Legislative
Update
Rep. Anne
Donahue
May 7,
2023
In theory,
May 12 is the closing day for this session, but if that actually is to happen,
we will be having some very long nights this week, because so little moved in
the past several days. Of course, resolution of the budget is what dictates the
close, so it is now essentially in the hands of the six members of the
conference committee who are resolving the major differences between House and
Senate versions.
This year,
several other bills hang in that balance as well, and might end up swept into
the budget bill in the end. The House had the funding for its paid medical and
family leave bill in the budget, but the Senate has refused to move forward on
it this year, so House leadership has now conceded and dropped that from the
budget.
The
Senate’s childcare bill has had a lot of revisions made in the House but has
not yet been sent back to the Senate. Instead, it sits in the House tax
committee, because the two bodies have different ways they want to fund it. So,
both funding and the system reforms for childcare are still in flux. In an
unusual move, the chair of the House Human Services Committee was appointed as
one of the three House budget conferees. It’s usually all Appropriations
members. That’s the clearest sign of how entwined the issues have become.
The rest
of us are all left in wait-and-see mode. Either budget version is headed
towards an increase of 12 or 13%, which will require new taxes and fees to
balance it. That’s not sustainable, and not something I can support.
***
The Senate
accepted the House version of the clean energy bill, so it went straight to the
governor, who has vetoed it. That sets up a veto override vote for as early as
the coming week. As explained in detail in my last update, I voted against the
bill and will stay with that position and vote to sustain the veto.
The
session’s other major bill still in progress addresses our housing crisis, and
that is expected on the House floor this week. In both the House and Senate, it
has ping-ponged between the perspectives of the economic development and
natural resources committees. In concept, everyone agrees: we need to prevent
barriers to new housing, but we need to do that in ways that don’t back off the
commitments to protect our environment.
Updating
Act 250, the state’s land use law, hasn’t been stalled for years for nothing.
It’s a tough line to draw. Once that gets through the House sometime this week,
it will still need Senate approval, which is by no means assured. Thus that,
too, may come just in time for the closing bell.
***
No parts
of the constitution are absolute, and I have supported gun restrictions where
they increase protection and meet constitutional standards. I voted against
(and will vote to sustain a gubernatorial veto if it occurs this week) the
72-hour waiting period and safe storage bill. Existing data shows the waiting
period would not have an impact in Vermont. The bill also fails to meet
standards for constitutionality.
However, I
am in support of a pending bill makes it a crime to knowingly possess a firearm
that has had its serial number removed, and to knowingly buy a firearm on
behalf of a person who is prohibited by law from possessing it (referred to as
“straw purchases.”) It allows individuals between 18 and 22 who have been found
delinquent regarding a crime that would have been a felony if it was an adult
conviction, to have the confidential juvenile record sent to the national
background check system – as it would have been if convicted in adult court.
That is a
segue to another issue this same bill addresses. It is a bit of a corrective
course after several years of bills called “Raise the Age” to treat older teens
as juveniles. I have generally supported the idea that when a young adult
commits a minor crime, they should be handled with supportive rather than
punitive measures, and not gain a lifelong stigma for a youthful mistake. The
crimes under our “Raise the Age” law, however, include all but the most
high-level violent crimes. Making a youth a legal juvenile also means the
public never knows the outcome.
Current
law now considers an 18-year-old to be a juvenile. This bill will delay the plan to
also add 19-year-olds as juveniles. It also creates a review process for
identifying whether there show be additions to the list of crimes that are still
permitted to be moved to adult court.
***
Other
bills of Interest
Important
bills move that are under the news media radar, often because there was work
done to build consensus. No controversy… no headlines.
The Senate
sent back my committee’s overdose prevention bill with a big new section that
creates a legal mechanism for individuals to get small samples of illegal drugs
tested for the more and more toxic new additives, which are killing people even
faster that previous ones. I’m leery of creating an implication that something
like heroin is “safe” because it doesn’t have fentanyl in it, or of creating a
scenario where dealers can clam (falsely) that what they are selling has been
tested for “purity.” But we are losing more and more Vermonters to this
epidemic.
The Senate
proposal was a loosely worded liability protection that allowed almost anyone
to establish a testing site. I got the language considerably tightened, so that
any provider who offers the testing would lose any protection if they did not
follow operating guidelines established by the Department of Health. They could
be charged criminally for possession of illegal drugs. The Department supported
the language, and I think it minimizes the risks of abuse, so I supported the
amendment.
That’s not
the same, though, when it comes to the new overdose prevention bill that my
committee is now working on. (It is too late for the Senate to take up this
year, so if we pass it this coming week, it will be in the hands of the Senate
for next year.)
That bill
would sanction sites where people could use their drugs in the presence of
people who are trained to reverse an overdose. Our Health Commissioner
testified that the research is not strong enough yet to show that the benefits
outweigh the risks. There are only two sites in the United States, both in New
York City and both relatively new.
Both our
Attorney General’s Office and the Vermont Medical Society, despite deep
concerns about the overdose crisis, have indicated they have concerns about
starting a program like this at this point. I listened closely to testimony
both pro and con, and told my committee I was not going to be able to support
it. It will almost certainly be controversial when it gets to the floor this
week.
My Right
to Repair bill for agriculture and forestry equipment passed out of the
Commerce Committee on a unanimous vote and through the House with a 137-2 roll
call vote, so it will be primed up for Senate action next year. This bill
requires manufacturers to make tools and parts available for sale directly to
equipment owners to fix themselves. With our increasing technology, more and
more things we buy can only be repaired (at high cost and delay) by the
manufacturers. Our Vermont roots are as thrifty, do-it-yourselfers, and that is
being robbed from us when it requires a specialty tool even to just open the
item up! This bill is a starting point. I’m hoping next year that we can move
forward on the larger version of the bill, which covers a broad range of
consumer products.
In another
consumer protection measure, we are also asking the Department of Financial
Regulation to review the existing laws on automobile insurance and covered car
repairs to ensure consumers are not being misled or over-charged based on requirements
regarding after-market parts or limits on authorized repair shops.
We passed
a Burlington charter change that will allow legal non-citizens to vote in its
municipal elections, including the school budget. This is the second city to do
this; Winooski was approved last year. Montpelier was the first, but with an
important distinction, because its charter does not permit those voters to vote
on the school budget, which directly affects our statewide education fund. I
was fine with Montpelier deciding who can vote in its own local
decision-making, but not with it being extended to votes that affect other
towns and I voted against the Burlington change as I had with Winooski.
With some
dismay, I heard proponents on the House floor state that Vermont’s Supreme
Court had found both the earlier changes to be constitutional. Not true! It
found Montpelier’s was constitutional, but explicitly said its opinion did not
address situations where the vote might be a statewide issue. There has been no
ruling on the expansion in the Winooski expansion.
I dug up
the direct quotes from the court decision to read to the body – so that
decisions could be based on accurate information. The bill did pass. Hopefully
the court will make a decision in the next year, and we will have clarity one way
or the other.
Finally, it
was great to be congratulating two groups of young people with resolutions this
past week – the U-32 hockey team that won a thriller to become Level 2
champions this year, and the Northfield Junior Rifle team that brought back so
many gold medals from New Hampshire.
I missed
Green Up Day this year for the first time in eons. I was in New Jersey for my
oldest grand-nephew’s First Communion. How quickly time flies! It seems like he
was a toddler such a short time ago…
***
Please
share your input and thoughts. You can reach me at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us, or
Rep. Ken Goslant at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us It is an honor to represent you.
