Vermont House advances bill to broaden judicial nominating board and selection criteria

The Vermont House on the floor advanced H.780 on second reading, approving amendments that would expand the Judicial Nominating Board and change how judicial candidates are nominated and evaluated.

Representative Rachelson, speaking for the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill would add one member to the judicial nominating board — the executive director of racial equity (or a designee) — and create a nomination process in addition to self-nominations. Rachelson said the changes respond to studies showing underrepresentation of women and people of color on state courts and aim to increase the diversity of applicants while retaining rigorous vetting.

"We need a better process for developing a pipeline of women and minorities to serve as judges," Rachelson said, citing national reports and a 2021 Council of State Governments study on racial disparities in the justice system.

The bill retains a 10-year overall legal-practice requirement for judicial candidates but reduces the number of those years that must be practiced in Vermont immediately prior to application from five to three. Rachelson told colleagues the change is intended to broaden the applicant pool without lowering the overall experience threshold: "It gets more people in the door to be considered," she said, and added that candidates still must go through interviews, reference checks and writing-sample review.

H.780 would also add two specific considerations for the nominating board when evaluating candidates: the candidate's ties to the Vermont legal community and the extent to which a candidate would contribute to "a judicial branch that has diverse backgrounds and a broad range of lived experience." Rachelson said the provision is intended to allow evaluation of professional and life experiences that may not be reflected in traditional indicators.

On procedural questions, members asked about the meaning of "lived experience" and requested additional demographic data about attorneys practicing in Vermont. Rachelson said some requested numbers were not immediately available and offered to follow up; she also described the nominating board's confidential reference- and screening processes as safeguards.

The Judiciary committee reported H.780 with a committee vote recorded in the transcript as "1010"; the Appropriations committee reported no substantive changes and described the fiscal impact as minimal if a designee draws per diem. The House approved the committee's recommended amendments by voice vote and ordered third reading.

What happens next: Third reading is ordered; the bill will return to the floor for final passage on third reading and any further floor amendments.