Civil Rights

May 1st Rally: Now is the time to send a loud message to PUT PEOPLE FIRST!

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Wed, 2013-05-01 08:05

By James Haslam, Vermont Workers' Center

Check out www.workerscenter.org/may1

For the fifth year in a row over well over a thousand people from all over Vermont will participate in a huge May 1st Statehouse Rally. In 2009, we came to change what was politically possible in healthcare reform. In 2013, its become clear that what we really need to make possible is real democracy itself.

Please join us at 11:30am at the Statehouse to gather for march and rally to remind the legislature and governor that they don't work for the Chamber of Commerce or only represent wealthy people. The legislature has a real opportunity to stand up for our communities, and we have some ideas of what they should and SHOULD NOT do is they were to do that.


A Budget that Advances Dignity & Equity
The governor and (to date) the legislature failed to meet the purpose of the state budget, which the law now mandates must "address the needs of the people of Vermont in a way that advances human dignity and equity" (32 V.S.A. § 306a). Instead, they are set to undermine people's dignity and increase inequity by:

- impoverishing more people through capping the essential Reach-Up program

- making the tax code more regressive by reducing EITC and assessing new regressive taxes such as gasoline and soda tax which affect low-income people more than wealthy people

- increasing healthcare costs for people moved from VHAP and Catamount into the exchange, which effectively makes it harder for low-income people to access health care.


Meaningful Public Participation in our State Budget Process
The governor and legislature have also failed to meet the legal requirement for "a process for public participation in the development of budget goals, as well as general prioritization and evaluation of spending and revenue initiatives" (32 V.S.A. § 306a). Instead, they are ignoring the principles of participation, accountability and transparency and increasing the disconnect between people and government because:

- budget priorities come out of a vacuum rather than from engaging communities

- the budget process starts with the result of past tax policy decisions (the revenue estimate) rather than an assessment of real needs

- the failure to measure progress and outcomes makes it hard to see what effect specific spending and tax initiatives actually have on people's lives


A Healthcare System that Meets All Our Health Needs
Both governor and legislature have failed to meet the principles of universality and equity in Act 48, Vermont's universal health care law, by:

- failing to set out an equitable financing plan for Green Mountain Care

- erecting new barriers to accessing health care by increasing out-of-pocket costs for low-income people

- failing to stop leading health care providers from forming a for-profit conglomerate, OneCare, that will profit from selling access to care rather than providing health care as a public good, as required by Act 48


The Way Forward:
As the Put People First campaign made clear at the beginning of the 2013 session, we are dedicated to advancing public policies focused on meeting the fundamental needs of all people in Vermont, which is at the heart of what human rights mean in practice.

Policy decisions that put people first would look very different from the governor's and legislature's positions, because they would be based on principles, such as equity and universality, and developed in a transparent and accountable process with the participation of the people of Vermont.

Policies that put people first would:

- commit to eliminating poverty and ensuring a dignified standard of living for all

- assess people's needs, such as access to healthcare and jobs, and require that those needs be taken into account in the budget process

- inform and engage the public in developing budget goals

- collect taxes in a more equitable way, so that wealthy people no longer get away with paying proportionally less taxes than those with low and middle incomes

- ensure that we all get what we need and give what we can

Learn more at workerscenter.org

Marijuana Decriminalization

Submitted by Rep. Chris Pearson on Mon, 2013-04-15 00:00

As the lead sponsor of the marijuana decriminalization bill (H.200), it's been an interesting few weeks.  As you may have heard, on Friday the bill finally advanced in the House with a vote of 98-44 and will soon head to the Senate, where it is likely to see action quickly.  Progressives have been at the forefront of this discussion for years, so it’s nice to see it finally moving forward.

At the outset of the debate on H.200, I questioned whether or not we could have an "adult" conversation about marijuana.  Overall, however, the answer seems to have been yes.  Sure there were plenty of snickers as the discussion got started.  And the obligatory jokes, too.  You know, about "token" opposition and "joint" hearings with the Senate.  And so on.

But after a solid week of testimony in the House Judiciary Committee, only one witness came in to make the long discredited claim that marijuana was a gateway to harder drugs.  Sure, and bicycles are gateways to joining a motorcycle gang.  There were some who claimed that kids will be more tempted to try marijuana if the bill passes.  But they were one or two voices and not enough to outweigh the support, even from such sources as the Commission of Public Safety (leader of the state police), the Vermont Attorney General, Chittenden County States Attorney TJ Donovan, and many others.

In the end, H.200 passed out of committee with a vote of 9-2, including support from all the Democrats, the one independent, and one of the Republicans.  They did whittle down the bill to decriminalizing possession of only up to one ounce and removed provisions I had in the original bill that would have also decriminalized growing up to two plants.  The Committee could only go so far in acknowledging the reality that marijuana must come from somewhere.  Still, all in all, I'm proud of the House and its recognition that prohibition doesn't work.  While we may have to wait a long time for the Federal government to acknowledge the right of states to legalize, at least we are recognizing that people who choose to use marijuana aren't necessarily criminals.

Bill would drop outdated language from Vt. laws

April 12, 2013; Times Argus

MONTPELIER — Outdated, offensive words to describe people including “lunatics” and “retarded” that are still on the books in Vermont are being sought out so lawmakers can strike the passages from the law.

The Senate has already passed a bill calling for respectful language to be used, and a House committee reviewing it heard testimony Thursday.

“There are certain words that are no longer acceptable,” said Sen. Anthony Pollina, of Washington County.

In one instance, a law says a marriage could be annulled if it could be shown that one of the partners was a “lunatic” or was “distracted” at the time of the wedding.

Read the whole article >>

Bill Peels Back Another Layer of Discrimination

Submitted by Rep. Chris Pearson on Mon, 2013-03-18 00:00

Sometimes change takes centuries; sometimes it's quicker.  Certainly the fast-track was on display last week as the House voted on a bill related to the rights of same-sex couples.  Only five Republicans voted against a bill that pushes out-of-state employers to extend health benefits to partners in a same-sex marriage or civil union.

That's right, a bill that has to do with gay marriage garnered just five votes against it on the House floor.  Even Republicans are no longer afraid of this issue.  They know their constituents are now mostly supportive of marriage equality.  The world hasn't ended.  Straight marriages haven't eroded.  The hysteria appears to have come to an end.

The same could be said for our corporate culture.  The subject of this bill is Walmart and other large employers that are based outside of Vermont.  Because of Federal pre-emption the state can't force them to provide partners of same-sex marriages the same health benefits they extend to straight spouses.  But we can try.  California and New York have recently passed laws that basically dare these guys to sue them.  And on Friday the Vermont House decided to follow suit.

Walmart and company have stated they will abide by Vermont law.  They know their chances in court but they also know the ramifications of the front-page story explaining why they want to continue discriminating.

I am proud to be a lead co-sponsor on this bill, but the real work was carried out by Rep. Paul Poirier (I-Barre City) and Rep. Patti Komline (R-Dorset).  Commissioner Donegan from the Department of Financial Regulation also got her teeth into it and helped create the path forward.

You can read more about this bill in a recent VTDigger article here.

Bill reinforces state’s same-sex mandate

March 16, 2013; Peter Hirschfeld; Times Argus

Donegan said she doesn’t have any data on how many businesses or workers the legislation passed Friday would affect. And it’s doubtful the law would survive a legal challenge, since states generally aren’t allowed to preempt federal authority over self-insured companies.

But similar laws in California and New York have had the desired effect, and Rep. Paul Poirier, the Barre City independent who played a key role in getting the bill to the floor, said the companies he’s spoken to — Wal-Mart among them — have said they’ll voluntarily comply with the new requirements.

“They said, ‘we want to be good stewards here in Vermont,’” Poirier said. “Nobody wanted to come in and testify against it.”

Rep. Chris Pearson, a Burlington Progressive, said Vermont need not mount a defense to any legal challenges that might come. Companies that wish to disregard the new statute, he said, can try to make their case in the court of public opinion.

“Any challenge to this law would be a front-page story,” Pearson said.

Read the whole article >>

Vermont House votes to expand health insurance rights of same-sex couples

March 15, 2013; Alicia Freese; VTDigger

Rep. Chris Pearson, P-Burlington, who co-sponsored the legislation, said it’s an important step in an “ongoing process” of “peeling back the layers of discrimination.”

A federal law limits the level of parity that the Vermont Legislature can achieve in this arena, however.

That law — the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) — governs group health plans offered by employers in the private industry. If an employer is self-insured, meaning they don’t contract with an insurance company, they fall under ERISA and are not subject to state insurance law.

The bill the House passed today only requires employers to meet the health insurance standard “to the extent permitted by federal law.”

Even though the bill still leaves room for out-of-state employers to not offer the parity in coverage, Pearson argued that putting this law on the books would make them more vulnerable both to legal concerns and public opinion backlash. “It would be a front page story,” Pearson said.

Read the whole article >>

Prohibiton Has Failed

Submitted by Rep. Susan Davis on Thu, 2013-03-07 13:39

It's been nearly a century since Vermont first prohibited marijuana in 1915.  It hasn't worked and it's time for a new approach.

Just like alcohol prohibition, marijuana prohibition does not eliminate the use of the product and simply steers all of the profits to the underground market.  Given the fact that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol, it is time we have it produced and sold in a legitimate, regulated market.

Regulating marijuana like alcohol and allowing the production of industrial hemp would create hundreds of new, legal jobs and generate business for a variety of other Vermont industries.

That’s why I just introduced H.499 in the Vermont Legislature along with several cosponsors (Deen of Westminster,  Masland of Thetford, Stevens of Shoreham, and Zagar of  Barnard).  The bill is now making its way through the legislative process.

This bill proposes:

1. To create a regulatory structure for the wholesale and retail sale of marijuana that includes licensing and oversight by the Department of Liquor Control.

2. To establish an excise tax on every wholesale seller of $50.00 per ounce upon marijuana sold in Vermont.

3. To permit regulation and licensing for growing industrial hemp in accordance with 6 V.S.A. chapter 34 to proceed regardless of whether federal regulations have been adopted.

4. To permit an individual who is 21 years of age or older to possess up to two ounces of marijuana and three marijuana plants while maintaining criminal penalties for possession of larger amounts of marijuana and for sale of marijuana outside the regulatory structure established in this act.

5. To provide the same penalties for underage possession of marijuana as the current penalties for underage possession of alcohol.

Read the full text of the bill here >>

Other reasons why I feel it’s time for a new approach and to have a debate about creating a regulatory structure:

 > Marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol for the consumer and the community.  It is far less toxic, less addictive, and less harmful to the body.  And, unlike alcohol, it does not contribute to violent and reckless behavior.


 > It is irrational to punish adults and make them criminals simply for using a substance that is far safer than alcohol.

 > Marijuana prohibition is just as ineffective, wasteful, and harmful as alcohol prohibition was in the 1920s.

 > Prohibiting marijuana steers consumers into the underground market, where they can be exposed to other more dangerous drugs.  In addition, illegal marijuana dealers are not subject to quality standards, and they are not testing or labeling their products.

 > Regulating and taxing marijuana like alcohol would create MORE barriers to teens’ access to marijuana than prohibition does.

 > Marijuana prohibition IS NOT keeping marijuana out of the hands of youth.  Year after year, more than 80% of high school seniors nationwide report that marijuana is “very easy” or “fairly easy” to get.  According to CDC data, more Vermont high schoolers report using marijuana than report using tobacco.

 > Strict enforcement of regulations, along with public education, has been effective in reducing teen tobacco use.  We can do the same thing with marijuana.

 > Drug dealers don't ask for ID.  We need to have marijuana sold in regulated stores where employees ask for proof of age and are legally required to only sell to adults.

 > Regulating and taxing marijuana like alcohol would bolster Vermont’s economy with significant new tax revenue and job creation.

 > In addition to sales tax, H.499 imposes a $50 per ounce excise tax on wholesale sales, which would generate millions of dollars in tax revenue each year.

Week Four

Submitted by Rep. Cindy Weed on Mon, 2013-02-04 01:00

Last week at the statehouse, Bill McKibben, a Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College who has written a dozen books about the environment and is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org, addressed legislators and impressed upon us the urgency of the global warming situation.  He urged the legislature to focus on making heating efficiency a priority this year at the statehouse.

On another topic, fifty years ago President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, but in Vermont women still earn roughly 84 cents per every dollar earned by men, according to the National Partnership for Women and Families (78 percent nationally).  To that end, I am a co-sponsor of H-99, a bill that strengthens existing laws in Vermont regarding equal pay and workplace protections and prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations to all persons.  The bill is currently in our committee -- General, Housing and Military Affairs -- undergoing testimony.  The bill also promotes flexible working arrangements for workers and creates a process for employers and employees to follow.

Vermont Bill Targets License Plate Readers

January 23, 2013; Mark Davis; Valley News

Lawmakers are considering limiting the amount of time that police in Vermont can store information compiled by automatic license plate readers that have the ability to gather troves of information about the whereabouts of vehicles.

State Sen. Tim Ashe, a Democrat/Progressive from Burlington, has introduced a bill that would require police to delete electronic data collected by automatic license plate readers after six months. Information from the devices, which can scan thousands of license plates per hour, is currently stored tin a law enforcement database for four years. The Senate Transportation Committee is scheduled to take testimony on the bill this morning.

More than 30 law enforcement agencies across the state have deployed the readers in recent years, with much of the money to buy them coming from grants. In the Upper Valley, police in Hartford and Springfield, Vt., and the sheriff’s departments in Windsor and Orange counties use the scanners.

“It allows for the retention of information collected by the readers only for the amount of time that they are legitimately needed for law enforcement purposes,” Ashe said in discussing the need for the legislation. “Should the government be making a file, even if not directly, that could tell people where you’ve been on a Sunday night? They’re collecting and storing a lot of information that has nothing to do with police activities, and could be creepy for people.”

Read the whole article >>

No law at all

Submitted by Rep. Sandy Haas on Tue, 2012-05-15 09:43

Sometimes the best law is no law at all. There were two instances this year where the legislature spent a great deal time on an issue and finally decided to leave the law as it is. Both issues received a lot of press, not all of it effective in clarifying the issues at stake.

The immunization bill was driven by a concern that Vermont’s "philosophical" exemption was somehow creating a danger to public health. It’s true that the data shows fewer children with a full slate of the required shots than we saw a few years ago.  But the supporting data include both children claiming an exemption – medical, religious or philosophical -- (about 6.0 % in total) and those children who are on schedule to get their next booster shot, but who don’t yet have it on the day they enter kindergarten (nearly 11%).

Although some pushed very hard to remove the philosophical exemption, a majority prevailed in voting to maintain current law until there is clear proof that we have a public health need to change it. The final compromise bill will require far better data in the future. The bill will also ask parents who claim any exemption to affirm each year that they understand the risks to their own child and others. In addition, the bill calls for a study of whether all the adults in a school should be included in any mandatory immunization mandate.

Another bill was so contentious that there was no compromise at the end. It simply died when the House and Senate conferees could not come to agreement. The issue was whether the State Police should have access to the Vermont Prescription Drug Monitoring System (VPMS) without a search warrant. The administration claimed that it was helpless to fight the current increase in prescription drug trafficking and abuse without such warrantless power. However in testimony, the Deptartment of Public Safety made it clear that they had never even requested a search warrant, much less been denied by any court of law.  Although the House bill sought to explicitly clarify that the state police can access VPMS when they have a warrant, the Senate conferees thought it better to let the bill die. The result is that Vermonters are protected from warrantless search of their records on the VPMS database . . . for now.

Syndicate content