Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Call this joint assembly to order. This joint assembly is convened pursuant to the provisions of j r s 43, which the clerk will now read.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: J r s 43. Joint resolution providing for a joint assembly to vote on the retention of six superior court judges. Resolved by the senate and house of representatives that the two houses meet and join assembly on Wednesday, 03/25/2026 at 10:00 and thirty minutes in the four noon to vote on the retention of six superior court judges. In case the vote to retain said judges shall not be made on that day, the two houses shall meet and join assembly at 10:00 and thirty minutes in the forenoon on each succeeding day, Saturdays and Sundays accepted, and proceed until the above is completed.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Pursuant to our constitution and statutes, are assembled here today in joint assembly to cast votes on the retention of six superior judges. We are operating under the Judicial Retention Act passed in 1976 as amended in subsequent sessions of the general assembly which established the procedure for retention of incumbent superior judges. The date for holding joint assemblies for the retention of judges is set by statute to be the eleventh Thursday of the session in order to give the joint committee on judicial retention adequate time to consider the judges who are up for review. This year, the date for holding the joint assembly was extended to 03/25/2026. The procedure will be followed requires the procedure to be followed requires that the votes be written ballot. We shall proceed to the matter of retention of the six incumbent superior judges under the judicial retention act, which establishes the procedure for the retention of these judges' nominations may not be received from the floor. Rather, each judge seeking retention must file a declaration of intention to seek retention with the secretary of state, or if a superior judge is appointed after September 1 of the year preceding the expiration of the term of office, the superior judge shall automatically be a candidate for retention without filing notice. This means the name of each judge sink seeking retention is automatically placed in the nomination and considered for retention pursuant to the terms of judicial retention act. In addition, the judicial retention act provides that when a candidate does so declare for retention, the question to be decided shall automatically be, shall the following superior court judges be retained in office? Accordingly, we will need tellers, and the chair now appoints the tellers. Senator Vyhovsky of Chittenden Central as chief teller, senator Watson of Washington District, senator Morley of Orleans District, Representative Boyden of Cambridge, Representative Parsons of Newberry, Representative Taylor of Mendon, Representative Klepner of Burlington. We shall now proceed to the matter of retention of the incumbent superior judges. For these positions, we received a declaration of intention to seek retention to the office of superior judge from the following, David Mara, Benjamin Battles, Michael Harris, Rachel Malone, John Valentin, Thomas Welch. The question to be decided in each of these cases is, shall Superior Judge David Baruth be retained in office? Yes or no? Shall Superior Judge Benjamin Battles be retained in office? Yes or no? Shall Superior Judge Michael Harris be retained in office? Yes or no? Shall superior judge Rachel Malone be retained in office? Yes or no? Shall superior judge John Bongartz be retained in office? Yes or no? Shall superior judge Thomas Walsh be retained in office? Yes or no? The ballot that you will receive will contain these questions in print form on a single ballot. The terms of each of these judges is for six years from and including the April 2026 and until their successors are elected and qualified. To facilitate the procedure for this morning, the chair will rule unless there is objection. That debate on these six judges will be received separately. At the end of the debate for the six judges, any general debate on the entire question shall be in order. First, we will receive the report of the Joint Committee on Judicial Retention. The chair now recognizes the chair of this committee, the member from Williston, representative Arsenal, for the purpose of receiving the report.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Williston) – Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial Retention]: Mister president, the judicial retention committee today presents to you and the general assembly information regarding six superior court judges, all of whom are seeking to be retained for six years. The committee consists of eight members, four from the house and four from the senate, and is charged with evaluating judicial performance, including but not limited to such factors as integrity, judicial temperament, impartiality, legal knowledge, and administrative skills. The judges up for retention today all submitted information about their education, previous employment, copies of some of their judicial decisions, and a letter detailing why they wish to be retained. They answered questionnaires, participated in interviews with the committee, and were the subject of a public hearing about their performance on the job. Additional evaluation materials provided to the committee included the results of an anonymous survey sent to all court staff, all members of the Vermont bar, guardians ad litem, probation and parole officers, and others. The recommendations you will hear today are the result of thoughtful conscientious work by your judicial retention committee with impeccable guidance from attorney Eric Fitzpatrick, Michelle Child, and committee assistant Lindsay Schrier. I thank the members for their diligence. As all legislators gathered here can understand, each committee member cast their vote based on their interpretation of all information available at the time of the vote. Public input is one vital component of that bundle of information. I encourage all members and all Vermonters who have interacted with our courts to participate in the retention process. The retention committee meets every session from February through early March and sets one meeting specifically for the purpose of public comment. Meeting dates can be found on the committee page on the general assembly website, and I know the committee is open to suggestions about how to better publicize our work. Mister president, this completes my report.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The chair now recognizes the member from Pittsford, representative Millais, to give the report on superior judge David Baruth.

[Rep. Butch Shaw (Pittsford)]: Mister president, it is my honor to speak before you today in support of the retention of superior court judge David a Barra, a jurist who brings to the bench four decades of distinguished legal experience, deep roots in Vermont's communities, and a lifetime of service that extends well beyond the courtroom. David Baruth was born in Northampton, Massachusetts and went to college at Williams College where he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree cum laude with a double major in English and history. From Williams, he went on to earn his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center, graduating in 1982. He was admitted to the Vermont Bar the same year, and Vermont is where he built his entire legal career, a career spanning more than thirty six years of private practice before being appointed to the bench in 2018. He began as a partner at the Burlington firm of Paul Franklin and Franklin and Collins, where he developed his litigation skills and his deep knowledge of Vermont law. In 1993, he established his own partnership in Essex Junction, which ultimately became the law offices of David A. Barrett plc, where he practiced until his appointment to the judiciary. Beyond his law practice, Judge Barrett was an active and contributing member of Vermont's legal community. He was a member of the Chittenden County and Vermont Bar Associations serving on the VBA's Alternative Dispute Resolution and Municipal Law Committees and serving as a former chair of the VBA Young Lawyers section, nurturing the next generation of Vermont attorneys. Since his appointment to the Superior Court, Judge Barrett has presided over a wide range of complex civil matters, bringing to each case the experience, judgment, and work ethic that defined his decades at the bar. His decisions reflect a thorough command of civil litigation, municipal law, and the procedural fairness that Vermonters deserve from their courts. Overall, Judge Baruth's survey responses were excellent. 93.4% of attorney respondents recommended retention of Judge Baruth, with one respondent saying, I've practiced before three generations of judges in Vermont. Judge Barrett exemplifies the best of the judiciary. We're fortunate to have him as a judge. A 100% of court staff, assistant judges, non attorneys recommended retention of Judge Barrett. With one saying, Judge Barrett is the ideal judge. He is quick to clear out his task queues, always available for emergencies and all decisions. Staff feel comfortable going to him to ask questions. He's always fair to litigants and hearings always go smooth. We thank Judge Barrett for his hard work for keeping the wheels of justice turning. Your joint judicial retention committee on a void vote of eight zero zero recommends that judge Baruth be retained as a superior court judge. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I keep wanting to try my voice without amplification. We will now proceed to any debate on the superior judge up for retention, superior judge David Baruth. Is there any debate? There being no debate, the chair now recognizes the member from Montpelier, representative Casey, to give the report on superior judge Benjamin Battles.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Mister president, it's my pleasure to rise in support of the retention of superior court judge Benjamin d Battles. Judge Battles is a University of Vermont graduate who went on to Brooklyn Law School where he served as executive articles editor of the Brooklyn Law Review. After law school, he clerked for two federal judges. First, for judge Dora Irizarry on the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and then for judge Morton Greenberg on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Those experiences, both at the trial and appellate levels, gave him a deep understanding of how courts function and how decisions are made. He then spent several years in private practice working on complex and appellate litigation before returning home to Vermont, where he served for nearly a decade in the attorney general's office. There, he rose to division chief and ultimately solicitor general, representing the state in complex cases and helping shape legal strategy at the highest of levels. He also taught as an adjunct at Vermont Law and Graduate School. In 12/02/2023, governor Scott appointed judge Bandles to the Superior Court to fill the vacancy left by judge Martine Larocque's retirement. Like many judges coming from a background in written appellate work, he was well prepared for the analytical side of the job. What stood out to him, and I think this will resonate for many of us, was the human side of the work. That includes working with self represented litigants, making decisions in real time from the bench, and handling urgent matters, sometimes in the middle of the night. By all accounts, he has taken those challenges seriously and approached them with humility and a real commitment to improving in the role. Since his appointment, he has served in the family divisions in Caledonia and Essex counties handling juvenile and domestic matters and now serves in the civil divisions across Caledonia, Essex, Lamoille, and Orleans Counties. He also serves on the public access to court records committee and continues to invest in his own development, including ongoing judicial education and upcoming training at the National Judicial College. At his retention hearing, judge Battle spoke candidly about the realities of the job, the long hours, the travel across rural counties, and the challenge of maintaining balance with a demanding caseload that doesn't always stay within the workday. At the same time, he was equally clear about how meaningful he finds the work, particularly in those moments when the court can bring stability and resolution to difficult situations. The feedback we received was exceptionally strong. 95 and a half percent of attorneys recommended his retention. Attorneys described him as respectful, thoughtful, fair, and compassionate even when ruling against him. One attorney noted his decisions are well reasoned, balanced, and appropriate, and describes him as both humble and exceptionally capable. Another commented, I would not be surprised if judge Battles were the next chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. Not too shabby. We also saw a 100 recommendation rate from court staff, assistant judges, and other non attorneys. Staff consistently highlighted his calm demeanor, his patience, his clear communication, and the respect he shows to everyone in the courtroom. They also noted his ability to manage proceedings efficiently while keeping cases focused and moving forward. Taken together, the record shows a judge who is intelligent, even handed, hardworking, and deeply committed to doing the job well. For those reasons, your Joint Judicial Retention Committee voted unanimously eight zero zero to recommend that judge Benjamin d Battles be retained as superior court judge. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will now proceed to any debate on the superior court judge up for retention, superior judge Benjamin Battles. Is there any debate? Seeing no further debate, the chair will now recognize the member from Williston, representative Arsenal, to give the report on superior judge Michael Harris.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Williston) – Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial Retention]: Thank you, mister president. I always wish for a more flourish when I am following the representative from Montpelier. But I rise today to express your joint judicial retention committee's unanimous support of the retention of Superior Court Judge Michael j Harris. Michael Harris earned his undergraduate degree from Middlebury College before earning his Juris Doctorate from the University of Wisconsin School of Law. From there, he launched his legal career with a federal clerkship under the honorable Albert w Coffern of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Following his clerkship, judge Harris spent twenty nine years in private practice at two Burlington law firms, building a well rounded civil litigation practice. In March 2016, governor Peter Shumlin appointed Michael Harris as a superior court judge. Since his appointment, judge Harris has been assigned to courthouses in 11 different counties, presiding over cases in civil, family, criminal, and juvenile divisions. Today, judge Harris serves in the Washington County criminal division in Barrie, where the court has averaged more than 2,500 new criminal case filings per year over the last four years. Like most superior court judges, judge Harris is called upon to answer late night calls from law enforcement officers and after hours relief from abuse workers as a matter of course. Now among the more experienced judges in the state, judge Harris is also a resource and a mentor to the bench as whole. He continues to serve on the civil oversight committee and participates in ongoing judicial training. He brings perspective, experience, and humility to the role. Perhaps that's why judge Harris' survey responses were excellent. 97.8 of attorney respondents recommended retention of judge Harris with one respondent offering the following. Mister president, may I quote a survey respondent?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: You may.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Williston) – Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial Retention]: Okay. Judge Harris is one of the most temperate and appropriate judges I have seen on the bench. His impartiality is unimpeachable, and he expresses sincere concern and empathy for litigants. He is kind to attorneys and careful not to say things that could upset or confuse clients. I enthusiastically recommend retaining judge Harris and if possible finding more like him. 100% of court staff, assistant judges, non attorneys recommended retention of judge Harris. May I quote, mister president, another survey respondent. Judge Harris is a credit to the judiciary. I I I understand multitasking. We all do. Just don't. I and I'm not senate rules, do you ask permission? Okay. Judge Harris is a credit to the judiciary. He is professional even in the face of adversity, compassionate, honest, objective, and in my humble opinion, extremely knowledgeable. I absolutely and without the slightest hesitation recommend judge Harris for retention. Your joint judicial retention committee on a vote of eight zero zero recommends that judge Harris be retained as a superior court judge.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will now proceed to any debate on the superior court judge up for retention, superior judge Michael Harris. Is there any debate? Seeing none, the chair now recognizes the senator from Addison District, Senator Hardy, to give the report on superior judge Rachel Malone.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. As the senior member of the judicial retention committee, I know the retention process well. But for many members of the general assembly, it is likely less familiar. So I would like to go over it again even though it will be a little bit of a repeat from what you've heard from the chair and the chair. Given the gravity of the conclusion of the committee in the case of Judge Rachel Malone, with the committee voting five-three not to recommend her retention, It's important that members of the General Assembly who must vote on the matter understand the purpose, rigor, and constitutionally and statutorily required nature of this process. The judicial retention committee did not reach its conclusion lightly and all of us struggled with the implications of our vote in either direction. While over the past twenty five years, several judges have retired early, even mid retention process, rather than face a negative vote. The full general assembly has not voted to deny retention since 1993. The majority of the committee has not voted to recommend against retention of a judge since 2011. And in that case, the judge retired immediately after. So, the full general assembly was never required to vote. Such a recommendation from the majority of the judicial retention committee is rare. And thus, when it happens, the evidence must be clear and convincing as it was this time for the majority of the committee. A superior court judge makes serious decisions and could impact thousands of Vermonters. Decisions on their retention must also be rigorous and serious. The Vermont constitution provides that at the end of their term, every judge quote shall continue in office for another term of six years unless a majority of the members of the general assembly voting on the question vote against retention in continuation in office. The constitution further provides that the general assembly may establish procedures for the implementation of this provision. In order to fulfill this constitutional responsibility, the General Assembly enacted four VSA chapter 14 subsection six zero seven, which created the Joint Judicial Retention Committee to quote, evaluate judicial performance, including such factors as integrity, judicial temperament, impartiality, health, diligence, legal knowledge and ability, and administrative and communicative skills, unquote. The statute lays out a general process and gives the committee significant powers. Sorry this is awkward, to gather information to evaluate a judge, including the ability to subpoena witnesses and access otherwise confidential information. Further, the judicial retention committee operates under rules of procedure adopted in 1997, that direct legislative council staff to gather relevant information and make quote, such investigation as may be useful in the review of the judicial performance of each judge. The staff shall conduct a survey of members of the bar who have appeared before each judge. The staff shall request information from each judge, including general biographical information, information on the judge's education, employment, membership in associations or organizations, physical and mental condition, and financial affairs, and any other information bearing on the candidate's ability to perform his or her judicial responsibilities, unquote. Committee members receive a large binder of information about judges, including their personal statements, the results of surveys of lawyers and court staff, and sample decisions issued by the judge. The committee hears personal testimony from and asks questions of the judge, and conducts a public hearing where anyone who wishes can testify. Most information about a judge is made public upon the commencement of the committee's work. But some information remains confidential for only the committee's private review and discussion in executive session. In cases where confidential information plays a role in decisions about retention, the committee may not share such information with the full general assembly, potentially creating a complicated situation for explaining a decision to members beyond the eight of the committee. The overall judicial retention evaluations of judges is unique to Vermont among the 50 states. The process is meant to be non partisan and apolitical based on evidence and testimony, not on the result of a campaign or lobbying. In fact, Vermont law prohibits judges from political activity or quote, taking part in any political campaign, unquote. The judicial retention process is an element of Vermont's constitutional checks and balances among the three branches of government. It is a scheduled, orderly, legislative check on the judiciary, and one that we must take seriously for our system of government to work well. I will now turn to the specifics of the retention recommendation of Judge Malone. Judge Rachel Malone was appointed as a superior court judge by governor Phil Scott in December 2023. Prior to her appointment as a judge, she served three years as a judicial master of four juvenile proceedings in Chittenden County. After being appointed by then superior judge Brian Grierson, thus giving her judicial experience that is unique among newly appointed superior court judges. A judicial master is a position similar to a judge, but one that hears a narrow jurisdiction of uncontested cases and does not generally issue written decisions. Before her appointment to a judicial position, Judge Malone served for a decade in the Defender General's office, working first on criminal defense and later on family matters. She received her law degree at Georgetown University in 2010 and her bachelor's degree from Case Western Reserve University in 2005. Upon her appointment, Judge Malone was assigned to the Windham Civil Division in the New Fane Courthouse. Notably, this was the position that Judge Malone applied for and the assignment she apparently knew she would receive upon her appointment. The assignment proved difficult for her due to the lack of on-site supervision or judicial peers, the isolation of the courthouse, and her lack of experience with civil litigation. These and other factors, combined with her lengthy drive from Chittenden County, led to significant delays in her written decisions. In fact, many of her decisions were more than ninety days overdue during her two years on the bench, which is generally a violation of the judicial policy on the time limits for taking cases under advisement. In addition, her lack of experience in civil law prompted concerns about her knowledge of the law and her ability to write decisions that are clear, accurate, and well reasoned. As evidenced in part by the sample decisions she submitted for review. The evaluation scores and comments from attorneys who appeared before her reflected these issues. With 50% of the attorneys who completed the survey ranking her fair or poor for issuing rulings and decisions promptly. Her scores in this area were the lowest of any scores I recall seeing for any of the more than 60 judges I've reviewed during my tenure on the committee. Comments from attorneys were dominated by serious concerns about her timeliness and lack of experience. Despite her prior judicial experience, prompting an onslaught of wholly negative comments fairly unique for the judicial retention process. For example, one attorney writes, quote, I have never appeared before a judge less experienced, less prepared, less knowledgeable, less willing to dedicate her time, her or his time to the position, or more likely to deviate from precedent and the rules of procedure and evidence. I have observed that every new judge initially and understandably suffers from one or more of these failings. But unfortunately, Judge Malone overcame none of them. Another lawyer wrote, quote, The inability to issue timely decisions impacts access to justice so severely that it is the first time in my career that I am recommending a judge not be retained. Since the start of this year's rotations, I have not received any substantive written decisions. There are families in limbo for months. Children going without stable contact schedules. At times being completely deprived of contact. Yet even after presentation of evidence, no decision issued, unquote. Another commented, quote, I appeared in front of Judge Malone for numerous matters during her time as a civil judge. She was always pleasant and did not appear biased to any of the parties. But, it took too long to issue decisions. And, when decisions were entered, the parties were unclear on next steps or what the court expected from the parties. The decisions reflected someone who was not in tune with the logistics of civil litigation and how her decisions could impact parties trying to move litigation forward. As time neared her for her to rotate to a new court, I counseled clients to wait to file anything so she wouldn't be the individual ruling on the various motions because her rulings were unpredictable, unquote. Although there were positive comments, many were tempered with significant concerns such as, my experience with judge Malone is very good. She's a competent judge and generally should be retained. But her inordinate delay in issuing decisions and written findings is also so severe, it is a disqualifying event and hugely affects my overall rating. These long, long delays can and have operated to severely negatively affect the litigants and their families in family cases. We all understand court schedules does not give sufficient findings time to judges, and they are very, very busy. But this is wholly untenable, unquote. Court staff ratings and comments follow a similar pattern, with even more striking results. 87% of staff rated her poor or fair on her performance of issuing ruling and decisions promptly. One staff member commented, I quote, I am really disappointed in the performance of this judge. This judge will take months to get a decision out with no consideration of how that delay affects clients and how it reflects on the court. Her courtroom does not run on time and parties have to come back on additional days because hearings aren't getting completed. And yet, still it takes months to get

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Colchester)]: the

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: decision after that once she takes it under advisement. The court has provided numerous opportunities to this judge to remedy this and to no avail. It is a bad reflection on the court system as a whole, unquote. While ultimately most respondents recommended that she be retained, the comments and timeliness scores, along with other evidence provided to us, caused great concern for the committee. Unfortunately, in her September 2025 letter to the committee, Judge Malone makes no mention of the untimeliness of her decisions or challenges with her written work. While she acknowledges her lack of experience in civil matters, her letter is devoid of responsibility for being significantly late on so many decisions, or most importantly, the impact of this lateness has on litigants and the overall court backlog. By February 2026, when Judge Malone appeared before the committee after the evaluation of attorneys and court staff was made public, she did more directly acknowledge how late many of her decisions have been. While asserting that her training period was quote brief, she then outlined the many, many of the efforts court colleagues, including both judges, including other judges, both current and retired, made to support, assist, mentor, and train her, underscoring the point that staff member made that the court had provided, quote, numerous opportunities for her to remedy the situation. At least twice, judge Malone was pulled from the bench to give her time to catch up on her writing. While she also personally attempted to employ various techniques to try to address the significant backlog in cases she had created, it appears she did not reach out for assistance until a full year after the start of her tenure in Windham County. She writes, quote, in the 2025, I started to focus on addressing the backlog of decisions I had amassed. And in March, I began to work directly with judge on an ongoing basis, Developing a work plan, accepting some much appreciated relief from retired judges, and reporting regularly on my progress with issuing decisions. This delay in seeking and receiving help leads one to question both Judge Malone's ability to take personal responsibility for her performance and its impact on litigants specifically. And also the court's ability to support and train struggling new judges. In her February testimony to the committee, Judge Malone spoke openly about her June 2025 diagnosis with attention deficit disorder and treatment with medication and therapy. She stated that this development has had a significant impact on her ability to catch up with her work. In addition, she and her family have made changes to help her focus on her work, most significantly moving to be closer to her assigned region of the state. While Judge Malone did make major changes to improve her performance as a judge, and has now made significant progress on catching up on the backlog, many of us on the committee shared concerns that such progress seems tenuous and may not last. It took her well over a year from the time she, quote, started to focus on addressing the backlog of decisions in winter twenty twenty five until she finally worked her way through the full backlog in February 2026. In reading her file and listening to her when she appeared before us, judge Malone presented to many of us as someone who was in over her head, not someone who has a handle on her very important position. She mentioned a work plan she created in March 2025, and she presented two such plans to the committee. However, neither of the plans judge Malone presented the committee were sufficiently adequate to address the severity of the problems. They mostly consisted of lists of tasks she knew she had to do. The plans lacked clear goals, deadlines, or means for accountability. And while well intentioned, the plan she employed last year in March 2025 was ineffective. On the day after the committee voted not to recommend her retention, judge Malone met with judge zoning to once again revise and improve her work plan, which is the plan that she may have shared with members of the general assembly. To be clear, this plan is better than previous ones, but it is not the plan she shared with the committee before our vote. Over the past two years, she has been provided with significant supports, training, reprieve time, and mentoring that have not sufficiently helped her to rectify the very serious performance issues. Since the committee voted on its recommendation not to retain Judge Malone, members of the general assembly have heard from various members of the legal community defending judge Malone. Thus, it's important to note that only two members of the legal committee appeared at the public hearing conducted by the committee to testify in support of Judge Malone. In addition, one member of the public submitted official written testimony arguing against retention of Judge Malone. A former member of the judiciary, retired Supreme Court Justice Cohen, did reach out to two members of the committee, but he did not submit official testimony for the whole committee to review. Although Justice Cohen has now apparently offered to provide coaching to Judge Malone, he has acknowledged that prior to this process, he had not even met her. Most of the swell of support for Judge Malone has appeared after the committee's vote and was not part of the committee's review. Nor is it based on the complete record of evidence that was available to the committee. Members of the general general assembly may be wondering why judge Malone is up for retention after two, rather than six years on the bench. The six year term outlined in the constitution has been interpreted to refer to the position, not the person. As such, judges are regularly up for retention review before they have completed six years on the bench. The criteria and evidence required to review a judge are no different for a judge with two years or twenty years experience. This year, two judges are up for review after only two years on the bench. Judge Malone and Judge Battles. While significant concerns were raised about Judge Malone's performance, no such concerns were raised about Judge Battles. Some members of the General Assembly have inquired about the possibility of a conditional retention or follow-up review next year. This is not possible. The constitution is very clear that a retention decision for a judge's position is every six years, and the options are to retain or not retain. Occasionally, the retention committee will discuss a quote improvement plan with a judge, as we did with judge Malone, and suggest that they follow such a plan to address issues that were identified during retention review. However, the general assembly has no authority to hold a judge accountable for a plan or revoke retention if a plan is not followed. The constitution provides the judicial branch with quote, disciplinary authority concerning all judicial officers. Other than impeachment, a retention vote is the legislative branch's one and only opportunity to remove a judge every six years. I have heard accusations that the process and the vote of the committee was somehow sexist. As a lifelong feminist and champion for women's equality, who voted not to recommend retention of Judge Malone, I feel compelled to address this accusation directly. Based on the totality of evidence before us, the majority of the committee did not believe that judge Malone is adequately meeting the requirements for the job of superior court judge. This assessment was based on her record as a judge and the public and confidential evidence before us, not on her gender. In past years, I've witnessed several times when the record of evidence and evaluations of female judges were based on sexist notions of a woman's tone, demeanor, qualifications, or decision makings. Notions and judgments that I know all too well. Over the past eight years, when a judge's record or presentation has shown clear sexism, I have been the leading voice to get them removed. In the case of judge Malone, the evaluations of her performance in fact noted how intelligent, likable, and fair she is. But that despite these qualities, she is simply not adequately doing the actual work required of a superior court judge. At its most basic, the work of a judge is to make a decision and explain it clearly in writing. The judiciary has an objective record of a large number of decisions judge Malone issued late. More than thirty days, sixty days, or ninety days overdue. These delays impacted real Vermonters who had to put their lives on hold while they waited for a judge. These delays were persistent and repeatedly inadequately addressed by Judge Malone. While there are certainly fair questions to be raised about the mentoring and paths for success available for women in the legal field, the rigor of the judicial nominating and appointment process, the support available to new judges, the timeline for the judicial retention review, and the caseload expectations for all judges, the decision on whether to recommend retention of judge Malone was the only question before the retention committee. The majority of the committee concluded based on the public and confidential evidence before us, as well as deliberations conducted during regular open and multiple executive sessions, that judge Malone's performance did not meet the standards for a Vermont Superior Court judge. In particular, her diligence, communicative skills. Sorry, I'm almost done. In particular, her diligence, communicative skills, legal knowledge and ability, and especially her timeliness in issuing decisions are insufficient for the requirements of the position. On a vote of five to three, the committee recommends that the general assembly vote not to retain Rachel Malone as the superior court judge. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now, we'll proceed to any debate on superior judge up for retention, Rachel Malone, the member from Brattleboro.

[Unidentified Representative from Brattleboro (attorney)]: Thank you, mister president. I rise to speak in favor of retaining judge Malone. I speak both as a representative from Brattleboro who sits on house judiciary and as an attorney and a member of the Vermont bar who has practiced before the judge. I want to thank the judicial retention committee. Though I am speaking against their majority recommendation, I appreciate the hard work in what I would mad in what I imagine was a difficult decision. Mister president, judge Malone was appointed by governor Scott in December 2023, and her first assignment began in February 2024 in the Windham Civil and Family Division out in Newfane. It's a dual docket handling civil cases half the week and specifically contested family cases the other half. At that time, I was a new lawyer practicing in Brattleboro and I appeared before judge Malone a number of times. Those appearances included some very, very contentious family hearings. It was during those hearings that I was struck by the judge's patience, her thoughtfulness, and ability to see to the heart of the matter and ultimately make well reasoned just rulings. I could tell that she was seriously engaging the issues both sides were putting before her and carefully balancing a final decision. I believe that this body should take seriously the concerns heard by the committee. Timeliness is critical and a constant tension in the judiciary. How? To both give time for parties to be heard and balance and prioritize the docket while not delaying any final resolution to the detriment of anyone involved. It's a tricky dance. As a new judge, it's clear that judge Malone did struggle with that balance. It's also true that every judge continuously works to try to strike that proper balance. I am comforted in knowing that in her latest position in the Bennington Family Division, judge Malone is improving and has reduced her backlog. And further, that she's engaged in a work improvement plan and that the chief superior judge both supports the plan and voiced his commitment to helping judge Malone to meet the benchmarks laid out in that plan. Mister president, the reality is the Vermont legal community is in an aging crisis. We need more young lawyers and judges to ensure Vermonters are able to have access to justice in the future. Part of moving through this crisis is supporting these new professionals as they grow into their roles. Retaining Judge Malone is an important investment in the future of our justice system and I urge members to vote yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Member from West Rutland.

[Rep. Tom Burditt (West Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Mister president, I received a letter that I forwarded to all members in an email. Is it an opinion letter concerning judge Malone from retired Supreme Court Justice William Cohen. I believe in the judicial committee world I live in under the Golden Dome, you weigh and consider a Supreme Court Justice's opinions. With that with that said, mister president, I ask permission to read the letter from the retired Supreme Court Justice.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Without objection.

[Rep. Tom Burditt (West Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Hello, representative Burda. I hope all is well with you and you are having a productive session. I'm writing this letter in support of judge Malone's retention. It will be up for a full floor vote this upcoming week. As you are aware, she did receive a negative vote from the Joint Committee on Judicial Retention. Though Judge Malone did have timeliness issues for a period of time, she has done a remarkable job in her issue and has worked diligently on correcting them. It is important to note that she was appointed in November '23 by Governor Scott. She was offered a southern position with her first assignment being a new fame with an unfamiliar docket. She has a husband and an eight year old daughter that initially required a five hour commute. She and her family have now moved to Brattleboro. The first few years of being a trial judge are exhausting and combined with a very long commute could easily be so difficult. Her getting behind in her work is not excusable, but she is currently performing her job in a timely way with a sharp intellect, integrity, and without fear of or favor. I would not be writing this letter if she were a judge for six years or more, but having gotten to know judge Malone, I have no doubt that she will be a judge with many years of service to the users of Vermont courts. Her willingness to acknowledge her faults and work to fix them is a fine example of her commitment to her position. Thank you for speaking with me and taking the time for for this. All the best. William Cohen, retired Vermont Supreme Court Justice.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Representative from Burlington.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Mister President, I I just have a few clarifying questions, and I'd I'd like to interrogate the presenter of this report.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Thank you. During the presentation, there were a few instances where, like a Likert scale was implied to have been used for the evaluations. 50% mentioned an overall fair or poor ranking for Judge Malone, and then later 87% of staff indicated that there was a fair or poor on the question of ruling promptly. I guess I'd like to understand better what that scale is. If it's a three point scale, is it a five point scale? Excuse me. If we can I'd I'd like to know kinda what the what that how that continuum is measured. When we're talking about fair or poor, if fair is the midpoint, then fair or good or great. So is it great, good, fair, poor, inadequate? I don't know what that is.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: It is a five point scale. So a fair is two and, poor is one, if you're looking at it as numbers for each ranking. So it's a five point scale.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Mister president, can I get an indication of what, three, four, and five were then?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yep. Hold on. So it's poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, and cannot rate. So, is an option, but that's not the cannot rate is not included in the calculation of the score.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: So then is it fair to say that if 50% ranked Judge Malone overall as fair or poor, the other 50% would have ranked good, very good, or excellent.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: I just want to be clear that the rankings that I relayed in my report were for her timeliness and ability to get her written decisions done. But yes, if you that fair or poor are 50% and the other 50% would be in the other quintiles. That is true and that for the staff it was 85% fair or poor. Just to be clear, President, these are very low rankings compared to the general rankings for judges.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: One additional question. Later in the report, the member indicated that of the evaluators, so lawyers and staff, most recommended that she be retained. Can I get an indication or some sort of sense of what most means in that statement?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yes. Sorry, this is slightly awkward. So, for attorneys overall 86% recommended retention. And for court staff 75% recommended retention.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Thank you, member. Mister president, this was helpful for me to make my decision. I'll be voting to retain, and I would encourage the rest of the body to join me.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windham.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Thank you, mister president. I will probably keep this brief. I'm rising here in support of Judge Malone and to urge other members of this joint assembly to vote in favor of her retention. I first met Judge Malone when I was serving as a member of the judicial nominating board. However, my opinion is not based solely on what I learned at the JNB. Outside of the legislature, I'm also a practicing attorney in Windham County and I've appeared in front of Judge Malone a few times. Now, I won't provide any identifying details, but I will say that at some point within the last year, I had a case in the Family Division that, for me, was particularly challenging. We had a hearing over a contested issue, and I'll say that Judge Malone did a fantastic job. She was knowledgeable, efficient, and was able to maintain an orderly courtroom despite some of the challenges. I walked out of that hearing thinking to myself, Okay, the JNB made the right choice in sending Judge Malone's name up to the governor. Now I can also say that in my conversations with lawyers from the Windham Bar, both recently and before the session, largely reflect a similar sentiment. Yes, it has been raised that at the beginning of her starting in this role, there were challenges with her timeliness, but it was nothing out of the ordinary. Those are legitimate concerns to consider, but more importantly, Malone has had significant improvements and is currently doing a good job. Beyond those concerns, there was a much greater emphasis on the fact that attorneys have had positive experiences in Judge Malone's courtroom. From what I've personally seen and heard, the positive aspects of Judge Malone substantially outweigh the negatives. Now I wasn't going to, read some of the reviews, but we did hear negative reviews. So, with mister president's, permission, I'd like to read a few reviews that have been provided to the judicial retention Committee?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Without objection.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: So, just a few of these. And some of them, while they're positive, they also do have reasonable constructive feedback. But the first one, Judge Malone is young and gaining experience. She is thoughtful, deliberative, conscientious. It's been my experience that Judge Malone strives to understand the position of the parties before ruling, and she makes sure that the parties are heard. Her orders could be issued more timely, but that should improve with experience. Judge Malone has not been on the bench long and I anticipate her scores will go up as she becomes more experienced. In my experience, newly appointed judges often have some things to sort out and Judge Malone is not an exception. I definitely recommend retention. Judge Malone brings true humanity to the bench, allowing for creative resolution to matters that are before her but shouldn't be. Allowing attorneys the space in her courtroom to discuss a resolution that does not involve litigation may not seem like an efficient use of court time, but absolutely is the right move for families and for the overall sense of justice in the court system. Mister president, I'll be voting in favor of judge Malone's retention, and I urge other members of this assembly to vote in favor as well. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Is there any further debate? I'm trying to figure out where the representative is from. Representative, please go ahead.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Thank you. Burlington, mister president. Mister president, may I quote briefly from two communications I received from people who worked with judge Malone?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Without objection.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Quote, I've known Rachel Malone for years through my work at the Burlington Police Department, especially when she was at the public defender's office. She is one of the kindest, most thoughtful people I have ever met. The care she provided for her needy clients was fabulous. End of the first quote. And the second quote is from someone who works in the state's attorney's office. Quote, judge Malone has an amazing temperament. She struggled with learning the nuts and bolts of the job. That skill can be learned and can be taught. Judge Malone, on her own, has remedied that and is teaching herself how to be a better judge. It is unfathomable it is unfathomable to me that the JRC and possibly the joint assembly will give up on a highly skilled and qualified judge who is showing signs of improvement just because they didn't come out of the gate sprinting, unquote. I will add my own brief observation that far and away the largest concern about Judge Malone's performance has been the timeliness of her decisions, but we heard that starting a year ago after seeking help to improve her performance on that metric, she has cleared her entire backlog, which means over the course of the last year, she has issued decisions on her workload in a timely manner and has, that, dealt with the backlog of cases. So she is performing at above a 100% on that metric. I will be voting yes to retain judge Malone.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Member from Tunbridge.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Mister president, may I, inquire of the presenter of this nomination a clarifying question?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Mister president, mindful that most of us here are citizen legislators without staff. I just wondered how much staff superior court judges have, whether they have in general administrative assistants or clerks, how they work with side judges, interns, secretaries, that sort of thing, because that might that that context might help us with our votes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. I'm I'm not sure I can fully answer that question, but they do have clerks, and they have court administrators and, administrative staff surrounding them in the courthouse. They certainly have more staff at their personal disposal than legislators do. But I would have to ask for a recess and and consult, with someone who knows the specifics of the answer if you want more information than that.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Does some of that staff help with decisions or keeping up with the

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yes.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: The docket?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: There are clerks and available to judges for research and available to write preliminary drafts of their decisions. It's my understanding. And she was not taking advantage of those things apparently.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Member from Wagefield.

[Rep. Kari Dolan (Waitsfield)]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the presenter of the recommendation, please?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Rep. Kari Dolan (Waitsfield)]: Thank you. So, we heard some troubling statistics about judge Malone's timeliness and hearing about a five hour commute and having a young child and being new. Those seem to be considerations worth, evaluating. But could the presenter remind us, were there specific questions regarding the fairness or the quality of judge Malone's, decisions?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: There were concerns raised about her knowledge of the law and the procedures and process for decisions, particularly in the civil division. So I read one quote from someone who, an attorney who delayed their hearings with the court in order to avoid having her as a judge because her decisions were unpredictable. So there were not concerns raised about fairness, there were concerns raised about knowledge of the law and competency.

[Rep. Kari Dolan (Waitsfield)]: Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Representative from Burlington.

[Rep. Tiff Bluemle (Burlington)]: Thank you, mister president. I served on judicial nominating for six years. I only overlapped with the presenter of this report for two for two of those years. I currently serve on the judicial nominating board. I I too was part of the interviewing of Rachel. I'm not gonna speak to that. I wanna speak to my time on judicial retention. The two biggest issues that came up about judges during my six years were knowledge of all areas of the law since we are one of the few states that judges rotate through all the different courts and timeliness. Those came up regularly. There were times that people raised judicial temperament issues, arrogance to clients, rudeness to staff. Those didn't come up as much. But when they came up, they were troubling. And often, there would be debate in our committee, and there are some flaws in the system in that, as, the senator mentioned, you can't put someone on, probation for a year or do anything short of a plan. In my years of being, a supervisor, of hiring people, in taking HR classes. There's a saying that that you that would frequently come up of you hire for attitude, most everything else you can change. I had doubts sometimes about people we voted to retain who were awfully rude, condescending, and mean to people. That would come in with plans of how they were going to change. And sometimes I got the chance to see through being in the body people coming up again and the same feedback coming up. However, timeliness frequently went away as you've heard from many people today and, knowledge of the law as people are doing the job. So I wanna make that point. I wanna make one other point that I'm just burning mad about which is why I'm standing up. I understand that the applicant self disclosed about having ADHD. And so it's sort of fair game. ADHD is a disability. If she were a civil servant, she could ask for an accommodation and get an accommodation. If she were a student, she could either get an IEP or a five zero nine, I might have my number wrong, plan to address her disability. And it seems wrong to me that even though it just came up in passing, that we would think that lesser of her because of her disability, This it's important to us that we have a court that is welcoming to the people and not discriminatory in terms of people's limitations. People have a lot to offer that have ADHD and other disabilities. We just did a bill on disabilities yesterday. And I am strongly urging this body to retain this judge. She has been on the bench for two years and deserves to be retained.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Is there any more debate? Member from Northfield.

[Rep. Anne Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you. I I think some important questions have been raised about, some of the, the ratings, and my sense is that there we we may needed some, additional context because of the importance that some of those are, being used to illustrate. I believe that the direct interviews and, areas like that, probably, do and should get more weight than, polls. And I do believe that timeliness is an incredibly important aspect, particularly around the impact, on those who appear. But, I do have a couple of questions to help provide context on those negative ratings. Three actually, and and so I'll I'll ask them I'll raise them all, and if, when I interrogate, we need to split them out, I I certainly understand that to go back to them. But the first one is

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you requesting to interrogate?

[Rep. Anne Donahue (Northfield)]: I was going to. I was gonna give the overview and then then turn to that. It could go either way. But first one is how many attorneys and staff as a rough percentage responded to the survey versus a small sample versus a large. And the second one was knowledge, how many questions there were beyond timeliness, we know there was also knowledge of the law, but what other questions were there, and then what were the responses by attorneys and by staff to those other areas. So if I may interrogate the presenter.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporter is interrogated. So

[Rep. Anne Donahue (Northfield)]: so I'd like to know, mister chair, first of all, how many did it reflect among the the bar and among the staff in terms of the numbers who responded to the poll?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you Mr. President. The number of attorneys who responded to the survey were, was 56 attorneys. I don't know what percentage that is. These surveys are sent to the attorneys that appear before the judge. And so it's not the entire bar. It is the attorneys in the court where the judge is practicing. So, or serving. So I'm not sure what percentage that is, but 56 is actually quite a few attorneys for a survey like this. And hold on just one second. For staff, and just to be clear this is court staff, assistant judges, and non attorneys. As I mentioned she was practicing or she was sitting in a very small court, the new fame. So, there were only eight responses because I think it's a fairly small courtroom. Don't know what, again, don't know what percentage that is of the staff.

[Rep. Anne Donahue (Northfield)]: I thank the member. Second part was, what are the other areas that are raised? And then last part, the rankings that were provided in those areas.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: With apologies. I'm I should have had this all written out easily. I if you would please just give me a minute that would be helpful. Thank you. Okay. There are questions about the respondents themselves, just to give a sense of who the respondents are, whether they practice in criminal, civil, or family court, and then there are questions about the questions about the judge. Behaves in a manner that inspires respect for the court and judiciary, judicial system. Acts with compassion, sensitivity, courtesy, and without arrogance. Maintains proper control over the courtroom. Considers the needs of attorneys, parties, and witnesses in scheduling, is available to hear emergency matters, allows fair opportunity for presentation of a case in light of existing time restraints of and issues rulings and decisions promptly. Adequately prepares for conferences, hearings, and trials. Courages settlement alternatives. Alternative dispute resolution where appropriate makes bench rulings and other oral and written communications clearly and logically demonstrates knowledge of substantive law and demonstrates knowledge of legal procedure and evidence.

[Rep. Anne Donahue (Northfield)]: So madam, mister president, I I was going to ask for, the ratings on the others. It's striking me instead there are a number of them. Since the only one that's had a lot of focus is timeliness, were the others all favorable, or can we give a sense without going through each one, if there were, any others that had, significantly lower than average scores?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Mr. President, I don't know if we know what the average score is. I guess I would have to ask the legislative council to do some research into that and try to figure out what the sort of average scores are. I would say that her scores for timeliness and issuing decisions were extremely low compared to what I have seen previously. She also had fairly low ratings for maintains proper control over the courtroom. Generally anything under a four is not usual for the retention process. So, that was one that she has under a four. Encourages settlement and alternative dispute resolutions where appropriate also was under four. Makes bench rulings and other oral written communications clearly and logically was also under four. Demonstrates knowledge of substantive law was also under four. And demonstrates knowledge of legal procedure and etcetera.

[Rep. Anne Donahue (Northfield)]: Although I added that I didn't. I mean, there were references to impressionistically the significance of the timeliness. So that was very helpful, and I appreciate the background.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Member from Colchester.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Colchester)]: Thank you, mister president, and I thank the representative from Northfield. That was one of, the questions that I had as well. But I do have another, if I may, interrogate the reporter.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Colchester)]: I'm hoping you might be able to shed some light on the time frame in which the survey responses went out to and were received back from attorneys.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: The surveys were issued in December 2025 and were sent to attorneys who had appeared before her in the previous year. So I believe it was from June 2025 through December 2026. There were some people who didn't appear to her for the whole time, but anybody who was in that full time frame would have received a survey. Some people would have only been in, because she rotated to a new courtroom in September '25. So I don't believe the attorneys who were in the new court in Bennington received the surveys. It was only the ones who had been in the new fame court, if that's helpful, mister president.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Colchester)]: Yes. I thank the reporter. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Is there any further debate? Representative from Burlington. No. Burling. Starksboro.

[Rep. Caleb Elder (Starksboro)]: There we go. Thank you, mister president. So I very much respect the work of the members of the Judicial Retention Committee, and and I sincerely respect the conclusions that each and every member made concerning this particular judge. And they had access to more information, you know, than than I as an individual legislator would have. But so what do you do, you know, in that kind of circumstance? Well, I was an attorney, and I do don't practice anymore, but habits are you look at the record. You look at the record that you were given, and you try to make the best judgment you can about that. For me, the record that was made available was, first of all, the survey results, and there's a bunch of different questions. I went to the end. The final question seems to be that was asked of the attorneys at the practice before the judge was, do you recommend that this judge be retained? That's the ultimate conclusion, and 86 something or other percent of those judges who practiced before judge Malone said yes, you know, the judge should be retained. That carries a lot of weight with me. The record also includes, for me anyway, a constituent who is very knowledgeable about the judge, has practice before her, and speaks very, very highly of her. So that's the sum of my record, and for those reasons, I will be supporting the retention of Judge Lamoille. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Is there any further debate? Seeing none. The chair now recognizes senator from Rutland District, senator Caledonia, to give the report on superior judge John Valente.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president. After graduating from Suffolk University Law School cum laude in 1991, judge Valente joined Ryan Smith and Carbine in Rutland, where he would spend the next twenty four years. He became a shareholder, then a director and officer of the firm. His practice centered on workers' compensation, employment law, and general litigation. He was named one of New England's super lawyers in 2015 and was recognized by a national conference as one of the 50 most influential people in America in workers' compensation. It was in September 2015 that judge Valente became a Vermont Superior Court judge, a job that he said when he appeared before the committee is the most challenging, most emotionally draining, and most intense work he's ever done. He also told us it's the best job he's ever had. Prior to his appointment on the bench, judge Valente was active in his community. He chaired the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, served on the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank Board of Directors, and on the governor's business advisory council, and also helped cochair United Way fundraising for Rutland County's Bar Association. As a judge, he presides over the civil, criminal, family, and juvenile divisions of the Superior Court in multiple counties. He's also sat by designation on the Vermont Supreme Court and leads adult treatment court and moderates staff meetings. He brings to the bench the same belief he has articulated plainly that Vermonters deserve access to high quality justice. And for judge Valenti, that means something specific. It means upholding the rule of law faithfully and consistently. It means ensuring procedural fairness that every person who walks into a courtroom feels genuinely heard. Judge Valente serves as chair of the Vermont Supreme Court's judicial officer education committee and helps to train newly appointed superior court judges in bench skills, decision making, and after hours responsibilities. He has trained county assistant judges in domestic relations law as well. I hate them to use a sports analogy, but since we've apparently spent a lot of time talking about the surveys, he pitched a shout out if we were looking at pitchers in the Major League Baseball or even as a hitter, he hit a home run. A 100% of attorney respondents recommended retention of judge Valenti, and likewise, 100% of court staff, assistant judges, and non attorneys recommended retention. And indeed, your joint judicial retention committee on a vote of eight zero zero recommends that judge Valenti be retained as a superior court judge. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will now proceed to any debate on superior judge up for retention, superior judge John Valente. Seeing none. The chair now recognizes the senator from Rutland District, senator Williams, to give the report on superior judge Thomas Walsh.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president. It's my honor to to speak today in support of the retention of superior court justice Thomas g Walsh, a juror jurist who career reflect a deep commitment to fairness, professionalism, and rule of law. Judge Walsh brings more than three decades of legal experience to the bench with a background in agricultural engineering from Cornell University and advanced training in environmental law from Vermont Law School. He's exceptionally well qualified to handle the complex matters that come before Vermont's environmental division. Since his appointment in 2011, he served primarily in that division where cases are heard de novo. These cases require careful careful independent review of both facts and laws and often involve act two fifty, municipal zoning, environmental permitting. Issues that have real impacts on communities and landowners across the state. What stands out most about judge Wallace is his approach. He's thoughtful and prepared and deliberate. He ensures that all parties are heard and that his decisions are clearly explained. Even when people may disagree with the outcome, they understand the reasoning. And that's essential to maintaining confidence in our courts. He's also worked to improve access to justice in helping to establish the environmental division pro bono project to assist self representative monitors navigating a complex system. The feedback from those who work with him is strong. 88% of attorneys recommended his retention and 100% of the court staff and non attorneys do as well. That speaks clearly to his fairness, professionalism and respect he has earned. At that at that time when our court faces at the time when our courts face increasing complexity, Vermont benefits from judges with experience, integrity, and sound judgment. Judge Wallace exemplifies those qualities. For that reason, I support his retention. The judicial retention board was eight zero zero. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We'll now proceed to any debate on the superior judge up for retention, superior judge Thomas Walsh. Is there any debate? Seeing none, is there any general debate? Seeing none, Before the ballots are passed out, I wanna remind you of the rules that govern us. Insofar as they are applicable, the senate rules apply. No representative or senator may be absent from the joint assembly unless sick or otherwise necessarily detained. Upon being called to order, every representative and senator shall be seated. It is the duty of each representative and senator to vote unless excused by this joint assembly or unless they are directly or immediately interested in the question being voted on. You are to remain seated while the tellers distribute the ballots. If a member is not seated, no ballot will be placed at the member's desk or seat. You are to remain seated during the voting while the ballots are collected by the tellers. There will be no milling about in the chamber during the counting of ballots. You are requested to remain in your seats during the counting of ballots unless it is necessary to step out of the chamber. If you leave the chamber during the counting of the ballots, you will not be permitted to reenter the chamber until the counting of the ballots has been completed. Before handing out the ballots, there is a change in tellers. For the house, the tellers will be representative Boyden of Cambridge, representative Wells of Brownington, representative Taylor of Mendon, representative Goldman of Rockingham. If you are ready for the question, the tellers will now distribute the ballots to the members of the joint assembly for this vote. If there's is there anyone who getting out of myself. Sorry. Is there anyone who has not received an announced ballot if if one person in the back needs a ballot? Anyone else? Thank

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The tellers will collect the ballots. Okay. That's what I was just gonna ask you is do I get yours or I have to fill it in? 67. Wonderful to see you finally stopped milling about. Listen to the results of your vote for Superior Judge David Baruth. Total votes cast, one sixty seven, necessary for retention, 84. The yeas, one sixty seven, the nays, zero. Superior judge David Baruth, having received the majority of the total votes cast, is hereby declared retained to the office of superior judge for a term of six years from and including the April 2026 and until his successor has elected has is elected and has qualified for superior judge Benjamin Battles. Total votes cast, one sixty seven. Necessary for retention, 84. The yeas, one sixty seven. The nays, zero. Superior judge Benjamin Battles, having received the majority of the total votes cast, is hereby declared retained to the office of superior judge for a term of six years from and including the April 2026 and until his successor is elected and has qualified. For superior judge Michael Harris, total votes cast, one sixty five. Necessary for retention, 83. The yeas, one sixty five. The nays, zero. Superior judge Michael Harris, having received the majority of the total votes cast, is hereby declared retained to the office of superior judge for a term of six years from and including the April 2026 and until his successor is elected and has qualified for superior judge Rachel Malone. Total votes cast, one sixty eight. Necessary for retention, 85. The yeas, one thirty nine. The nays, 29. Superior judge Rachel Malone, having received the majority of the total votes cast, is hereby declared retained to the office of superior judge for a term of six years from and including the April 2026 and until her successor is elected and has qualified. For superior judge John Valente, total votes cast, one sixty eight necessary for retention, 85. The yeas, one sixty six. The nays, two. Superior judge John Valente having received the majority of the total votes cast is hereby declared retained to the office of superior judge for a term of six years from and including the April 2026 and until his successor is elected and has qualified For superior judge Thomas Walsh. Total votes cast, one sixty seven. Necessary for retention, 84. The yeas, one sixty seven. The nays, zero. Superior judge Thomas Walsh, having received the majority of the total votes cast, is hereby declared retained to the office of superior judge for a term of six years from and including the April 2026 and until his successor is elected and has qualified. There being no further business to take up at this time, the chair now declares the joint assembly dissolved and hopes you all remember the procedures.