S 265, expanding criminal threatening to include threats to third persons, passed with an amendment in the State House of Representatives April 12, by a vote of 89-32.
Purpose: The underlying language of S.265 would allow for the legal punishment of citizens who threaten public officials.
A citizen prosecuted under S.265 could be sentenced to up to two years. A fine between $1000 and $2000 is also in play.
The key language in section 1.f of the bill states, “A person who violates subsection (a) of this section with the intent to terrify, intimidate, or unlawfully influence the conduct of a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or public employee in any decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion taken in capacity as a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or public employee, or with the intent to retaliate against a … for any previous action taken in capacity as a candidate for public office, public servant, election official, or public employee, shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $2,000.00, or both.” Additionally, S.265 makes it more difficult for a defendant’s legal defense to claim that the defendant was unable to carry out their threat.
The Notte Amendment adds sexual assault to the Senate’s list of illegal conduct, and reorders section of S.265 to make more logical sense.
Analysis: Those voting YES believe that the increased levels of conflict between citizens and school board members and other public official across the country, particularly in regard to Critical Race Theory (CRT) and controversial Covid policies, warrants increased protections for elected officials from threats of violence, above those of ordinary citizens. In Vermont, they point to recent allegations of threats to legislators, election officials, healthcare workers, neighbors of shooting ranges and women of color in Vermont. Protecting the ‘victim’ from further attacks could give the courts license to remove an individual’s firearms.
Those voting NO believe S.265 infringes on the Constitutional rights to free speech and to petition government for redress of grievances. S.265 could potentially result in citizens being punished for criticism (rather than actual threats) of certain groups, which is clearly protected speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The ACLU of Vermont chose not to endorse S.265, warning lawmakers that an earlier version of S.265 could be applied too broadly and chill “certain forms of political hyperbole.” Vermont law enforcement already has the authority to deal with truly violent threats. Officials chose not to prosecute recent threats under current, which suggests a conscious decision by officials, rather than a failure of Vermont law. S.265 could also give the courts more freedom to violate an individual’s 2nd Amendment rights by removing an individual’s firearms while the case is being processed.
As Recorded in the House Journal, Tuesday, April 12, 2022: “Pending the question, Shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment?, Rep. LaClair of Barre Town demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment?, was decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 89. Nays, 32.” (Read the Journal, p. 1023 – 24 ).
View the floor debate on YouTube, Part 1 and Part 2
House Judiciary Committee meeting outlining S.265
These roll call reports are designed to help citizens understand how their elected representatives vote on key issues. The bills may or may not eventually become law. Click on the link to the bill page at the top of this post for an up to date status on the bill.
Related:
Roll Call! Senate Limits Speech by Broadening ‘Threat’ Definition (28-2), 2022
ACLU written testimony on S.265
National Rifle Association statement on S.265
How They Voted
(Click on your Rep’s name to send an email)
| Sally Achey (R – Middletown Springs) – NO Janet Ancel (D – Calais) – YES Peter Anthony (D – Barre City) – YES Norman Arrison (D – Weathersfield) – YES Sarita Austin (D – Colchester) – YES John Bartholomew (D – Hartland) – YES Scott Beck (R – St. Johnsbury) – NO Matthew Birong (D – Vergennes) – ABSENT Alyssa Black (D – Essex) – YES Tiffany Bluemle (D – Burlington) – YES Thomas Bock (D – Chester) – YES Seth Bongartz (D – Manchester) – YES Michelle Bos-Lun (D – Westminster) – YES Erin Brady (D – Williston) – YES Patrick Brennan (R – Colchester) – ABSENT Timothy Briglin (D – Thetford) – YES Jana Brown (D – Richmond) – YES Nelson Brownell (D – Pownal) – YES Jessica Brumsted (D – Shelburne) – YES Thomas Burditt (R – West Rutland) – YES Mollie Burke (P/D – Brattleboro) – YES Elizabeth Burrows (P/D – West Windsor) – YES Scott Campbell (D – St. Johnsbury) – YES Bill Canfield (R – Fair Haven) – NO Seth Chase (D – Colchester) – YES Kevin “Coach” Christie (D – Hartford) – YES Brian Cina (P/D – Burlington) – ABSENT Sara Coffey (D – Guilford) – YES Selene Colburn (P/D – Burlington) – YES Hal Colston (D – Winooski) – YES Peter Conlon (D – Cornwall) – YES Sarah Copeland-Hanzas (D – Bradford) – YES Timothy Corcoran (D – Bennington) – YES Mari Cordes (D/P – Lincoln) – YES Lawrence Cupoli (R – Rutland City) – NO Lynn Dickinson (R – St. Albans Town) – ABSENT Karen Dolan (D – Essex) – YES Kari Dolan (D – Waitsfield) – YES Anne Donahue (R – Northfield) – NO Kate Donnally (D – Hyde Park) – ABSENT David Durfee (D – Shaftsbury) – YES Caleb Elder (D – Starksboro) – YES Alice Emmons (D – Springfield) – ABSENT Peter Fagan (R – Rutland City) – NO Martha Feltus (R – Lyndon) – YES John Gannon (D – Wilmington) – YES Rey Garofano (D – Essex) – YES Leslie Goldman (D – Bellows Falls) – YES Kenneth Goslant (R – Northfield) – NO Maxine Grad (D – Moretown) – YES Rodney Graham (R – Williamstown) – NO James Gregoire (R – Fairfield) – NO Lisa Hango (R – Berkshire) – NO James Harrison (R – Chittenden) – NO Robert Helm (R – Fair Haven) – NO Mark Higley (R – Lowell) – NO Robert Hooper (D – Burlington) – ABSENT Mary Hooper (D – Montpelier) – YES Philip Hooper (D – Randolph) – ABSENT Lori Houghton (D – Essex) – YES Mary Howard (D – Rutland) – ABSENT Kathleen James (D – Manchester) – ABSENT Stephanie Jerome (D – Brandon) – ABSENT Kimberly Jessup (D – Middlesex) – YES John Kascenska (R – Burke) – ABSENT John Killacky (D – S. Burlington) – YES Charles Kimbell (D – Woodstock) – ABSENT Warren Kitzmiller (D – Montpelier) – ABSENT Emilie Kornheiser (D – Brattleboro) – YES Jill Krowinski (D – Burlington) – PRESIDING Larry Labor (R – Morgan) – ABSENT Robert LaClair (R – Barre) – NO Martin LaLonde (D – S. Burlington) – YES Diane Lanpher (D – Vergennes) –YES Wayne LaRoche (R – Franklin) – ABSENT | Paul Lefebvre (R – Newark) – ABSENT Samantha Lefebvre (R – Orange) – NO Felisha Leffler (R – Enosburgh) – YES William Lippert (D – Hinesburg) – YES Emily Long (D – Newfane) – YES Michael Marcotte (R – Coventry) – ABSENT Marcia Martel (R – Waterford) – ABSENT James Masland (D – Thetford) – YES Christopher Mattos (R – Milton) – NO Michael McCarthy (D – St. Albans City) – YES Curtis McCormack (D – Burlington) – YES Patricia McCoy (R – Poultney) – NO James McCullough (D – Williston) – NO Francis McFaun (R – Barre Town) – NO Leland Morgan (R – Milton) – NO Michael Morgan (R – Milton) – NO Kristi Morris (D – Springfield) – YES Mary Morrissey (R – Bennington) – NO Michael Mrowicki (D – Putney) – YES Emma Mulvaney-Stanak (D – Burlington) – ABSENT Barbara Murphy (I – Fairfax) – YES Logan Nicoll (D – Ludlow) – ABSENT Michael Nigro (D – Bennington) – ABSENT Robert Norris (R – Sheldon) – NO Terry Norris (I – Shoreham) – YES William Notte (D – Rutland) – YES Daniel Noyes (D – Wolcott) – YES John O’Brien (D – Tunbridge) – YES Carol Ode (D – Burlington) – YES “Woody” Page (R – Newport City) – ABSENT Kelly Pajala (I – Londonderry) – YES John Palasik (R – Milton) – ABSENT Joseph Parsons (R – Newbury) – NO Carolyn Partridge (D – Windham) – YES Avram Patt (D – Worcester) – YES Henry Pearl (D – Danville) – YES Arthur Peterson (R – Clarendon) – NO Ann Pugh (D – S. Burlington) – YES Barbara Rachelson (D/P – Burlington) – YES Lucy Rogers (D – Waterville) – YES Carl Rosenquist (R – Georgia) – NO Larry Satcowitz (D – Randolph) – YES Robin Scheu (D – Middlebury) – YES Heidi Scheuermann (R – Stowe) – NO Charles “Butch” Shaw (R – Pittsford) – NO Amy Sheldon (D – Middlebury) – YES Laura Sibilia (I – Dover) – YES Katherine Sims (D – Craftsbury) – YES Taylor Small (P/D – Winooski) – YES Brian Smith (R – Derby) – NO Harvey Smith (R – New Haven) – ABSENT Trevor Squirrell (D – Underhill) – YES Gabrielle Stebbins (D – Burlington) – YES Thomas Stevens (D – Waterbury) – YES Vicki Strong (R – Albany) – NO Linda Joy Sullivan (D – Dorset) – YES Heather Suprenant (D – Barnard) – YES Curt Taylor (D – Colchester) – YES Thomas Terenzini (R – Rutland Town) – ABSENT George Till (D – Jericho) – YES Tristan Toleno (D – Brattleboro) – ABSENT Casey Toof (R – St. Albans Town) – NO Maida Townsend (D – S. Burlington) – YES Joseph “Chip” Troiano (D – Stannard) – YES Tanya Vyhovsky (P/D – Essex) – YES Matt Walker (R – Swanton) – NO Tommy Walz (D – Barre City) – YES Kathryn Webb (D – Shelburne) – YES Kirk White (P/D – Bethel) – ABSENT Rebecca White (D – Hartford) – YES Dane Whitman (D – Bennington) – YES Terri Lynn Williams (R – Granby) – NO Theresa Wood (D – Waterbury) – YES David Yacovone (D – Morristown) – YES Michael Yantachka (D – Charlotte) – YES |
Categories: Legislation
Why are these people so afraid of their own constituency, if they are truly acting with our best interests in mind ? Could it be that year after year they have proven that they listen to the squeakiest wheel with the most money ?
Roll Call! Again: You people who voted “yes” are idiot morons! “Threatened” YET? You know my number…come & git’ me! You shall N-E-V-E-R silence my voice, Marxists!!!
Went to elementary school with your nemesis – Sean Hannity. Looking forward to my arrest today.
…..And look at all the Republican RINO’s who were “absent”. Pathetic. Thanks for nothing, as always cowards.
Perhaps the next step should be building a wall around the Capitol complex for their protection from their constituents. Perhaps it’s time for taxpayers to stop funding them for our protection. Boston Tea Party 2.0. Instead of tossing tea into the harbor – erect burn barrels to set tax bills ablaze or maybe a Cominsky Park 1979 – blow up them up to smithereens. They will not stop this madness until their fuel is gone….our money is their fuel.
Why were so many Republicans absent?
This is so nefarious. These low lives in the legislature saw a multitude of constituents contacting them right after the 2020 Presidential election justifiably angry as they believed there was some degree of election fraud. There was. (Whoops! Now I’ll be followed by DHS too!) Hooray!
Aggrieved by their constituent’s reactions & by the reality that so many were and are conservative/libertarian/republican – the legislators sent ALL of their constituent’s letters & identities to the State Police claiming that this reaction to the election results was: “Threatening”.
When the police read them & came to the (obvious) determination that NONE were, in fact, “threatening” and thereby NO action could be taken under the law – these BIRD BRAINS commenced to figure out some other manner in which to keep the voters silent & suppressed: Disallow them their Right to Free Speech!!!
Pretty ingenious, huh? Ummmmm…….NO.
This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
It’s now just after 3PM, and I remain a free citizen. Come & get me, Commies!
I’ll be around until Mass time. You can drag me down the church isles then.
If you would stop pushing your MARXISTS agenda on us then you souldn’t have to worry, right?
If you feel your county prosecutor is negligent in failing to respond to your concerns as it relates to laws that are repugnant or “where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrobate them.” – Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
It’s critically important that these narcissist’s have more ways to inflate their head sizes to be in proportion to their ego’s.
Why did Republican Tom Burditt vote in favor of silencing the constituents in his district?
Rinos are destroying the Republican party..
Maybe every one of these people should receive a copy of our constitution and read it until they understand it..
I hope people are paying attention and adjust their voting accordingly