Committee records 7–1 straw poll on S.45 amendment; next steps hinge on Judiciary Committee

Committee members completed a straw poll on an amendment to S.45, recording “7 yes, 1 no, and 0 apps,” as they debated how the measure should move forward and whether the House Judiciary Committee would incorporate the panel’s changes.

The result — which committee members described as an informal straw poll rather than a formal committee passage — came near the conclusion of the meeting. Committee member 2 (committee member) read the roll call and concluded, “that really concludes the the straw poll. That's 7 yes, 1 no, and 0 apps.”

Members discussed several possible next steps. Committee member 1 (committee member) said they would “informally speak with the Judiciary Committee” to learn the panel’s intentions and to decide whether to designate an official reporter if the measure is taken up there. Committee member 1 added, “I'll try and get a sense of what their intentions are, and we can regroup later in the week.”

Speakers outlined three paths: the Judiciary Committee could pass S.45 out incorporating the committee’s edits, it could adopt different language and invite the committee to amend, or individual legislators could offer amendments on the floor. Committee member 1 noted the procedural point that, if the bill advances, “it would need to pass out at the Judiciary Committee.”

Substantive debate centered on language differences between chambers. Members said the Senate and House had made distinct edits on how trespass is treated relative to nuisance and on mediation and removal provisions. One member described the committee’s work as incorporating definitions and changes that felt like an extension of Judiciary’s work — for example, definitions such as “good standing” and insertion of mediation — while noting the Senate had taken a different approach on trespass and certain rebuttal language.

Committee members also referenced testimony heard earlier in the process, including from legal practitioners and a professor from Vermont Law School, as shaping views on how to treat trespass-related provisions and related common-law questions. Those references were cited in discussion of the “biggest hang up” across the chambers.

The committee did not take a formal, final vote to advance S.45. Members said they would seek clarity from Judiciary staff and may reconvene or coordinate with that committee; one option mentioned was a conference between committees if the chambers’ versions remain divergent.

Less-critical scheduling notes: members said they will regroup later in the week and reconvene the next day for additional testimony on other bills.