One Saturday in May, three veto letters
2023-05-27
Dear friend,
Today, Governor Scott vetoed his second bill of the 2023 legislative session.
--H.494, An act relating to making appropriations for the support of government
H.494 is our State budget for the fiscal year starting July 1st. I support the many compromises in H.494 as a sound, balanced budget that prepares us for the future. (See Budgeting in wartime.)
Scott's veto assuredly means the Legislature will be back for a "veto session" June 20–22. Scott's first veto was S.5 -- see Dear Governor, Let’s plan for the future. Sincerely, Rep. Roberts. We overrode the Governor on S.5 prior to adjournment.
And he wasn't done. Today Scott also vetoed:
--H.386, An act relating to approval of amendments to the charter of the Town of Brattleboro
--H.509, An act relating to approval of amendments to the voter qualification provisions of the charter of the City of Burlington
I supported both of this bills as the best of our democracy -- always experimenting at the edges, in localities, to improve civic engagement.
Scott provided a veto message on each bill. They're well-written and he makes some good arguments. I pasted them below so that you and I both can take them in.
Comments? Feedback? Email me, or look for me at Memorial Day celebrations tomorrow and Monday!
P.S. Climate change is opening up new opportunities in viticulture on Old Town Road in Wilmington. What are you planting this spring?
P.P.S. Here are the three full veto letters from today, and here on the Governor's website.
H.494 Veto Letter
May 27, 2023
The Honorable Betsy Ann Wrask
Clerk of the Vermont House of Representatives
State House
Montpelier, VT 05633
Dear Ms. Wrask:
Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I’m returning H.494– An act relating to making appropriations for the support of government, without my signature because of my objections described herein:
In my address to the Legislature in January, I reported that with organic revenue growth we could achieve our shared goals. My budget leveraged a historic $390 million in surplus revenue to fund our shared priorities like childcare, voluntary paid family and medical leave, housing, climate change mitigation, and more – all without raising taxes or fees.
This approach is critical because Vermonters have made it clear that living in our state is not affordable; and the data backs that up as we are ranked as having one of the highest tax burdens in the nation. Adding to this pressure, Vermonters continue to pay more for everyday essentials due to persistent inflation.
With all of this in mind, we cannot and should not ask Vermonters to shoulder the burden of new and higher taxes, fees and penalties.
And yet, across this budget and other bills, the Legislature’s tax, fee and spending decisions this session may add an average of nearly $1,200 to a household’s burden each year – on top of higher property tax bills and inflation, which have already consumed the increase in most people’s paychecks.
Specifically, this budget unnecessarily increases DMV fees by 20 percent and is reliant on a new and regressive, payroll tax in H.217. The DMV fee increase will once again place Vermont in the unenviable position of being the most expensive state in the northeast to maintain a driver’s license and register a vehicle. The combination of this with so many other increases will hurt everyday Vermonters now and into the future.
I’m also concerned the substantial increase in ongoing base spending, that Vermonters must bear into the future, is not sustainable. This increase – more than twice the rate of current inflation – is especially concerning because it does not include the full cost of the new programs created this year that rely on new tax revenue or will otherwise add to Vermonters’ costs, including the childcare expansion, universal school meals, the clean heat standard and more.
Here’s the bottom line: I cannot support a budget that relies on new and regressive taxes and fees, combined with the overall increase in base spending that is far beyond our ability to sustain, especially because there is a way to achieve our shared policy goals without them. The risk to Vermonters is too great.
Vermonters have elected and reelected me, in part, to provide balance and fiscal responsibility in Montpelier and I will follow through on that mandate. I strongly urge the Legislature to work with me on a path forward that accomplishes our shared goals.
Sincerely,
/s/
Philip B. Scott
Governor
H.386 Veto Letter
May 27, 2023
The Honorable Betsy Ann Wrask
Clerk of the Vermont House of Representatives
State House
Montpelier, VT 05633
Dear Ms. Wrask:
Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I’m returning H.386, An Act Relating to Approval of Amendments to the Charter of the Town of Brattleboro without my signature because of my objections described below.
This bill is almost identical in language and purpose to a bill passed last year, H.361, An Act Relating to Approval of Amendments to the Charter of the Town of Brattleboro, which I vetoed in 2022 (see attached veto message). As I said last year, I believe it is important to encourage young Vermonters to have an interest in issues affecting their schools, their communities, their state and their country. However, I do not support lowering the voting age in Brattleboro, nor lowering the age to run for Town office and sign contracts on behalf of taxpayers.
As I specified last year, “given how inconsistent Vermont law already is on the age of adulthood, this proposal will only worsen the problem. For example, the Legislature has repeatedly raised the age of accountability to reduce the consequences when young adults commit criminal offenses. They have argued this approach is justified because these offenders are not mature enough to contemplate the full range of risks and impacts of their actions.”
Adding to that inconsistency, just one month ago the Legislature passed, and I signed, H.148, An act relating to the age of eligibility to marry, or, “The Act to Ban Child Marriage,” which raised the age of eligibility to marry to age 18. Proponents rightly argued, “all young people in Vermont deserve equal opportunities to enjoy their childhood…”, they also pointed to undo influence by controlling parents.
Additionally, proponents of this bill have argued it represents the will of the voters. In fact, this is not the case. With H.386 the Legislature substantially changed and expanded the charter change, going against the intent of the voters (see attached Brattleboro sample ballot).
For all these reasons, I’m returning this legislation without my signature pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution.
Sincerely,
/s/
Philip B. Scott
Governor
H.509 Veto Letter
May 27, 2023
The Honorable Betsy Ann Wrask
Clerk of the Vermont House of Representatives
State House
Montpelier, VT 05633
Dear Ms. Wrask:
Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I am returning H.509, An act relating to approval of amendments to the voter qualification provisions of the charter of the City of Burlington, without my signature.
As I wrote when returning similar bills without signature in 2021, this highly variable town-by-town approach to municipal election policy creates separate and unequal classes of legal residents potentially eligible to vote on local voting issues. I am well aware of the recent Vermont Supreme Court decision, as well as a historic Vermont Supreme Court decision on the issue of constitutionality. I also have no objection to the policy direction. I am happy to see legal residents who are non-citizens calling Vermont home and participating in the issues affecting their communities.
However, the fundamentals of voting should be universal and implemented statewide. I again urge the Legislature to establish clarity and consistency on this matter with a template or uniform standards, before continuing to allow municipalities to move forward with changes to resident voter eligibility in their cities and towns. Returning this bill provides the opportunity to do this important work.
For these reasons, I am returning this legislation without my signature pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution.
Sincerely,
/s/
Philip B. Scott
Governor