Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee reviews bill to bar local bans on hygienic face masks
Summary
The Senate Committee on Government Operations heard testimony on S.81, which would add 24 BSA §22‑95a to prohibit municipal or county regulation that limits or bans hygienic face masks and include a transitional clause superseding inconsistent charter provisions; committee members asked about local health authority and constitutional limits.
The Senate Committee on Government Operations met March 25 to consider S.81, a bill that would prohibit municipal and county governments from adopting ordinances, resolutions, rules or other enactments that limit or prohibit the use of hygienic face masks, and would add a new 24 BSA section 22‑95a with an effective date of July 1, 2025.
Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, told the committee S.81 “adds 24 BSA section 22‑95a” and that the proposed section “governs the authority of municipal and county governments to regulate hygienic face masks.” He said the bill’s language “directly mirrors the existing language in 24 BSA section 22‑95, which limits municipal regulation of the possession or use of firearms,” and that section 2 would be a transitional provision expressly superseding any charter provisions inconsistent with the new section.
Committee members pressed staff on whether local governments already have or could obtain authority to regulate masks. Senator White, noting Vermont is a Dillon’s Rule state, said she supported the bill but asked whether it was necessary because “it feels like that would be something that a charter would have to come to us to ask for potentially.” Anderson said the one concrete route where local authority might exist is through local public‑health rules adopted by a local health officer, but those rules must be consistent with delegated authority from the Vermont Department of Health and must be approved by the commissioner of health.
Members also raised constitutional concerns about a municipal ban on non‑hygienic face coverings. Anderson said the bill uses the term of art “hygienic face mask” to target face coverings worn for hygienic or public‑health purposes and not, for example, religious coverings; he warned a municipal attempt to prohibit religious face coverings could raise First Amendment issues.
A cosponsor told the committee the bill responded to constituent concern: she cited a constituent with an immune deficiency who was worried that a local prohibition could prevent that person from choosing to wear a mask during respiratory‑illness seasons. Committee members noted similar measures have been proposed in other states and framed S.81 as a preemptive standard to avoid local bans that would limit personal masking choices.
The committee chair said the panel will seek testimony from the Department of Health before advancing the bill and noted one committee member would be absent this week, so the committee may wait to move forward until the full committee can weigh in. No formal motion or vote on S.81 was recorded in the transcript.
Why it matters: If enacted, S.81 would preempt any municipal or county effort to bar the use of hygienic face masks within their jurisdictions, codifying statewide limits on local regulation in the same structure that currently restricts municipal regulation of firearms.
