Vermont · individual fact

Vermont crime

Reported violent and property crime, police reporting coverage, and Vermont public-safety context.

Reported violent-crime rate227.1 per 100k2024 · #40 of 50 · highest first
Reported property-crime rate1,667.4 per 100k2024 · #27 of 50 · highest first
Police population reporting coverage100%2024 · #1 of 50 · highest first

Vermont over time

Explore Vermont readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Vermont officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Vermont effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Vermont change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

Reported violent-crime rate Vermont · source units
VermontPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

Reported violent-crime rate2024: 227.1 per 100k109.7 per 100k174.7 per 100k239.7 per 100kVermont, 2015: 122.3 per 100kVermont, 2016: 131.5 per 100kVermont, 2017: 175.9 per 100kVermont, 2018: 179.8 per 100kVermont, 2019: 202.8 per 100kVermont, 2020: 181.5 per 100kVermont, 2021: 190.1 per 100kVermont, 2022: 224.4 per 100kVermont, 2023: 216.2 per 100kVermont, 2024: 227.1 per 100k201520192024
✦ Major events & context · 33National context · Booker makes federal sentencing guidelines advisory · 2005-01-12Federal sentencingNational context · Adam Walsh Act establishes new registration standards · 2006-07-27Adam Walsh ActNational context · Survey changes disrupt the 2006 victimization comparison · 2006-12-312006 survey breakNational context · Congress strengthens firearm background-check records · 2008-01-08NICS records lawNational context · Second Chance Act expands reentry support · 2008-04-09Second Chance ActNational context · Heller recognizes an individual firearm right · 2008-06-26Heller decisionNational context · Financial crisis deepens during the Great Recession · 2008-09-15Financial crisisNational context · Shepard–Byrd Act expands federal hate-crime law · 2009-10-28Federal hate-crime lawNational context · McDonald applies the firearm right to the states · 2010-06-28McDonald decisionNational context · Fair Sentencing Act changes federal crack penalties · 2010-08-03Fair Sentencing ActNational context · FBI expands the rape definition · 2013-01-01Rape definition expandsNational context · Violence Against Women Act reauthorized · 2013-03-07VAWA reauthorizationNational context · DOJ publishes Ferguson policing findings · 2015-03-04Ferguson investigationNational context · Murder rates rise in 2015 and 2016 · 2016-12-312015–2016 murder riseNational context · First Step Act enacted · 2018-12-21First Step ActNational context · FBI launches national use-of-force data collection · 2019-01-01Use-of-force reportingNational context · COVID-19 characterized as a pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · George Floyd is killed by a Minneapolis police officer · 2020-05-25George Floyd killedNational context · Murder rises sharply while property crime declines · 2020-12-312020 murder surgeNational context · FBI transitions to incident-based reporting · 2021-01-01NIBRS transitionNational context · COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act improves review and reporting · 2021-05-20Hate-crime reportingNational context · Executive order sets federal policing safeguards · 2022-05-25Federal policing orderNational context · Bruen changes the test for firearm restrictions · 2022-06-23Bruen decisionNational context · Bipartisan Safer Communities Act enacted · 2022-06-25Safer Communities ActNational context · FBI annual report again includes summary submissions · 2023-10-16Reporting coverage growsNational context · Vehicle theft rises while total property crime falls · 2023-12-31Vehicle-theft surgeNational context · Victimization survey tests a redesigned questionnaire · 2024-01-01NCVS redesign beginsNational context · Supreme Court rejects ATF’s bump-stock classification · 2024-06-14Bump-stock rulingNational context · Rahimi upholds disarmament for a credible domestic threat · 2024-06-21Domestic-threat rulingNational context · Federal policing executive order is revoked · 2025-01-20Policing order revokedNational context · Court sustains ATF’s rule covering some firearm kits · 2025-03-26Firearm-kit rulingNational context · Executive order redirects federal law-enforcement support · 2025-04-282025 policing policyNational context · FBI publishes 2025 annual crime estimates · 2026-08-142025 crime data release● Vermont Legislature · 4● U.S. Congress · Vermont delegation · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.◆ Governor · 4■ Vermont agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2005-01-012026-08-31

8 of 8 reviewed Vermont actions match · 8 date markers shown. 33 major events shown separately.

Vermont · 2024: 227.1 per 100k · Rank #40 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: Not available

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query. These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred. Vermont's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 97.6% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting. Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
Vermont Reported violent-crime rate · source units
PeriodVermontRankU.S. benchmark
2024227.1 per 100k#40 of 50Not available
2023216.2 per 100k#43 of 50Not available
2022224.4 per 100k#43 of 50Not available
2021190.1 per 100k#45 of 50Not available
2020181.5 per 100k#48 of 50Not available
2019202.8 per 100k#47 of 50Not available
2018179.8 per 100k#48 of 50Not available
2017175.9 per 100k#49 of 50Not available
2016131.5 per 100k#49 of 50Not available
2015122.3 per 100k#50 of 50Not available
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

Vermont · state comparison

Reported crime over time

Compare the same calendar year across states. A lower reported rate can reflect fewer crimes, incomplete reporting, or both.

Vermont · 2024227.1 per 100k
Vermont rank#40among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Reported violent-crime rate

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred. Vermont's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 97.6% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting. Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Vermont
Reported violent-crime rate history in Vermont106.6 per 100k174.7 per 100k242.8 per 100k20152024
2024 · Vermont: 227.1 per 100k · Rank #40 of 50, highest first · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Vermont Reported violent-crime rate history
PeriodVermontCompare
2015122.3 per 100k
2016131.5 per 100k
2017175.9 per 100k
2018179.8 per 100k
2019202.8 per 100k
2020181.5 per 100k
2021190.1 per 100k
2022224.4 per 100k
2023216.2 per 100k
2024227.1 per 100k

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Vermont stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Vermont has a dark outline.

Lower value · 102.6 per 100kHigher value · 744.7 per 100kStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Vermont · 227.1 per 100k2024 · Rank #40 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Vermont with every state · 50 ranked
Reported violent-crime rate · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New Mexico744.7 per 100k—
#2Alaska731.9 per 100k—
#3Tennessee604.3 per 100k—
#4Arkansas589.6 per 100k—
#5*Louisiana504.5 per 100k82.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#6Colorado486.8 per 100k—
#7California478.4 per 100k—
#8Kansas474.7 per 100k—
#9Missouri472.7 per 100k—
#10Michigan442.6 per 100k—
#11South Carolina440.8 per 100k—
#12Arizona433 per 100k—
#13Oklahoma429.3 per 100k—
#14Montana428 per 100k—
#15Maryland425.9 per 100k—
#16Nevada408.6 per 100k—
#17Texas397.8 per 100k—
#18New York392.2 per 100k—
#19North Carolina382.9 per 100k—
#20Alabama380.8 per 100k—
#21Delaware368.4 per 100k—
#22*South Dakota356.9 per 100k89.6% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#23*Indiana349.2 per 100k87.2% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#24Oregon341.1 per 100k—
#25Washington331.8 per 100k—
#26Georgia328 per 100k—
#27Massachusetts317.9 per 100k—
#28Ohio311.9 per 100k—
#29Illinois294.5 per 100k—
#30Wisconsin287.6 per 100k—
#31West Virginia263.8 per 100k—
#32*Florida262 per 100k81.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#33Minnesota259.4 per 100k—
#34North Dakota258 per 100k—
#35Pennsylvania251.3 per 100k—
#36Iowa247.2 per 100k—
#37Utah237.8 per 100k—
#38Idaho236.6 per 100k—
#39Hawaii230.3 per 100k—
#40Vermont · your comparison227.1 per 100k—
#41Kentucky226.7 per 100k—
#42Nebraska224.6 per 100k—
#43Virginia223.7 per 100k—
#44New Jersey221.9 per 100k—
#45*Mississippi219.6 per 100k65.1% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#46*Wyoming212.5 per 100k89.9% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#47Rhode Island154.9 per 100k—
#48Connecticut139.2 per 100k—
#49New Hampshire112.3 per 100k—
#50Maine102.6 per 100k—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Reported violent-crime rate

227.1 per 100,0002024

Violent offenses reported to law enforcement per 100,000 residents in participating jurisdictions.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

  • These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred.
  • Vermont's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 97.6% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting.
  • Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
  • Average monthly population coverage in 2024 was 100%; this is not complete statewide reporting.

Reported property-crime rate

1,667.4 per 100,0002024

Property offenses reported to law enforcement per 100,000 residents in participating jurisdictions.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

  • These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred.
  • Vermont's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 97.6% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting.
  • Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
  • Average monthly population coverage in 2024 was 100%; this is not complete statewide reporting.
Vermont · state comparison

Firearm mortality

Firearm deaths include suicide, homicide, and other intents. Mortality is separate from reported crime.

Vermont · 202476
Vermont rank#48among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Firearm deaths

Deaths with firearm injury recorded as the cause, all intents.

Counts reflect population size. They do not measure shootings, crimes, or the effect of a policy.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Vermont stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Vermont has a dark outline.

Lower value · 55Higher value · 4,389Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Vermont · 762024 · Rank #48 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Vermont with every state · 50 ranked
Firearm deaths · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas4,389—
#2Florida3,191—
#3California2,853—
#4Georgia1,985—
#5North Carolina1,835—
#6Ohio1,745—
#7Pennsylvania1,624—
#8Illinois1,563—
#9Tennessee1,448—
#10Arizona1,331—
#11Missouri1,234—
#12Michigan1,228—
#13Alabama1,212—
#14Indiana1,196—
#15Virginia1,153—
#16South Carolina1,064—
#17Louisiana1,031—
#18Colorado961—
#19Washington915—
#20New York896—
#21Kentucky870—
#22Mississippi810—
#23Oklahoma794—
#24Wisconsin735—
#25Maryland716—
#26Oregon663—
#27Arkansas638—
#28Minnesota582—
#28Nevada582—
#30New Mexico563—
#31Utah454—
#32Kansas446—
#33New Jersey393—
#34Iowa389—
#35Idaho331—
#36Massachusetts287—
#37West Virginia281—
#38Montana247—
#39Connecticut224—
#40Nebraska218—
#41Alaska182—
#42Maine181—
#43South Dakota159—
#44New Hampshire152—
#45Wyoming143—
#46Delaware123—
#47North Dakota95—
#48Vermont · your comparison76—
#49Hawaii56—
#50Rhode Island55—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Firearm deaths

762024 final data

Deaths in which firearm injury was the underlying cause, with the rate age-adjusted per 100,000 residents.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Population-adjusted measure

Age-adjusted firearm death rate
10.6 per 100,000
Method and limitations

CDC National Vital Statistics System death-certificate data.

  • The total combines firearm deaths across intents, including suicide, homicide, legal intervention, and unintentional or undetermined injury.
  • With a small count, the rate can be statistically unstable; it does not measure nonfatal injuries, firearm ownership, defensive uses, or policy effects.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about crime, victimization, policing and criminal justice from FactVote’s Vermont candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

7 statements from 4 candidates

2026 Vermont Governor — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Amanda Janoo

1 statement

Democratic/Progressive · Governor · VT

Policing & criminal justice context

Establish the nation’s strongest public standards for AI, requiring independent testing, transparency, human oversight, ongoing audits, and public accountability while prohibiting predictive policing, social scoring, automated benefit termination, emotion recognition, and AI systems designed for mas…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: National security, foreign policy, technology, and veterans

Candidate campaign source

Establish the nation’s strongest public standards for AI, requiring independent testing, transparency, human oversight, ongoing audits, and public accountability while prohibiting predictive policing, social scoring, automated benefit termination, emotion recognition, and AI systems designed for mass political or immigration surveillance.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Amanda Janoo — candidate-owned primary source 4 ↗

2026 Vermont Lieutenant Governor — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

John S. Rodgers

1 statement

Republican · Lieutenant Governor · VT

Policing & criminal justice context

John supports providing law enforcement with the resources they need to protect the public while ensuring the justice system holds offenders accountable and stands with victims. Strong communities begin with public safety and respect for the rule of law.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and criminal justice

Candidate campaign source

John supports providing law enforcement with the resources they need to protect the public while ensuring the justice system holds offenders accountable and stands with victims. Strong communities begin with public safety and respect for the rule of law.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

John S. Rodgers — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗

2026 Vermont Secretary of State — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 2 statements

Democratic · Secretary of State · VT

Crime & victimization

With a clear and consistent record of supporting sensible gun safety reforms, Sarah has been a steadfast advocate for common-sense measures to prevent gun violence. By prioritizing public safety and the well-being of Vermont communities, Sarah continues to lead the charge for meaningful action on gu…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Candidate campaign source

With a clear and consistent record of supporting sensible gun safety reforms, Sarah has been a steadfast advocate for common-sense measures to prevent gun violence. By prioritizing public safety and the well-being of Vermont communities, Sarah continues to lead the charge for meaningful action on gun safety, ensuring that Vermont remains a safe and secure place for all.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Sarah Copeland Hanzas — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 1 more statement from Sarah Copeland Hanzas
Crime & victimization

Supports gun-safety reforms intended to prevent gun violence and protect Vermont communities.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public Safety

Candidate campaign source

Supports gun-safety reforms intended to prevent gun violence and protect Vermont communities.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Sarah Copeland Hanzas — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 2
How statements are selected

This section matches specific crime, victimization, policing and criminal justice terms in retained, attributed source text from published Vermont candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

Vermont incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Vermont legislators and Vermont’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Vermont’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

6 matching sponsorships or proposals · 5 Vermont incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Angela Arsenault

Vermont House of Representatives · D–VT

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Angela Arsenault
Vermont Legislature · H.606

An act relating to firearms relinquishment and storage procedures

Jun 15, 2026 · Enacted · Act 134

Rep. Angela Arsenault · Sponsored / Rep. Martin LaLonde · Sponsored / Rep. Doug Bishop · Co-sponsored / Rep. R. Scott Campbell · Co-sponsored / Rep. Ela Chapin · Co-sponsored / Rep. Esme Cole · Co-sponsored / Rep. Karen Dolan · Co-sponsored / Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano · Co-sponsored / Rep. Leslie Goldman · Co-sponsored / Rep. Edye Graning · Co-sponsored / Rep. Troy Headrick · Co-sponsored / Rep. Rebecca Holcombe · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kathleen James · Co-sponsored / Rep. Emilie Krasnow · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kate McCann · Co-sponsored / Rep. Michael Mrowicki · Co-sponsored / Rep. Herb Olson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Gayle Pezzo · Co-sponsored / Rep. Phil Pouech · Co-sponsored / Rep. Larry Satcowitz · Co-sponsored / Rep. Robin Scheu · Co-sponsored / Rep. Amy Sheldon · Co-sponsored / Rep. Trevor Squirrell · Co-sponsored / Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone · Co-sponsored / Rep. Chea Waters Evans · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

H.606 became Act 134 on June 15, 2026, effective July 1. For firearms surrendered under abuse-prevention or extreme-risk protection orders, it sets a court-approval process for third-party storage and requires the proposed holder to undergo a NICS background check, with the result provided to the court. This connection concerns custody safeguards for surrendered weapons, not a ban on all firearm possession.

Signed by the governor 2026-06-15, Act 134. The history entry date (2026-05-29) is distinct from the signing date recorded in its text.

Why this record is included

The firearm mortality fact includes suicide, homicide and other intents. Safeguards for firearms surrendered under abuse-prevention or extreme-risk orders concern access to weapons in a subset of risk situations; they do not establish fewer firearm deaths. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Vermont evidence context: Firearm deaths · Homicide deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

The court may order an alternative relinquishment to a third party if after a hearing the court finds that the alternative relinquishment adequately protects the safety of the protected parties. […] (i) Firearms shall not be held by a third party unless approved by the court using the process set forth in this subdivision (2). […] (iii) To be considered as a third party eligible to hold surrendered firearms, the third party shall agree to undergo a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to verify that the person is legally permitted to have a firearm. The background check required by this subdivision (iii) shall be provided to the court.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Martin LaLonde

Vermont House of Representatives · D–VT

2 proposals
View proposals from Rep. Martin LaLonde
Vermont Legislature · H.606

An act relating to firearms relinquishment and storage procedures

Jun 15, 2026 · Enacted · Act 134

Rep. Angela Arsenault · Sponsored / Rep. Martin LaLonde · Sponsored / Rep. Doug Bishop · Co-sponsored / Rep. R. Scott Campbell · Co-sponsored / Rep. Ela Chapin · Co-sponsored / Rep. Esme Cole · Co-sponsored / Rep. Karen Dolan · Co-sponsored / Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano · Co-sponsored / Rep. Leslie Goldman · Co-sponsored / Rep. Edye Graning · Co-sponsored / Rep. Troy Headrick · Co-sponsored / Rep. Rebecca Holcombe · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kathleen James · Co-sponsored / Rep. Emilie Krasnow · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kate McCann · Co-sponsored / Rep. Michael Mrowicki · Co-sponsored / Rep. Herb Olson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Gayle Pezzo · Co-sponsored / Rep. Phil Pouech · Co-sponsored / Rep. Larry Satcowitz · Co-sponsored / Rep. Robin Scheu · Co-sponsored / Rep. Amy Sheldon · Co-sponsored / Rep. Trevor Squirrell · Co-sponsored / Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone · Co-sponsored / Rep. Chea Waters Evans · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

H.606 became Act 134 on June 15, 2026, effective July 1. For firearms surrendered under abuse-prevention or extreme-risk protection orders, it sets a court-approval process for third-party storage and requires the proposed holder to undergo a NICS background check, with the result provided to the court. This connection concerns custody safeguards for surrendered weapons, not a ban on all firearm possession.

Signed by the governor 2026-06-15, Act 134. The history entry date (2026-05-29) is distinct from the signing date recorded in its text.

Why this record is included

The firearm mortality fact includes suicide, homicide and other intents. Safeguards for firearms surrendered under abuse-prevention or extreme-risk orders concern access to weapons in a subset of risk situations; they do not establish fewer firearm deaths. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Vermont evidence context: Firearm deaths · Homicide deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

The court may order an alternative relinquishment to a third party if after a hearing the court finds that the alternative relinquishment adequately protects the safety of the protected parties. […] (i) Firearms shall not be held by a third party unless approved by the court using the process set forth in this subdivision (2). […] (iii) To be considered as a third party eligible to hold surrendered firearms, the third party shall agree to undergo a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to verify that the person is legally permitted to have a firearm. The background check required by this subdivision (iii) shall be provided to the court.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Vermont Legislature · H.534

An act relating to retail theft

May 30, 2024 · Enacted · Act 128

Rep. Martin LaLonde · Sponsored / Rep. Angela Arsenault · Co-sponsored / Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin · Co-sponsored / Rep. Alyssa Black · Co-sponsored / Rep. Elizabeth Burrows · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kevin "Coach" Christie · Co-sponsored / Rep. Peter Conlon · Co-sponsored / Rep. Leonora Dodge · Co-sponsored / Rep. Karen Dolan · Co-sponsored / Rep. David Durfee · Co-sponsored / Rep. Lori Houghton · Co-sponsored / Rep. Mary E. Howard · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kathleen James · Co-sponsored / Rep. Emilie Krasnow · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kate Lalley · Co-sponsored / Rep. James Masland · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kate McCann · Co-sponsored / Rep. Brian Minier · Co-sponsored / Rep. Michael Mrowicki · Co-sponsored / Rep. Daniel Noyes · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kate Nugent · Co-sponsored / Rep. Carol Ode · Co-sponsored / Rep. Monique Priestley · Co-sponsored / Rep. Robin Scheu · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kirk White · Co-sponsored / Rep. Theresa Wood · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

H.534 became Act 128 on May 30, 2024, effective July 1. For retail theft of merchandise worth more than $250 and no more than $900, subsection (b) sets maximum imprisonment of six months for a first offense, two years for a second, three years for a third, and ten years for a fourth or later offense, subject to the specified two-year repeat-offense windows and fine alternatives. Subsection (d) preserves separate penalties for the specified receipt, UPC-label and theft-device offenses, overriding this value-based schedule for those offenses. These are maximum penalties, not mandatory sentences, and this connection does not cover all property crime.

Signed by the governor 2024-05-30, Act 128. The history entry date (2024-05-10) is distinct from the signing date recorded in its text.

Why this record is included

Retail taking of merchandise overlaps the larceny-theft component of FBI property crime, which also includes burglary and motor-vehicle theft. State offense definitions differ from FBI classifications. Changing penalties does not establish deterrence or a change in the reported crime rate. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Vermont evidence context: Reported property-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of retail theft of merchandise having a retail value in excess of $250.00 and not in excess of $900.00 shall: (1) for a first offense, be punished by a fine of not more than $500.00 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both; (2) for a second offense, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than two years, if the second offense occurs not more than two years after the first offense; (3) for a third offense, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,500.00 or imprisonment for not more than three years, or both, if the third offense occurs not more than two years after the second offense; or (4) for a fourth or subsequent offense, be punished by a fine of not more than $2,500.00 or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the fourth or subsequent offense occurs not more than two years after the immediately preceding offense. […] (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, a person convicted of retail theft pursuant to: (1) Subdivision 2575(4) of this title shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both. (2) Subdivision 2575(5), (6), or (7) of this title shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined not more than $5,000.00, or both. Sec. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE This act shall take effect on July 1, 2024.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick

Vermont Senate · D–VT

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick
Vermont Legislature · S.227

An act relating to creating immigration protocols in Vermont schools

Jun 8, 2026 · Enacted · Act 125

Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick · Sponsored / Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky · Sponsored / Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major · Co-sponsored / Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale · Co-sponsored / Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S.227 became Act 125 on June 8, 2026, effective on passage. It restricts schools’ collection of student or family immigration status, with exceptions for legal requirements and supported educational programs, and limits voluntary disclosure of student information. It preserves compliance with the lawful federal requirements named in the act. Model policies are due January 1, 2027, with school policy adoption beginning in 2027–2028. The connection does not establish actual implementation or a change in the foreign-born share.

Signed by the governor 2026-06-08, Act 125. The history entry date (2026-05-29) is distinct from the signing date recorded in its text.

Why this record is included

The foreign-born population includes naturalized citizens and noncitizens across many origins and ages. School privacy rules concern a subset of those residents and their families; immigration status is not equivalent to foreign-born status, and this law does not change federal admission or citizenship rules. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Vermont evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

(3) “School” means a public school or an independent school approved under section 166 of this title. […] (c) Student information privacy. School districts and schools are prohibited from: (1) collecting or requesting information regarding citizenship or immigration status of a student or of a family member of the student except as required by State or federal law or as required to administer a State- or federally supported educational program; […] (3) voluntarily sharing student information, including immigration status, citizenship, place of birth, nationality, national origin, sexual orientation, status as a survivor of domestic violence or sexual assault, status as a recipient of public assistance, or school discipline records, with a third party unless required to do so by State or federal law. […] (f) Applicability. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit or impede any public agency from complying with the lawful requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644. To the extent any school, school district, or supervisory union policy or practice conflicts with the lawful requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644, the policy or practice is, to the extent of such conflict, abolished. […] (g) Policy required. (1) Model policy and recommended procedures. On or before January 1, 2027, the Agency of Education, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, the Vermont Independent Schools Association, and the Vermont School Boards Association, shall develop, and review at least annually, a model policy along with recommended procedures that reflect the requirements set forth in subsections (c) and (d) of this section. (2) Adoption of policy and procedures. (A) Beginning with the 2027–2028 school year, each school board shall develop, adopt, ensure the enforcement of, and make available in the manner described under subdivision 563(1) of this title an immigration protocol policy that shall be at least as stringent as the model policy developed by the Agency. Any school board that fails to adopt a policy shall be presumed to have adopted the most current model policy published by the Agency. (B) Beginning with the 2027–2028 school year, each independent school shall develop, adopt, and ensure the enforcement of an immigration protocol policy that shall be at least as stringent as the model policy developed by the Agency. Any approved independent school that fails to adopt a policy shall be presumed to have adopted the most current model policy published by the Agency. […] Sec. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE This act shall take effect on passage.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Ruth Hardy

Vermont Senate · D–VT

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Ruth Hardy
Vermont Legislature · S.9

An act relating to after-hours access to orders against sexual assault

May 1, 2025 · Enacted · Act 12

Sen. Ruth Hardy · Sponsored / Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick · Co-sponsored / Sen. Robert Norris · Co-sponsored / Sen. Robert Plunkett · Co-sponsored / Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky · Co-sponsored / Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S.9 became Act 12 on May 1, 2025, effective September 1, 2025. It requires after-hours, weekend and holiday access to emergency sexual-assault protection orders under the procedure for persons other than family or household members as defined in 15 V.S.A. § 1101(2). Stalking complaints retain regular-hours filing. The new process includes electronic applications and telephone oaths in the specified circumstances. A judicial officer still decides whether to grant relief from the submitted affidavits; access is not an automatic order.

Signed by the governor 2025-05-01, Act 12. The history entry date (2025-05-02) is distinct from the signing date recorded in its text.

Why this record is included

Rape is one of the four categories in the FBI violent-crime measure. After-hours protective orders concern sexual-assault victims and prevention of further harm; Vermont’s legal definition is not identical to the FBI category, and access to an order does not establish fewer reported crimes. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Vermont evidence context: Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

(a) In accordance with the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, a person other than a family or household member as defined in 15 V.S.A. § 1101(2) may file a complaint for a temporary order against stalking or sexual assault. Stalking complaints shall be filed during regular court hours. […] (2) The Court Administrator shall establish procedures to ensure access to orders against sexual assault after regular court hours or on weekends and holidays in accordance with subdivisions (A)–(D) of this subdivision. (A) The court shall designate an authorized person to receive requests for ex parte emergency relief orders against sexual assault submitted after regular court hours pursuant to section 5134 of this title, including requests made by reliable electronic means according to the procedures in this subdivision (2). (B) If a secure setting is not available for processing an ex parte emergency relief order against sexual assault submitted after regular court hours, or if the authorized person determines that electronic submission is appropriate under the circumstances, the authorized person shall inform the applicant that a complaint and affidavit may be submitted electronically. (C) The affidavit shall be sworn to or affirmed by administration of the oath over the telephone to the applicant by the authorized person and shall conclude with the following statement: “I declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Vermont that the foregoing is true and accurate. I understand that making false statements is a crime subject to a term of imprisonment or a fine, or both, as provided by 13 V.S.A. § 2904.” The authorized person shall note on the affidavit the date and time that the oath was administered. (D) The authorized person shall communicate the contents of the complaint and affidavit to a judicial officer telephonically or by reliable electronic means. The judicial officer shall decide whether to grant or deny the complaint and issue the order solely on the basis of the contents of the affidavit or affidavits provided. The judicial officer shall communicate the decision to the authorized person, who shall communicate it to the applicant. If the order is issued, it shall be delivered to the appropriate law enforcement agency for service and to the holding station. […] Sec. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE This act shall take effect on September 1, 2025.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky

Vermont Senate · P/D–VT

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky
Vermont Legislature · S.227

An act relating to creating immigration protocols in Vermont schools

Jun 8, 2026 · Enacted · Act 125

Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick · Sponsored / Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky · Sponsored / Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major · Co-sponsored / Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale · Co-sponsored / Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S.227 became Act 125 on June 8, 2026, effective on passage. It restricts schools’ collection of student or family immigration status, with exceptions for legal requirements and supported educational programs, and limits voluntary disclosure of student information. It preserves compliance with the lawful federal requirements named in the act. Model policies are due January 1, 2027, with school policy adoption beginning in 2027–2028. The connection does not establish actual implementation or a change in the foreign-born share.

Signed by the governor 2026-06-08, Act 125. The history entry date (2026-05-29) is distinct from the signing date recorded in its text.

Why this record is included

The foreign-born population includes naturalized citizens and noncitizens across many origins and ages. School privacy rules concern a subset of those residents and their families; immigration status is not equivalent to foreign-born status, and this law does not change federal admission or citizenship rules. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Vermont evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

(3) “School” means a public school or an independent school approved under section 166 of this title. […] (c) Student information privacy. School districts and schools are prohibited from: (1) collecting or requesting information regarding citizenship or immigration status of a student or of a family member of the student except as required by State or federal law or as required to administer a State- or federally supported educational program; […] (3) voluntarily sharing student information, including immigration status, citizenship, place of birth, nationality, national origin, sexual orientation, status as a survivor of domestic violence or sexual assault, status as a recipient of public assistance, or school discipline records, with a third party unless required to do so by State or federal law. […] (f) Applicability. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit or impede any public agency from complying with the lawful requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644. To the extent any school, school district, or supervisory union policy or practice conflicts with the lawful requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644, the policy or practice is, to the extent of such conflict, abolished. […] (g) Policy required. (1) Model policy and recommended procedures. On or before January 1, 2027, the Agency of Education, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, the Vermont Independent Schools Association, and the Vermont School Boards Association, shall develop, and review at least annually, a model policy along with recommended procedures that reflect the requirements set forth in subsections (c) and (d) of this section. (2) Adoption of policy and procedures. (A) Beginning with the 2027–2028 school year, each school board shall develop, adopt, ensure the enforcement of, and make available in the manner described under subdivision 563(1) of this title an immigration protocol policy that shall be at least as stringent as the model policy developed by the Agency. Any school board that fails to adopt a policy shall be presumed to have adopted the most current model policy published by the Agency. (B) Beginning with the 2027–2028 school year, each independent school shall develop, adopt, and ensure the enforcement of an immigration protocol policy that shall be at least as stringent as the model policy developed by the Agency. Any approved independent school that fails to adopt a policy shall be presumed to have adopted the most current model policy published by the Agency. […] Sec. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE This act shall take effect on passage.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Vermont officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Vermont statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.