Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We're loved. Thank you. Excellent. Morning. Good afternoon, everyone. It is Thursday to Wednesday, March 11, and this is your house general and housing committee. And what we're doing right now is we're gonna hear excuse me. We're hearing h nine zero five, an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to prohibition on discrimination, and this is an introduction of this bill by its co author, Saudia LaMont, and Elizabeth Burrows is a co author and has indicated a willingness to chime in if necessary. Saudia? Your floor is yours.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Saudia LaMont. Thank you, Chair and Committee of Congress, for this opportunity to introduce this important time relevant legislation brought forward by rep Burrows and myself on behalf of community members and partners. Why civil rights? Civil rights are the foundation of healthy democracy. They ensure that every person can live, work, learn and participate in society free from discrimination and unequal treatment. Civil rights protections affect the most basic aspects of daily life, whether someone can rent a home without bias, obtain employment without discrimination, access public accommodation without harassment, or trust that the government institutions will treat them fairly and equally. Although we all know I'm not a fan of the word equally, I prefer equitably, but the times haven't caught up yet, so we'll stick with equally going forward for this purpose. Strong civil rights protections do more than prevent harm. They help create communities where people can fully contribute their talents and participate in civic life. When rights are clear, enforceable, and trusted, they strengthen social stability, economic opportunity, and public confidence in government. Civil rights protections must also recognize that discrimination is not always over. Sometimes it arises from policies or practices that appear neutral on the surface, but produce unequal, equitable outcomes. Addressing these realities is essential if we are to uphold Vermont's constitutional commitment to equality and equity. Why now? This legislation comes at a moment where the lens of civil rights in The United States is rapidly shifting. In the last biennial, courts reversed long held equal rights protections, precedents, and injunctions were issued against policies designed to address these amendments. At the federal level, the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent around affirmative action. Over the past year, federal civil rights decisions have been decommissioned, eliminated, divisions have been decommissioned, eliminated or politically repurposed, such as the Department of Justice, Opportunity Employment Commission, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, HUD, Department of Education, EPA, Department of Agriculture, so many things that affect everybody's lives. And we have been hearing about these things throughout the session thus far. Why now? As our federal partners have upended and weaponized civil rights at the federal level, it falls on the states to serve as a backdrop to provide protection for the people of Vermont. At its core, this bill is about clarity, accountability, and alignment. Vermont has long prided itself on being a state that values fairness, dignity, and equal protection under the law. Yet, our civil rights protections are currently spread across multiple sections of statute in titles nine, thirteen, and 21. Sometimes operating in silos, sometimes using different language, and sometimes lacking enforcement mechanisms that are necessary to ensure meaningful protection. And I say sometimes so much because they're the sometimes are not even congruent. They're all different across the board. And for the record, if you're wondering what those statutes are, it's nine BSA, which is public accommodation and housing, which we cover in this committee, 13 BSA, criminal civil rights and hate crimes, and 21 BSA, which is employment discrimination. Just so we know what we're talking about. This bill proposes to align and integrate these protections referenced regardless of who they are, where they live, thank you, and can rely on, so that Vermonters, regardless of who they are, where they live, can rely on a coherent and consistent civil rights framework. What does this build to? Page nine zero five. I wanted to start with why civil rights and why debt? So we need to set the tone. And so what this intends to do is to create statutory definition of disparate impact for civil rights violations. So discrimination is not always overt, as I said, but we have conversations. It's always the burden of proof is on the victim. We've heard testimony of that just yesterday, if I'm not mistaken. And so, we have to create this definition of district impact in statute where we provide clearer guidance to courts, agencies and employers, housing providers and public entities about what the law requires and what equity demands, because we can't have these varying definitions throughout our legislation or statute. Second, the bill authorizes a state private right of action for civil rights violations. Rights without remedies are not rights at all. Provision ensures that individuals whose civil rights are violated have a clear pathway to seek redress in court systems and strengthening enforcement and affirming that Vermont takes these protections seriously. Third, the bill strengthens accountability and prevention. It requires anti bias, anti discrimination.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I wanna stop you, could you come back second one again?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: To the civil rights I just didn't hear it. Oh, sorry. To create a right of action of policy. Right of action. Yeah, right of action, yes. Thank you. Was that a unique? Yeah, yeah. Then third, it strengthens the accountability and prevention, requires anti bias, anti discrimination training for the state and municipal employees. It requires annual public reporting by law enforcement agencies on certain offenses and requires that equity certifications from the state contractors and grant recipients ensuring public dollars are not used to perpetuate discrimination. Transparency and progression are not punitive. They are protective. They build trust between government and the people it serves. The bill also creates three structural components to support long term civil rights enforcement and coordination. So, and this is a lot, this is a big ask. So this is a short form. So a lot of the details are not in here. It's like one page basically in a little paragraph off the back. However, there is a partner bill in the Senate that was longer. So when it says all these things, the details are not fleshed out.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But they are in the Senate?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yes, not

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: in the short form.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: So the state civil rights data repository to ensure we are collecting and analyzing data in a consistent and meaningful way. The state civil rights and equal protections fund to support enforcement and education and civil rights coordinating council to ensure collaboration across agencies and prevent fragmentation of responsibility. Finally, the bill addresses an emerging and important concern, unauthorized federal collaboration that undermines Vermont civil rights protections. These provisions ensure that when Vermont sets a higher standard for protecting its residents, those standards are not quietly weakened through informal or unauthorized agreements. This legislation does not create new protected classes. It does not upend existing law. It is intended to modernize and clarify and integrate what Vermont has already committed to, equal protection, non discrimination and human dignity. Nothing new. Civil rights are not basic, are not abstract principles. They determine whether someone can rent an apartment without bias, access public space without harassment, keep a job without discrimination, or trust that the law enforcement and the government will treat them fairly. Notice, I'm saying things again, because it's important because we lose things. This bill is about ensuring that our statute reflects our values clearly, consistently and enforceably. The withdrawal of federal civil rights protections is not new in American history. The struggle for equality has always required leadership from states, communities, and individuals willing to stand up for justice. The fight for civil rights is ultimately a fight for the soul of this nation and of our state. We stand on the shoulders of the people who risk everything to expand the promise of freedom and equality. You know the names, you've heard them. Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Jesse Jackson, Harriet Tubman's Journey True, Harriet Beatrice Dove, Doctor. Howard and Malcolm King, and countless others. Their courage reminds us that civil rights progress is never permanent unless we continue to work to protect and strengthen it. Today, we have a responsibility to meet the moment. H-nine zero five ensures that Vermont continues to uphold the principles of equal protection, dignity, fairness for all who call this state home. Thank you, and I look forward to having more discussion around this as we move. Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Questions?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Mentioned, I mean, you. You mentioned there is a Senate companion bill. S-three01. Okay. And, is that in our sister committee right now? Yes. Okay. And, I guess it's crossover, so they don't have

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: problems. We'll see what they do.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: We'll see what they do. I don't know.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Do know whether it's been taken up?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I don't. I thought they said that it had movement, but I don't know where it landed because there were changes made. It started out simultaneous, Mattine and I both powered through, but ours ended up being the short form because of the deadlines.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Sure, oh yeah.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: It looks like Elizabeth's looking into it maybe. Yeah. Yeah, I'm curious. Okay, thank you so much. This has been something that's been on my radar for a bit. I really appreciate bringing it 302? 301. 301.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah. Well, it's just really important because, you know, as we just heard in this morning's

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: No, it has not been taken out.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Okay, thank you. As we just heard in this morning's introduction that even though we passed proposal two, these things still take place. Now we have proposal four, hopefully coming over. And so I feel like now is the time to And address it's not a lot, and there are some financial assets in this, so that would probably have to be stripped out. But something, right, on the books is helpful with the hope that we can add it later. Right? And we can find a way and find means to pull it together and do what we need to do around. I really just wanted to bring voice to what's happening around the world and in our state and put it on the record and just let people know that it's not remiss, that we are aware and it is on our minds and it is important.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Okay, and I do hear from constituents and about this bill as well, so thank you so much.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I don't know yet. A couple of questions, think this is really interesting. One is, you mentioned a fund in the bill. What's the fund again?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: The, it's the, hold on, information. It

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: has a name.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yes, so State Civil Rights and Equal Protection Fund.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, did that have a source in the Senate bill? I mean, know we're talking about

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: yeah, no. We have. So, work in partnership with Vermont Racial Justice Alliance on this. Yeah. And the way they were talking about it are funding source funding streams that have been allocated that have not been used, and was wondering if there was a way we could reallocate these funds that have already been designated or funds that were supposed to be designated but not given. So like the HRC funds that are missing, there's some other funds that are not coming in. And so the hope is that as funds come in, we can pull from all of the equity based places to pool and contribute to this. Don't hold me to that, that was just a passing conversation. You you gotta get creative when you're thinking about where's the money gonna come from?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Love my paper.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, just was curious. Yeah. You mentioned disparate impact. Am I right? I mean, I have so currently little respect for the Supreme Court that I can regretfully say that I don't follow their every move. Do they reduce the whole disparate impact cause of action by their cases, do you know? Whether

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I don't think the disparate impact portion existed. So, think that is what we're hoping to create. That's the new

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, I think it, I have heard disparate impact. I felt like the judiciary's been hostile to it.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Oh, well, and also, HUD has not only banned disparate impact data, but they have prohibited the collection of disparate impact data, which is

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: they're two different things. They're related, but it's Right. So a lot of this bill is trying, in my right, is trying to make up for changes in federal law that have been retrograde. Right. Yeah. Is one of the concerns I know that would be, I'm sure would be, we'd hear about, would be that it's duplicative. You know, that the HRC or somebody else, this agency, that agency, the other agency already does this stuff. Or, this is classic, we hear this all the time. It's kind of like, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, or that we're asking some agency to do something new and not giving them money to do it, one or the other. Do you have any thoughts on that at this point, or is it just too early to comment?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: So, at this point, I don't think there, I don't really have a whole lot of thoughts on asking agencies to do more. I would say as far as this being duplicative, it's not because it's been taken away. And what we're trying to do is hone in and secure that for the state of Vermont at least, so that we know Vermonters' civil rights are sound and integrated. And really that is the whole thing, is that we have now seen that having it at

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: the federal level is not enough. It needs to be enshrined in in statute at the local level because the federal level is not permanent. It doesn't It cannot exist with a swipe of a pen.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do you happen to know, just out of curiosity, whether the Senate bill has its recitation whereas clauses a reference to the Vermont constitution? That would be good, in the future. I mean, think it's what we really want is to pin our civil rights laws to the Vermont constitution. Right. That way, a federal court finds it hard to rule against it on the basis that what we've already said, that's not covered in the federal constitution.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Right, I think Cameron, I think he looked into that and tried to make it relevant and tying it to Vermont. I can ask him on how far he went with that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah. Because it likes to be-

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yeah, Cameron draft. Oh, S three zero one

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: does not is not I don't know. Does not duplicate what's in the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Prop four? Correct.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Nor does it build on Prop four. It does not make any assumptions about Prop four or its passage.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's its own Separate, yep.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: As would this be. It's all the different steps you need to take to just put as many protections as you can in as possible.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Right, yep.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Who else would have questions of our esteemed colleague?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Deborah, you will answer one.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: No, very good. You

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: eloquent. Are

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You're quite eloquent.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Definitely not.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any further questions?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Alright. Thank

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you so much.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Thank you. We'll see you in a minute.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's take a five minute recess. We're gonna be back in five minutes. If I take