Now that the truly historic veto override session is over, it’s time to take stock of my fearless, or possibly feckless, predictions about what bills Gov. Phil Scott would veto and which vetoes would be overridden by the Legislature.

But first, let’s acknowledge a masterful performance by legislative leadership, a phrase that doesn’t often escape my virtual lips. Even with supermajorities, overriding a gubernatorial veto is a nettlesome task. You’ve got to make sure all your people are (a) present, not a small item when dealing with 180-odd individuals (some odder than others), and (b) absolutely unified on every vote, including some toughies.

The House and Senate held a total of 15 override votes in a single day, and they won 13 of ’em including a clean sweep in the House. Just scheduling 15 votes in two chambers on one day is fairly amazing, let alone winning 86.67% of ’em.

As for my performance…

Back on May 13, when the Legislature had just concluded its regular business, I compiled a list of potential vetoes. It included six likelies and five possibles. In the end, Scott vetoed seven of those bills. (I’m not including his eighth veto of 2024, on the flavored tobacco ban, which happened earlier in the session.) He vetoed four of my six likelies, while he also rejected two of the possibles and tossed in a veto I didn’t foresee at all. Let’s take a closer look.

Three of the six likelies were major climate bills, and here’s where the governor got cute. He vetoed H.289, the updated renewable energy standard, and his veto was overridden. He allowed the other two big climate bills to become law without his signature: S.25, the climate polluters pay bill, and S.213, which imposes new regulations on waterways and river corridor development.

My surmise is that the governor didn’t want to be seen as rejecting all major climate action. It would have been a bad look for a “moderate” who accepts the reality of climate change. Letting the two bills become law without his signature lets him have it both ways: He didn’t block the bills, but he didn’t get his fingerprints on ’em either.

I was right on the other three likelies: H.887, the yield bill which funds public schools; H.687, the housing/Act 250 bill; and H.72, which will create Vermont’s first overdose prevention center. He vetoed all three, and got overridden on all three.

Scott vetoed two of my five possibles: H.706, the ban on seeds treated with neonicotinoids, and H.121, the data privacy bill, the only veto not to be overridden on Monday. He also nixed a bill that didn’t make my list: H.645, a restorative justice expansion bill which he blasted because it failed to provide funding for the Attorney General’s office that AG Charity Clark said she didn’t need. I called it “a stupid veto… even by Phil Scott standards.” So maybe I can be excused for not foreseeing that one.

He signed the other three bills on my “possible” list: H.766, reforming prior authorization in health insurance; S.25, a ban on PFAS’s in some consumer products; and S.301, limiting dog and cat sales in pet stores. I thought he might oppose all three as imposing excessive limits on commerce.

I was pretty close to dead-on about the six likely vetoes; the only two I missed were the climate bills Scott didn’t block but refused to sign. I only went two-for-five on likely vetoes, and I missed one veto entirely. Overall, okay. Acceptable.

On Friday, June 14, I tried to predict how the override session would go. I didn’t give legislative leadership nearly enough credit, which I’m not beating myself up for since it was the single biggest day for overrides in Vermont history and, as I noted above, a remarkable feat of caucus organization and discipline.

There was one big miss on my ledger, which was a simple case of not doing my homework. I thought H.121 would sail through because, honestly, I only looked at the House’s extremely lopsided regular-session vote and jumped to a conclusion. The Senate’s rejection of override was actually pretty close to its regular-session votes on the bill. A clear miss for me.

Overall, I listed three virtually certain overrides and all three happened: H.887, the yield bill; H.289, the renewable energy standard; and H.687, housing/Act 250. I ranked the other four potential overrides on likelihood of success, and H.121 was in the top spot. Oh, well. As for the remaining three, it’s not that I thought they’d fail if brought to a vote, I just didn’t think leadership would be able to wrangle in so many votes in a single day. But they did, and they went 13-for-15.

How do I rate my own predictive efforts? Not bad. I didn’t foresee the governor getting cute with major climate bills or leadership’s proficiency with overrides. My only big miss was on data privacy. Considering my decidedly patchy track record with predictions, I’ll take it.

One more note. While we know how many gubernatorial vetoes there have been (194, including Scott’s 52) and how many have been overridden (25, including Scott’s embarrassing 17), I haven’t found a source for how often Vermont governors have allowed bills to become law without signature. Phil Scott did so on seven bills this year, which seems like a lot. As with the two major climate bills he didn’t block or sign, I suspect he wanted to keep his veto total below astronomical levels.

Neither signing nor vetoing a bill seems like an abdication of a governor’s authority. It’s one of the valid options, but it’s the most wishy-washy. It seems like something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. I might be wrong; maybe hundreds of bills have become law without signature. It’d be interesting to find out.

And now, hey, time to turn our attention toward campaign season. And other stuff that’s been on the back burner as vetoes, overrides, and Water-bag-gate have occupied this space.