Legislative Record

Did Your Representative Vote for You?

          (Rutland County Representatives Listed)

                                    Research information courtesy of Ethan Allen Institute

S.169 – AN ACT RELATING TO FIREARMS PROCEDURES 
 .

PASSED

in the State House of Representatives
on May 15, 2019, by a vote of
82-58

.
Purpose: The principal purpose of this bill is to require a 24 hour waiting period after completion of a background check to purchase a handgun. It also includes provisions allowing residents of other states to transport high capacity magazines into Vermont for the purpose of participating in shooting competitions, and to allow the transfer of legally grandfathered high capacity magazines from one “immediate relative” to another.  

Those voting NO believe that the waiting period will not impact suicide rates (that the suicide issue is just a cover for passing a gun control measure), but is a violation of Vermonters’ Article 16 constitutional right to use of a firearm for self defense, and would put in danger citizens facing an immediate violent threat, such as in cases of domestic violence.

Those voting NO believe that the waiting period will not impact suicide rates (that the suicide issue is just a cover for passing a gun control measure), but is a violation of Vermonters’ Article 16 constitutional right to use of a firearm for self defense, and would put in danger citizens facing an immediate violent threat, such as in cases of domestic violence.

NAYS: Burditt(R), Canfield (R), Cupoli (R) , Fagan (R), Harrison (R), Helm (R), McCoy (R), Shaw (R), Sullivan (D), Terenzini (R), Notte (D), Potter (D)

Sally Achey would have voted NAY.

 Those voting YES argue the 24 hour waiting period will help reduce the number of successful spontaneous suicide attempts.
 .

YEAS:   Chesnut-Tangerman (P),  Haas (P),  Jerome (D), Howard (D), Nicoli (D), Sullivan (D),

PROPOSITION 5 To Amend the Constitution Regarded Unrestricted Abortions
 

PASSED in the State House of Representatives
on May 7, 2019, by a vote of  106-38

.
Purpose: Proposal 5 would amend the Vermont Constitution to say that “an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

Those voting NO believe that the rights of an unborn child deserve at least some consideration under law, and that the language of this Amendment is too vague to be reliably enforced. For example, an amendment ostensibly designed to enshrine abortion rights doesn’t even include the word “abortion.”

​​NAYS: Burditt (R), Canfield (R), Cupoli (R), Helm (R), McCoy (R), Norris (I),  Shaw(R), Terenzini (R)

Fagan (R) Absent

Sally Achey would have voted NAY.

Those voting YES believe that unrestricted access to an abortion at any time during a pregnancy from conception to birth should be a constitutional right..

YEAS:   Chesnut-Tangerman (P),  Haas (P), Jerome (D), Harrison (R), Howard (D), Nicoli (D),  Notte (D), Potter (D), Sullivan (D)

AN ACT RELATING TO INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE – VETO OVERRIDE
.

Purpose: To raise the state minimum wage from the current mark $10.96 to $12.55 by 2022, with increases tied to inflation afterward, overriding the Governor’s veto.Analysis: This would increase the minimum wage to $11.75 in 2021 and $12.55 in 2022. Each year afterwards, the minimum wage would be increased by the rate of the inflation, that is, “CPI.”  


As Recorded in the House Journal, Tuesday, February 25, 2020: “Shall the bill pass the failure of the Governor to approve notwithstanding? was decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 100. Nays, 49.” (Read the Journal, p. 349-352.)

Those voting NO believe the negative impacts of increasing the minimum wage (eliminating some low-wage jobs, potential cutbacks in hours for low wage employees, the potential loss of benefits greater than wage increases for workers earning a higher wage, overall decline in economic activity, higher prices for goods and services particularly as they impact Vermonters living on fixed incomes, the impact on healthcare services funded through Medicaid, the impact on child care costs, financial burden on struggling small businesses, and the implications regarding the “benefits cliff”), outweigh the positive impacts.

NAYS: Burditt(R), Canfield (R), Cupoli (R) , Fagan (R), Harrison (R), Helm (R), McCoy (R), Shaw (R), Sullivan (D), Terenzini (R)

Sally Achey would have voted NAY.

 

Those voting YES believe the positive impact of raising the minimum wage (putting more money into some people’s pockets) will outweigh the negative impacts.

 

YEAS:   Chesnut-Tangerman (P),  Haas (P), Jerome (D), Howard (D), Nicoli (D), Norris (I), Notte (D), Potter (D),

H.688 – AN ACT RELATING TO ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE PASSED
House of Representatives on February 26, 2020, by a vote of 105-37

Purpose: The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) mandates that Vermont meet strict carbon emission reduction targets to 26% below 2005 levels by 2025, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
.
Analysis: The GWSA would create a Climate Council made up of 22 state government officials and citizen experts to adopt a “Vermont Climate Action Plan” by Dec. 1, 2021. This plan would offer guidance to the Agency of Natural Resources, which would be empowered to create and implement new rules for achieving the emission targets.

S.54 – AN ACT RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF CANNABIS
..
Purpose: To create a regulatory framework for the sale and taxation of recreational marijuana.  
.
Analysis: This version of S.54 would establish a 20% tax on sale of marijuana (a 14% excise tax plus the existing 6% sales tax).
.
It would create a Cannabis Control Board responsible for regulation and licensing and establishes a license for current medical dispensaries to start selling marijuana in 2022. The bill directs the board to prioritize Vermont businesses owned by women and minorities as it considers license applications.

The bill bans flavored cannabis vapes and sets a cap on the potency of the cannabis to 30% THC and limits the maximum THC content per edible to 50 mg. The bill bans access to cannabis establishments to anyone under the age of 21.

                          PASSED  
in the State House of Representatives
on February 26, 2020, by a vote of     90-54

S54, commercial cannabis, was approved by the House Feb. 26. The Senate did not concur with the changes made by the House, and a conference committee was established.

Those voting NO did so for several reasons. First, they believe it is irresponsible to legally bind the state to meet these emissions goals, placing the taxpayers in legal jeopardy, without any idea of how much such a program would cost or what rules would be necessary to impose on the citizenry to achieve the result. They believe the Legis-lature should retain its democratic obligation to pass laws, not delegate that authority to an unelected board and a bureaucratic agency of the executive branch. They note that Vermont already has the lowest emissions in the country, both as a whole and per capita, and Vermont’s emissions are expected to continue decline even without this legislation.

​​​​NAYS: Burditt(R),  Cupoli (R) , Fagan (R),  Helm (R), McCoy (R), Notte (D), Shaw (R), Sullivan (D), Terenzini (R)

Sally Achey would have voted NAY.

Those voting NO believe, generally, that the legalization of marijuana is a bad idea, and specifically that the high tax rates in this bill will encourage rather than discourage a black market for marijuana, and object to the fact that there is not yet a roadside test for impairment.

NAYS: Burditt (R), Canfield (R), Cupoli (R) , Fagan (R),  Helm (R), McCoy (R), Norris (I), Potter (D), Shaw(R), Terenzini (R)

Sally Achey would have voted NAY

for so many reasons.

Those voting YES believe Vermont has a moral obligation to accelerate the state’s reduction of carbon emissions, and that the normal democratic process has proven inadequate to the task. They hope the specter of judicial review and the liability of paying attorney’s fees will keep the pressure on the Council, Agency and Legislature into adopting sweeping regulations.
 

YEAS:Canfield (R);   Chesnut-Tangerman (P),  Haas (P), Harrison (R), Jerome (D), Howard (D), Nicoli (D), Norris (I), , Potter (D),

Those voting YES believe that creating a regulatory framework for legal marijuana sales will better protect consumers of an already legal product while bringing in tax revenue for the state.


YEAS Chesnut-Tangerman (P),  Haas (P), Harrison (R), Jerome (D), Howard (D), Nicoli (D), Notte (D),

 Sullivan (D)

Mandatory Paid Family Leave/Payroll Tax (H.107). Passed 92-52 on April 5, 2019. This would put in place a government-mandated Paid Family Leave program paid for with a new payroll tax on all income up to $132,900. The program would allow an employee to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for the birth of a child, or 8 weeks for family or personal medical care. Wages above $132,900 would not be covered. A maximum cap on the benefit would be set at $1,334 per week. The payroll tax would be initially set at 0.55%, and the estimated total cost would $76 million annually to start. 

Veto Sustained 99 to 51

NO: Burditt, Canfield, Cupoli, Fagan, Harrison, Helm, McCoy, Norris, Shaw,  Terenzini, Potter, Sullivan

Bill vetoed 01-31-2020
Vote to override veto 02-05-2020

NO: Burditt, Canfield, Cupoli, Fagan, Harrison, Helm, McCoy, Norris, Shaw,  Terenzini

Sally Achey would have voted NAY.

YES: Chesnut-Tangerman, Haas, Howard, Jerome, Nicoli, Notte,

Bill vetoed 01-31-2020
Vote to override veto 02-05-2020

YES: Chesnut-Tangerman, Haas, Howard, Jerome, Nicoli, Notte,

Potter, Sullivan

Extracts from the JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE
Feb. 28, 2020  H.926 House bill, entitled: An act relating to changes to Act 250

Thereupon, pending the question, Shall the bill pass?

Rep. Bock of Chester moved that action be postponed one legislative day. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question. 
The bill was decided in the negative
Yeas, 45; Nays, 96.

 

Rep.Gregoire of Fairfield explained his vote as follows:
  “Madam Speaker: I am disappointed that this body voted against the opportunity to bring the myriad changes to this bill to our constituents during town meeting week. After all, we are here to represent them”.

Yeas: Canfield (R), Cupoli (R) , Fagan (R), Harrison (R), Helm (R), McCoy (R), Shaw (R), Sullivan (D), Terenzini (R)

Sally Achey would have voted Yea.

Nays: Chesnut-Tangerman (P),  Haas (P), Jerome (D), Howard (D), Nicoli (D), Norris (I), Notte (D), Potter (D),