Dear Readers:

Thank you for electing me to represent our Rutland-Windsor District of Mount Holly, Shrewsbury, and Ludlow over the past 2025-2026 legislative session. It has been a privilege and an honor.

With the historic addition of 17 House Republicans in the fall of 2024, including myself, our minority caucus grew to 56 members. With the added strength in numbers, there has been a strong push to find where and how we can bring tax relief and reduce spending relative to previous years’ agendas.

There’s a long way to go still, but we were able to accomplish some legislative gains. In the 2025 session, Act 71 was fought for and passed that provided military retirees, seniors on fixed incomes, and working families with some tax relief. The situation with Vermont’s rising property taxes and education spending continues to be a burden that must be resolved. This spring, I voted with others to support the governor’s plan to buy down the fiscal year 2026 property tax rate by transferring $77.2M from the general fund and $40.9 million surplus from last year into the education fund that held down predicted average property tax increases substantially. To address looming statewide issues, the Senate Republicans announced the “Vermont Promise” campaign this spring, outlining seven basic promises that they are making to Vermont voters if Republicans win a senate majority this November. Find more info at www.vermontpromise.com.

A shift happened in the State House this spring, as rural Vermonters (which is most Vermonters!) became aware of how bills passed in 2024 – Act 59, Act 121, and Act 181 – affect them and their properties, and how the majority party was not including them in the critical discussions. Act 59 legislated conservation of 30% of Vermont land by 2030, 50% by 2050. Act 121 expanded wetlands protection and mapping. Act 181 established the “Land Use Review Board” and designations of properties as Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3, along with the “road rule” regulations, limiting use of and construction on private properties. Prohibitive permitting, engineering costs, and fees were to come, and the state would have jurisdictional authority over privately owned land. Thankfully, we were able to reverse the road rule and Tier 3 provisions of Act 181 and add the Burt Amendment thanks to the groundswell of voiced opposition from across the state, largely through the efforts of the growing Rural Vermont Rising group.

From my vantage point, these are concerns needing to be addressed:

– Cost of living increasing due to over regulation: restrictive zoning (ACT 250); unrealistic environmental goals (e.g. most stringent PCB levels in U.S.A.); inflation due to lack of competition (i.e. healthcare, insurance, etc.); and ever-increasing taxation rather than cost reduction and prioritization of activities.

– Declining incentives to be a productive citizen (i.e., losing working families): loose financial “handouts” to people who can and should work; facilitation of bad behavior to appease/sooth rather than fix a bad habit (push for safe injection sites, push for decriminalizing illicit drug use); increased lawlessness due to lack of funding and will to enforce.

– Inefficient and less effective education for children: lack of will to consolidate and work with the law of “economy of scales”; and selfish legislation driven by larger population centers having too much leverage.

– Lack of common-sense legislation with logical, fundamentally sound, fact-based decisions.

I don’t make promises. What I can say is that I will listen to all arguments presented in support of proposed legislation and strive to vote in such a way as to fix the root-cause problem(s) to move  forward to solutions rather than band-aids.

Please call or text me at 802-245-4190 so we can discuss your view of improved legislation and/or change my mind as I pursue this legislative responsibility again.

Whatever you do – make sure you use our precious privilege and VOTE!

-Kevin Winter, Ludlow

Disappointed with ballot ruling celebration:

I was disappointed to read the Vermont Secretary of State’s celebration of the Supreme Court’s decision blocking new Postal Service requirements for mail-in ballots.

The issue should not be whether we want people to vote. Of course we do. The issue is whether reasonable safeguards that verify voters and ballots should be viewed as an obstacle to democracy rather than a protection of it.

I have a difficult time understanding why voter verification should be controversial. Every legitimate voter should have the right to cast a ballot, and every legitimate voter should also have the right to know that his or her ballot is not diluted by an illegitimate one. Those two principles should go hand in hand.

For years when I lived in Florida, I had a voter registration card. I never considered it burdensome or an infringement upon my right to vote. It simply demonstrated that I was properly registered. We routinely require identification or verification for important activities in everyday life. Why should reasonable verification of something as important as voting be treated with suspicion?

The proposed Postal Service rules included voter-list verification and standardized, trackable ballot envelopes. Whether those particular federal requirements were legally authorized or could reasonably have been implemented this close to an election is a legitimate question. But the underlying objective—making mail ballots more secure and traceable—should not be dismissed.

The Secretary of State called the Supreme Court’s action a “win for democracy.” I would prefer that election security itself become a bipartisan win for democracy.

Republicans, Democrats and independents should all want the same thing: accurate voter rolls, eligible voters, secure ballots, transparent procedures, and election results in which the public can have confidence. Election safeguards should not depend upon which political party believes it will benefit from them.

This is also another reminder of why I believe strongly in term limits. Government should never become a permanent occupation, regardless of party. Public officials should remember that the offices they occupy belong to the people, not to them.

This November, I encourage every eligible Vermonter to vote, to examine the records of those who currently hold office, and to decide whether continued incumbency or new representation best serves our state. Hold Republicans and Democrats to the same standard.

Secure elections should not be Republican. They should not be Democratic. They should be American.

-Wade Holt

239 years later, the Constitution still matters:

America does not have a government that grants us our freedom. America has a Constitution that limits government from taking it away.

That distinction is at the heart of what it means to be an American.

Two hundred thirty-nine years after the United States Constitution was signed, its principles remain just as important—and perhaps more important than ever. We live in a fast-moving, increasingly secular and deeply divided nation where government continues to expand into areas of everyday life. In such an environment, Americans must remember what the Founders understood: government power must have limits.

The Constitution begins with three powerful words: “We the People.”

Not “We the Government.”  Not “We the Politicians.” but “We the People.”

The government derives its legitimate authority from the People, and the Constitution establishes boundaries that government is not supposed to cross.

Our Founders had experienced the dangers of unchecked political power. They deliberately created a government of limited and enumerated powers. They divided authority among the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches and established Checks and Balances so that no single person or institution would control the nation.  This was not an accident.

It is designed to protect liberty. Then came the Bill of Rights;

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, the press, peaceful assembly and the right to petition government. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments provide fundamental protections for due process and those accused of crimes.

These freedoms should never be treated as government favors. They are Constitutional protections of individual liberty. 

America can change without abandoning its founding principles. Technology changes. Culture changes. Political movements change. But human nature—and the danger of concentrated government power—has not changed.

The Constitution provides a lawful mechanism for change through amendments. That is the American way. We do not rewrite the rules simply because politicians find constitutional limits inconvenient.

Unfortunately, too many Americans have become willing to trade liberty for government promises. More programs, more regulations, more spending and more government control are often presented as solutions to every problem.

But government power comes with consequences. Every new government power eventually has to be exercised by someone. And once power is given to government, citizens must be vigilant about how that power is used.

Freedom requires responsibility.

“We the People” cannot simply sit on the sidelines and expect someone else to preserve the republic. Citizens must understand the Constitution. Parents must teach their children about America’s founding. Schools should teach students the principles of constitutional government, individual liberty and civic responsibility.  And elected officials should remember the oath they take: to support and defend the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a relic sitting behind glass in a museum. It is America’s governing document. 

It protects the citizen from government—not the government from the citizen.

After 239 years, the challenge is not whether the Constitution remains relevant. The challenge is whether we have the courage and commitment to live by it.

The future of America will not be secured by bigger government, louder politicians or more promises from Washington. And most definitely not by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) $222 Trillion agenda.

It will be secured by “We the People”  the citizens who know their Rights, understand their Rsponsibilities and refuse to surrender their Liberty.

The Constitution belongs to us.

So, let us defend it. Teach it. Respect it. Preserve it.

Because if “We the People” stop protecting the Constitution, eventually there may be no Constitution left protecting “We the People.”

-Gregory Thayer