyond the court’s criminal docket as well. Expeditious case processing is essential not only to justice but also to the perception of justice. Civil cases that take a very long time to resolve can undermine the perceived legitimacy of the judicial system and reduce trust that the courts will resolve disputes fairly.

Research suggests that because of inefficiencies in the administration of justice, people may be less likely to turn to the courts to resolve their legal issues. In addition, people may be less likely to comply with court orders. Delays also result in increased financial costs.

Improving efficiency in court case flow is necessary to give confidence and satisfaction to those seeking access to justice in the courts’ civil and family divisions. Individuals pursuing personal injury, medical malpractice, employment discrimination, or other civil claims should not have to wait months or even years to have their cases decided.

Moving cases swiftly through the civil docket and family courts would also have a positive effect on public safety. For example, survivors of domestic violence may have pending divorce or child custody cases involving their abusers. When such cases languish, survivors may be further traumatized and unable to obtain closure.

Access to justice in civil matters should not solely focus on the speed of moving cases through the courts, however. The legislature also should ensure that individuals of limited means are assisted with their cases.

In civil court, individuals in poverty cannot afford an attorney and they will not have one appointed for them, as happens in criminal court. Currently a large percentage of cases involve pro se litigants, individuals representing themselves without an attorney. In certain types of cases, the fact that only one side is represented by an attorney often leads to a power imbalance. This is the situation, for example, in eviction cases: Landlords are represented by an attorney in over 90% of the cases while tenants are represented in less than 30% of the cases.

Providing legal assistance in civil cases to those who cannot afford an attorney would help enable stable families and communities. Stability, which is key to crime prevention, is challenged by housing and income inconstancy, substance use disorder, and untreated mental health conditions. Legal assistance organizations provide critical services that help low-income residents address issues impacting their families’ homes, incomes, jobs, and access to vital services. By creating meaningful access to the legal system to resolve disputes, obtain benefits or services, and defend rights and processes, these legal services bring stability to low-income Vermonters.

For example, legal assistance attorneys can help a tenant file an answer in an eviction proceeding, assist an immigrant in obtaining a work authorization permit, or ensure the reinstatement of a family’s health insurance. They can represent a domestic violence victim in a relief-from-abuse hearing, guide a client through the divorce and custody process, or help a low-income family connect with a pro bono bankruptcy attorney.

Low-income legal services help pro se litigants in poverty in a manner that supports families and communities and, in turn, advances public safety. To fulfill this role, these organizations need additional resources. Accordingly, in the current Session, I will be advocating not only for sufficient resources to improve the functioning of the courts, but also for additional resources for legal assistance organizations such as Vermont Legal Aid.

Public Safety and Access to Justice

lalonde

As I wrote in my November column, Vermonters are concerned about public safety. The following explains what the House Judiciary Committee will be doing in the upcoming Session to address this concern.

Increasing Resources for the Criminal Justice System: In the Judiciary Committee, we have learned that the two most effective crime deterrents are 1) a high probability of being caught and 2) certain and quick consequences for criminal activity. 

The probability of being caught depends on the presence and availability of law enforcement. The certainty and immediacy of consequences depend on a well-functioning, well-resourced criminal justice system made up of the courts, prosecutors, defenders, victim advocates, and community justice centers. The Judiciary Committee will focus on ways to ensure that cases in the criminal justice system are efficiently processed, leaving issues related to law enforcement to the Government Operations Committee.

One of the biggest challenges our court system currently faces is a backlog of cases, which pre-dated the COVID pandemic. During the pandemic, fewer cases were filed, but those that were filed were not being processed. Since the courts have fully reopened, there has been a surge in filings and the courts have been falling further behind.

The legislature’s primary lever to address this issue is the State’s budget. The Judiciary Committee will work with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that all vital elements of the justice system have sufficient resources. This work will enable cases to be heard a timely fashion so that individuals are being held accountable for their actions as soon as possible.

Filling Court Vacancies: When vacancies occur in the courts, it is critical that new judges are expeditiously appointed. That process takes too long. The courts have been down several positions for a good part of the year. Fortunately, the Governor has just appointed five individuals to fill seven of our current vacancies. But it took four to six months for him to fill three positions earlier this year and nearly a year to fill a judge position in Rutland. It took two-and-a-half months to fill four of the most recent vacancies, an improvement but, still, the time it is taking is cause for concern.

A nonpartisan Judicial Nominating Board sends nominations for judicial openings to the Governor. This board is made up of legislators (currently including Democrats and Republicans), members of the Vermont Bar, and people appointed by the Governor. The Governor reviews and appoints judges from the list of nominees.

The House Judiciary Committee will likely consider a bill to speed up the process by which nominations are made to the Governor, to attempt to hold the Governor to a timeframe for appointments, and to expand the applicant pool so the Governor will have more quality potential jurists from which to choose.

Codifying Pre-Charge Diversion: Building on the successful outcomes of pre-charge programs in counties across Vermont, the Judiciary Committee is exploring the creation and codification of a statewide pre-charge diversion program. 

Under such a program, law enforcement or prosecutors can divert certain misdemeanor offenses before they reach the courts, allowing judges the capacity to manage more serious offenses. These misdemeanor offenses are referred to restorative justice entities, such as community justice centers, to hold individuals accountable and develop agreements to repair harm and build skills to prevent future crime. If an individual’s referral is unsuccessful, they are then referred back to the traditional court system. 

Some Vermont counties already offer such a program. By expanding pre-charge diversion statewide, our entire State will benefit from more timely justice interventions, reduced pressure on the courts, and consistent access for community and victim voices in restorative processes, all while creating a uniform system for implementation and reporting.

Expanding Availability of Treatment Courts: The Judiciary Committee will advocate for additional resources for treatment dockets. These dockets provide individuals who have substance use disorders and mental health conditions the opportunity to enter treatment and avoid certain consequences, such as incarceration. The goals of these dockets include keeping communities safe, supporting treatment for participants, and ending defendants’ criminal or harmful conduct. Evidence shows that treatment courts can reduce court costs, and studies have demonstrated that such courts can effectively reduce recidivism, including fewer re-arrests and less time in prison. Reducing recidivism, in turn, can reduce the caseload in our courts.

Addressing Repeat Offenders of Retail Theft:  The backlog our courts are seeing creates an additional challenge that has received a great deal of press. Individuals committing retail theft are arrested, but are then released and committing the same crimes, often in the exact same stores, the next day. The offenses that are being committed are typically misdemeanors because they involve merchandise valued at less than $900 (the felony threshold).

Due to the court backlog, courts are prioritizing felonies and violent crimes instead of misdemeanor offenses such as these retail thefts. An individual can often get arrested several times for such misdemeanor charges before they are even due in court for their first appearance. 

The Judiciary Committee will take up a bill at the start of the legislative session that will combine multiple misdemeanor retail theft charges that an individual has received over a set period. If the value of the total items taken exceeds a certain amount, these combined retail theft charges would become a felony charge, which the courts can process more expeditiously.

Combining retail theft charges will serve two purposes. The first will be to hold repeat offenders more accountable – the consequences they face will be more certain and timelier. Additionally, replacing several misdemeanor court dates with a single felony court date will free up the court’s time to move cases more expeditiously.  The House Judiciary Committee will likely seek solutions to other issues impacting public safety. In addition, work in other committees will help address root causes of crime, including substance use disorder, homelessness, and limited access to mental health services.