My Record

Public Safety

These bills primarily focused on public safety laws here in Vermont.

H.2 An act relating to increasing the minimum age for delinquency proceedings

H.642 An act relating to youthful offender proceedings(Boutin Amendment)

I voted yes on both amendments. I grouped them together because the amendments were basically the same issue. It was regarding the "Raise the Age" law that is supposed to go into effect. I do not support the laws that say adults should automatically be charged in family court. I voted yes to end raise the age and to bring accountability to young adults. If this had passed young adults could still go through family court but it would have been a judges decision verse them automatically being treated as a minor.

H.642 An act relating to youthful offender proceedings(Maguire Amendment)

I supported this amendment because it would have required courts to put public safety at the center of youthful offender decisions, particularly in cases involving violence, firearms, repeat offenses, and violations of release conditions. It also expanded the list of serious crimes that could be transferred out of Family Court and strengthened consequences for offenders who fail to comply with probation or treatment requirements. At the same time, it preserved opportunities for rehabilitation for young people who are willing and able to turn their lives around, striking a better balance between accountability and second chances.

There are two votes associated with this bill. When the bill came on the floor it had funding for the safe injection site in Burlington. It was going to allocate an additional $1,100,000 to the safe injection site. The Republicans asked that the question be divided. So the first vote as to whether or not to fund the safe injection site, got a no vote from me. As for passing the underlying bill I voted yes because there were some good allocations in the bill. Nevertheless we took a stand against safe injection sites. The next year, the funding for the safe injection site was stripped out. Which was a huge victory.

H.218 An act relating to fiscal year 2026 appropriations from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund

Homelessness

These bills primarily focused on bills that dealt with homelessness.

H.141 An act relating to fiscal year 2025 budget adjustments

I voted against this because of the continued expansion of the General Assistance Housing Program. I did not and do not believe the hotel/motel model adequately addresses the root causes of homelessness. While emergency shelter has a role, Vermont has spent millions on a system that has produced limited long-term results and too often fails to connect people with the mental health, substance abuse, and recovery services they need. I also note that I am additionally concerned that we dump funds into non-profits designed to help with homelessness, yet we see no marketable benefit.

H.91 An act relating to the Vermont Homeless Emergency Assistance and Responsive Transition to Housing Program

I voted yes on this bill twice. Not because I was super excited about what it was doing. Rather it was because it was not perpetuating the hotel/motel problem. This bill attempted to change how we provide shelter for people experiencing homelessness. It basically put the Capstone agencies in charge of it. Ultimately this bill was vetoed.

I supported this bill because it begins moving Vermont away from the failed hotel/motel model and toward a system focused on housing, treatment, accountability, and long-term stability. The bill requires case management, creates clearer expectations for participants, expands shelter options, and puts guardrails around motel usage. It's not perfect, but it's a significant improvement over simply paying for hotel rooms without a clear path forward.

H.938 An act relating to establishing the Vermont Homelessness Response Continuum

Government Spending

These bills primarily focused on bills that dealt with government usage of funds.

H.944 — Transportation Bill: Local Options Tax / PILOT Fund Amendment

I voted no on the House Ways and Means amendment to the Transportation Bill because it removed a proposal to use surplus local-options-tax PILOT funds for municipal roads.

Barre City collects a 1% local options tax. After the state meets its PILOT obligations to communities hosting state property, the fund has built up a surplus. The original proposal would have put some of that money toward roads, bridges, and local infrastructure—including needs in Barre City.

Fortunately, the Senate restored the concept. The final bill provided $3 million in additional town highway aid and created a way to direct future PILOT surpluses toward local transportation projects.

H.949 — Full Property Tax Buydown Amendment

I voted for Rep. Patricia McCoy’s amendment to use the full $105 million Governor Scott proposed for property-tax relief in FY2027.

The underlying bill split that money between this year and next year. This amendment would have applied the full amount now, lowering the homestead tax rate from $1.698 to $1.648 per $100 of assessed value and providing more immediate relief to taxpayers.

Vermonters are being forced to make difficult decisions because of the cost of living here. For some, rising property taxes are making it harder to stay in the homes and communities they love. We need tax relief now.

Unfortunately, the amendment failed, 56–84.

Proposed Constitutional Amendments

There were two proposed constitutional amendments voted on this session. An amendment to our constitution is a serious matter and requires a four year process. They are started in the Senate as proposals.

Proposition 3 - Right to Collectively Bargain

I voted yes to put Proposition 3 before Vermont voters this November.

Barre City has a proud and important history with the labor movement, particularly through our granite industry. There is no denying the positive impact organized labor had on the wages, working conditions, and safety of granite workers.

Vermont is also not entirely breaking new ground. A handful of other states have constitutional protections for collective bargaining, and I have not seen convincing evidence that those amendments have had a significant negative economic impact.

Proposition 4 - "Equality of Rights" Amendment

I voted no to putting Proposition 4 before the voters.

Our state constitution is a sacred document. It is supposed to be timeless. It should not be amended casually or without serious public understanding and debate.

Prop 4 is commonly referred to as the "Equal Rights" constitutional amendment. But after reading the language and reviewing the testimony, I do not believe this amendment is written correctly nor do I believe it delivers on the promise of equal rights for all. That is important because this is not just some law that can be undone. There is a four year process to make a constitutional amendment. It should be difficult and should be done correctly.

The proposed Article 23 begins with language I strongly support: "That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law." Then followed by a finite list of specific protected categories and adds a final sentence saying the article shall not prevent measures intended to provide equality of treatment and opportunity for groups that have historically been subject to discrimination. Because this issue is already being misrepresented, I want to be very clear: my concern is not with any of the groups listed in the amendment. I support equal protection under the law, and I support protecting people from discrimination. It is a finite list and ambiguous third sentence that concerns me.

I understand the intent of the last sentence. But I do not believe our Constitution should be written in a way that appears to create different standards of equality for different groups. Equal protection should mean equal protection for every Vermonter.

Professor Peter Teachout, a constitutional law professor who supported adding an equal protection clause to the Vermont Constitution, raised a serious concern with this language. He said the language protects the groups listed, but it leaves unclear whether, and to what extent, it protects others who are not listed. He said the problem comes largely from the use of closed list of protected classes.

He also pointed out that once the Constitution lists some protected groups, it raises the question of why others were left out, including age, weight, body type, height, past criminal record, genetic makeup, or temporary homelessness.

Professor Teachout offered a simple fix: make the list representative instead of exclusive by using language like "on grounds such as" before the list. That would make the amendment more inclusive, not less.

I believe part of the reason there has been so little pushback is that people are hesitant to speak up. There have been a few voices, but they were drowned out. Even today during vote explanations someone said "I find it unfathomable that anyone in our Chamber would vote against this proposition to secure human rights for all who live here." That is exactly the kind of framing that makes people hesitant to raise legitimate concerns. Had there been an opportunity for me to amend it, I would have made an amendment to add in the language suggested by Prof Teachout. But there is no way to do so, therefore I could not. Nevertheless I cannot let fear of backlash decide how I vote on the Vermont Constitution or any bill for that matter.

Originally, I was going to support this. Then I looked more closely. The more I read, the more concerned I became. Then I made the decision. I would vote no and I did. The political pressure to vote yes on what I believe is a subpar amendment was heavy. But I believe people elected me to do what I believe is right and not succumb to the pressure, no matter how great.

Maybe I am wrong, and maybe I am reading it wrong. I wish I could amend it to make it better. But I could not. We either pass it as written or reject it.

I chose to reject it. I cannot support sending flawed constitutional language to the voters. I believe we need to vote it down in November and go back to the drawing board, and bring back language that truly protects everyone.

Equal rights must mean equal protection for all — clearly, plainly, and without ambiguity.

Resolutions

The House and Senate pass resolutions for several reasons, including celebrating achievements, honoring people, or taking a position on an issue. These honorary and opinion resolutions do not change the law. They are statements of recognition or support, and votes on them let the public know where their elected representatives stand.

H.R. 12 House resolution expressing support for the principles behind the statement of Governor Philip B. Scott regarding the federal surge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in the State of Minnesota

I voted yes on H.R.12 in support of the principles behind Governor Scott’s statement on immigration enforcement in Minnesota.

Two things can be true at the same time. We have immigration laws, and we need to enforce them. We also need to enforce them carefully, with clear purpose and respect for constitutional rights.

In my view, what was happening in Minnesota under then-Secretary Kristi Noem’s leadership was getting out of hand. Supporting immigration enforcement does not mean we should ignore problems with how it is carried out.

President Trump brought in Tom Homan to oversee the operation, and I believe his approach was an improvement.

Contact

Reach out with questions or to get involved

Email

Phone

boutinforbarre@gmail.com

802-272-2858

© 2026. All rights reserved. Paid for by Michael Boutin, 5 Hillside Ave, Barre VT 05641