We are now in the final weeks of the session. While the budget has passed out of the Senate and is likely headed to conference committee to be finalized, many other key pieces of legislation still appear to be far from the finish line. This includes the education reform bill that Governor Scott said at the beginning of the session must include forced school mergers before he will sign the budget. This ultimatum now is raising concerns about a potential state government shutdown if lawmakers don’t pass a version of the bill that meets his demands.
We’re also starting to see more bills cross the Governor’s desk, including H. 849, an act relating to a civil action for damages for deprivation of federal constitutional rights by any government official, which Scott allowed to pass into law without his signature.
Read on for more insights about what is still in play (and what is not).
Common Good Priorities
Common Good VT Appropriation Request
With the budget having been passed out of the Senate without Common Good’s appropriation request, technical assistance funding for nonprofits is now off the table. We’ll get an early start this fall to assess feasibility of another ask next year, in what will likely be an equally challenging economic environment. Thank you to all who supported this effort!
Data Privacy
S. 71, the consumer privacy bill, passed out of the Senate last year with a nonprofit exemption. The bill is now being considered in the House Commerce Committee where there is not the same support for entity level exemptions. The current draft, a strike all amendment to the Senate’s version, seeks to address some of the concerns which caused a similar bill (H. 121) to be vetoed by Governor Phil Scott in 2024 (including removing the private right of action) while still expanding applicability compared to S. 71 as passed by the Senate.
The Committee spent most of this week taking testimony on Draft 2.3 from data privacy experts and stakeholders, including Common Good Vermont. Common Good Vermont’s testimony focused on balancing the need for strengthened data security to protect both individuals and nonprofits, especially in this moment, with the very real challenges nonprofits would face coming into compliance. While a nonprofit exemption would be easiest, there are also risks associated with maintaining the status quo. Common Good seeks clarity, time, support, and resources to help nonprofits comply with any new requirements. You can read our written testimony here, or watch the recording here (and watch our friends at the Vermont Arts Council just before us).
Key provisions of the current draft:
- It would apply to anyone who:
- Controlled or processed the “personal data” of 35,000+ Vermont residents (excluding personal data controlled or processed solely for the purpose of a payment transaction)
- Controlled or processed “sensitive data” of ONE Vermont resident
- Sold personal data of ONE Vermont resident
- There are exemptions but they are primarily limited data categories, rather than entity types, that are already subject to other, stricter, privacy regulations
- Consumers (VT residents) would, in most circumstances, have the right to:
- Confirm if controller is processing data and be able to access that data
- Correct inaccurate data
- Request personal data be deleted
- Obtain a copy of personal data processed in a format that can be transmitted to another controller
- Obtain a list of third parties a controller has sold their data to
- Opt out of having their personal data processed for targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, or “profiling in furtherance of any automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects concerning the consumer”
- Know if personal data were processed for the purposes of “profiling in furtherance of any automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects concerning the consumer” and inquire further regarding the profiling decision
- Controllers (anyone determining how data is collected, used, stored, or otherwise handled) are subject to many requirements around how personal data is handled, disclosing information about how data is processed to consumers, and responding to consumer requests. Key provisions include:
- Limiting data collection to what is necessary
- Restrictions on how data can be used for targeted advertising
- Maintaining data security practices
- Providing a mechanism for consumers to revoke consent
- Requiring a compliant consumer privacy notice which must inform consumers how they can exercise their rights
- Requiring a response to consumer requests in 45 days and an appeal process for denied requests
- Processors (those processing data as instructed by a controller) are generally required to support controller compliance and the bill provides requirements for contracts between processors and controllers.
- Controllers are required to conduct data protection assessments that will be made available to the Attorney General upon request.
- Enforcement is limited to the Attorney General – there is no private right of action.
- Consumer health data has additional compliance requirements.
As the Committee continues to work on the bill, CGVT will continue to advocate for improvements that support nonprofits’ ability to come into compliance, while still achieving meaningful protections for consumers. Please reach out to [email protected] with any feedback on the bill or examples of how it would impact your organization.
Association Health Plans
Earlier this month, Common Good VT testified again on H. 585 in support of Association Health Plans, this time in Senate Finance. The committee has continued to take some testimony on the bill, but it’s unclear if it will be enough of a priority to make it out this year.
What We’re Watching
The following write ups are by Rachel Farhi, Common Good’s policy intern for the spring semester. This is her last week working with us before graduating from UVM. Thank you, Rachel!
Prop 4 – Declaration of rights; government for the people; equality of rights
By Rachel Farhi, CGVT Policy Intern
Proposition 4, declaration of rights; government for the people; equality of rights is a proposed amendment to Vermont’s constitution that was passed in 2023 and 2024 by the House and Senate with over a ⅔ majority. It now must be considered by a second legislative body and pass the House and Senate again by 2026 by a simple majority. PR. 4 was passed by the Senate in March and is currently in the House. If the proposal passes in the House it will go on the ballot for the people to vote on in November, and if approved by a majority vote, it would amend Chapter 1 to add Article 23 to the Constitution. The proposition expresses that under the law everyone is afforded equal treatment. The proposition is an equal protection provision which Vermont does not currently have but many other states do. If passed, PR 4 will be on the ballot this upcoming November.
Key Provisions:
- Ensures equal protection under the law regardless of a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.
- Allows for continuing equality of opportunity for those in protected classes through actions like affirmative action.
On 4/21, the House Judiciary Committee took testimony on PR. 4 and held a public hearing.
Testimony:
- Cary Brown, Executive Director, Vermont Commission on Women, is extremely excited about the proposal. The Vermont Commission on Women believes that work needs to be done to ensure that there is equality under the law for everyone, which this proposition fulfills. The proposal is built on the work of generations of “American women to establish equal rights” from the Seneca Falls Convention to the present day. The organization believes that proposition 4 should be passed and long overdue in order to ensure everyone is protected in the Vermont constitution.
- Rev. Arnold Thomas, former pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Jericho Vermont, former conference minister of the United Church of Christ who serves on the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance board supports proposition 4. However, Thomas questions the sincerity of the proposition with the “condition of hierarchy division and favoritism” in not only Vermont but the United States as a whole. Thomas questions how committed Vermont is to devote time and resources to correct ingrained cultural conditions in society in the current state of the country. Thomas believes that the proposition is urgently needed but society needs to live up to the proposition.
- Renee McGuinness, Policy Analyst, Vermont Family Alliance is opposed to proposition 4. The organization is not opposed to an equal rights amendment with broader language but has concerns with proposition 4. McGuinness’s concern is that the legislature will pass laws that discriminate against biological women, christians, and traditional families through expanding protections to the list of marginalized populations, specifically gender identity and gender expression. In proposition 4 there is a finite list of groups which exclude others, which may create problems in the courts. Instead the Vermont Family Alliance believes in border language for the bill. McGuiness believes that the current wording of the proposition may make the groups listed have special protections, excluding others. Instead McGuinness believes there should be protections for everyone, and that the proposition needs to apply equally for everyone.
- Rev. Mark Hughes, Executive Director, Vermont Racial Justice Alliance supports proposition 4. Hughes expresses that what many people were worried about federally is occurring. Hughes points out that there is an “intersection of a constitution amendment, federal civil rights collapse, and a long term judicial stewardship of the state of Vermont.” Hughes discusses the history of creating equality for minority groups in Vermont, and the developments throughout the years. Currently there is systemic dismantling of civil rights at the federal level, and through history we know that when “equal protection collapses democracy collapses with it.” Currently Vermont does not have an equal protection clause in its constitution and with the current state of the federal level there needs to be constitutional clarity.
S. 298 – An act relating to creating the Vermont Voting Rights Act
By Rachel Farhi, CGVT Policy Intern
On 4/30, the House passed bill S. 298, an act relating to creating the Vermont Voting Rights Act. The bill is presented as a way to put the ideals of the Federal Voting Rights Act into state law to ensure the state is protected during these unprecedented times. As of right now, every level of elections from federal to local is protected in Vermont under the Federal Voting Rights Act but there is nothing in the state law that mimics the federal counterpart to ensure its message remains. Currently, eight states have adopted their own voting rights act, to ensure that voting is open to all. The bill will take effect upon passage.
Key Provisions in the Bill:
- Provides a fine to ensure that no one is intentionally intimidated, threatened, or coerced while voting.
- Ensures voting rights for everyone regardless of race, language group, or disability.
- The State Ethics Commission will provide informational resources to candidates and answer their questions regarding disclosure forms.
- Allows for campaign funds to be used for candidate security expenses.
Testimony:
- Rep. Pattie McCoy, Former Town Clerk, Poultney has a few concerns relating to bill S.298. Representative McCoy specifically sees issues with the section that would allow campaign funds to provide security for the candidate. The sector does not clarify how much money or protection the candidate can obtain, while using other people’s money through campaign funds. In addition, the bill does not lay out a set pattern of intimidation towards voters that would allow for a private cause of action to take place. The lack of guidelines could result in town clerks across the state being used for small inconveniences that do not warrant a response. If implemented, Representative McCoy feels that town clerks’ jobs would not only be made more difficult but they would need to watch everything about the way they conduct themselves to ensure that they are protected. Representative McCoy is open to continuing discussing the bill but believes that the bill must be more specific to ensure greater outcomes.
- Carol Dawes, Legislative Committee Chair, Vermont Municipal Clerks and Treasurers Association supports the bill but has questions on the language in certain areas of the bill. Part of section 2802, relating to vote denial or dilution, does not answer the question on how some parts of the bill would actually be implemented across the state. The previous draft of the bill that was in the Senate Government Operations had added specific ways of implementing services that would be provided to clerks, however taking it out of the bill creates a more challenging way to move forward. Vermont clerks are the chief election officials for all levels of elections in the state. Dawes points out that “clerks uphold the fairness and integrity of the election for all registered voters” through all the vastly different jobs they do to get election ready. Dawes encourages the committee to consider rewording the bill in certain areas and is willing to continue discussion so the state can have the Vermont Voting Rights Act.
- Leslie Welts, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s office and Julio Thompson co-director of the civil rights unit, Attorney General’s office support the bill. The standards in regards to civil rights are mirrored in the Federal Voting Rights Act and bill S.298. The Supreme Court has made it harder to prove voting rights violations and currently there are questions if the Federal Voting Rights Act will continue at the federal level. However, Thompson does point out that there are many areas of the bill that are not specified as needed. What are qualifications for improper dilution or impairment, as the bill currently does not set standards for courts. The bill also does not have guidance to ensure that the bill can be enforced and apply to the law in the judicial branch. The lack of standards would create an environment of uncertainty for municipalities when it comes to elections. For people with English proficiency the bill does not lay out a set way to know who needs assistance and to what degree. Under the federal law there is a threshold for assistance and ways to assess those who need assistance through the census, but in the current law there is no threshold. The organization believes that the committee should continue to hear different options and perspectives on the bill. Following the testimony Welts and Thompson came back the following week to propose ideas to address the concerns above that they had previously raised. Thompson conveys that the committee should use other state Voting Right Acts that have been previously implemented to help create Vermont’s act.
- Christina Sivret, Executive Director, Vermont State Ethics Commission supports the bill but believes there are a few issues pertaining to the bill. Sivret believes that there needs to be more staff in the Vermont State Ethics Commission in order to accomplish the work and responsibilities that the bill requires. The Ethics Committee is also willing to answer questions related to elections, although they are not required to by preferably email but also phone about the forms needed. Sivret supports the bill but worries about the additional work that would fall to the Vermont State Ethics Commission.
- T.J. Jones, Consultant, Vermont State Ethics Commission, supports the bill. Jones focuses on the forms that would be going through the ethics commission if the bill is passed. Jones points out that half the states in the United States require candidates to file disclosures for elections, it usually stays with the campaign finance agency for the state, but there are different patterns depending on the layout of the state. However in almost all situations public official forms go to the ethics commission and candidate forms go to campaign finance. The forms not only help the candidate, they are important for voters to obtain more information. If the bill is passed the ethics committee would have one area of jurisdiction over elections. Over time if the ethics commission’s jurisdiction grew it may become harmful as currently the commission is underfunded and understaffed.
- James Condos, Commissioner, Vermont State Ethics Commission believes that the current set up of the bill is unfavorable to the State Ethics Commission. Condos believes that the legislature has backed itself into a corner by not funding the State Ethics Commission enough which has created the situation they are in today. The ethics commission needs independence, authority, and resources in order to function with the added weight from the bill. Condos wants the secretary of state office to set up links to the forms and disclosures to take weight off of the ethics commission.
Substance Misuse Prevention Day
By Rachel Farhi, CGVT Policy Intern
On 4/9, the House Human Services Committee took testimony from prevention organizations, including United Way of Northwest Vermont.
- Amy Carmola, Chief Impact Officer, United Way of Northwest Vermont wants to share highlights throughout Vermont in substance misuse prevention. United Way is the lead prevention organization in Vermont’s Region 1 and partners with the state in order to promote prevention. Carmola wants to convey the importance of state investment in order to ensure there is quality work consistency and access to help. The organization funds 17 organizations, and uses multi-year funding. Carmola points out that prevention is not “prevention in isolation, it is really in partnership with shared goals and resources across sectors” to ensure the best care for Vermonters. The organization has created cafes to create a space for people, making information accessible for older adults as well as people who speak languages other than English, and employer guide to substance misuse to promote prevention. The projects have allowed the organization to expand its reach and improve Vermont. The organization is looking forward to continuing to invest in what works for the region, supporting people who are working in prevention and work with other areas that align alongside substance misuse prevention.
- Emily Trutor, Director of Substance Use Disorders, Department of Health wants to convey that prevention works. The funding from the substance misuse prevention fund is important and allows for a large impact in communities across the state. The top down approach does not work and instead prevention works by and from the communities. Substance abuse starts early as 900 percent of people with substance disorders began using drugs and alcohol before age 18. Substance misuse prevention is meant to “stop addiction before it starts” through increasing protective factors and delaying first use of addictive substances. Trutor conveys that investing in prevention saves in the long run. In Vermont prevention strategies are linked to all environments including individual family, school, community and state level. Trutor wants to present that funding organization works, in regions where funding was provided there was double the decrease of high school students reportedly using alcohol. Going forward they want to ensure that there is education for all middle school and high school students which increases the amount of high school students that do not use alcohol and cannabis, increases the amount of adults over 21 that do not binge drink and increases the number of adults that do not use cocaine. The state continuing to fund the work will support these goals by 2030.
- Maryann Morris, Executive Director, The Collaborative works for Region 4 of Vermont in order to encourage prevention in the area. The prevention lead project allows for organizations to not worry about where the funding is coming from because the project is providing funding, allowing other partners to do the best work they can on the ground. The organization has been working on priority areas including, enhancing communication and providing technical assistance, etc. in order to reduce substance misuse over time. The organization has connected with other organizations in the PL4 area in order for all of the organization to work together to better the region. The organization funds partners through other established organizations, and mini grants in order to bring on new partners. The PL4 runs as an ecosystem to support others through creating partners, networks, and PL4 leads. Morris points out that there are clear benefits in investing in prevention, it saves lives and reduces costs down the road. Vermont will be a healthier place in the future through these organizations and allowing them to continue expanding.
S. 328 – An act relating to housing and common interest communities
By Rachel Farhi, CGVT Policy Intern
S. 328, an act relating to housing and common interest communities was passed by the Senate after being in the Senate Committee on Economic Development Housing, and General Affairs Committee. The bill is promoting a more efficient way for more housing development across the state to address the housing crisis in Vermont. The bill was recently amended and passed by the House General and Housing Committee. The bill that left the Senate Committee and the bill that was passed on the Senate floor were very different, but the House General and Housing Committee seeks to bring the bill closer to its previous design. The bill would take effect on July 1 2026.
Key provisions include:
- Creates the Service-Supported Housing Advisory Council to find patterns between human service programs and policies serving Vermonters who receive Medicaid funded Development Disability Services and Housing capital support service programs.
- Allows the Vermont State Treasurer to establish a credit facility up to 12.5 percent of the State’s average cash balance for housing development projects with reporting every year on or before November 15th.
- Establishes an Off-Site Construction Accelerator Pilot that will explore how to reduce housing development costs through modular construction.
- Allows for upfront payment to organizations awarded Vermont Rental Housing Improvement Program funding.
- Requires municipal plans to identify barriers to housing development and report on progress towards housing goals when plans are updated.
- Requires a report from the Department of Housing and Community Development on corporate purchases of homes.
- Ensures an update to the Farmworker Housing Needs Assessment of 2021, conducted by the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board on or before January 15th, 2027.
It’s possible that this bill will be merged with other housing bills being worked on this session.