Lobbyists are nearly omnipresent in the Vermont Statehouse, where they press lawmakers on everything from housing policy to health care. Even judges seeking to keep their seats rely on lobbying — but typically less for persuasion than for explanation, according to people familiar with the process.
That distinction is in focus as Superior Court Judge Rachel Malone and five other Superior Court judges face a retention vote before the full legislature on Wednesday, March 25, that will decide whether they can keep their seats on the bench.
For the past three decades, judicial retention votes have been largely routine; lawmakers have voted to keep every judge in their seat since 1993. Lobbyists have long played a role in the process but largely behind the scenes, coaching judges on how to give an elevator pitch during chance encounters with lawmakers in the building’s hallways and ensuring lawmakers on the Judicial Retention Committee have the materials they need.
But after that key legislative committee declined to recommend Malone earlier this month, the judge, who has heard cases in southern Vermont, took the unusual step of engaging a paid lobbyist to help present her record to lawmakers ahead of the final joint assembly vote.
Anthony Iarrapino, an attorney and registered lobbyist, is offering assistance to her ahead of the vote. He is coordinating with Jessica Oski, a lobbyist with the Necrason Group, who has long worked with judges through the Vermont Trial Judges Association. Oski is providing pro bono guidance to Malone and the five other judges up for retention this week. The firm asks judges to consider donating to the Vermont Bar Foundation in return, but it’s optional, Oski said.
“We’re all lawyers, and this is our effort to give back to the judiciary, to support the judiciary,” she said.
There’s a clear distinction between lobbying on policy issues and judicial retention, according to Bob Paolini, former executive director of the Vermont Bar Association. Paolini, who served on the Judicial Retention Committee in the 1980s and later lobbied for judges in the retention process, said the latter is less about shaping outcomes than helping judges navigate unfamiliar terrain.
“You have to understand the position of a judge: They do lots of different things, but politics is a strange world for them,” he said, explaining that judges are used to being evaluated by their peers, not elected officials.
In Vermont, judges are appointed, not elected. Lawmakers review each Superior Court and Supreme Court seat on a six-year cycle and vote to decide whether the sitting judge should continue serving. The timing is tied to the seat, not the individual, which is why Malone is already up for a retention vote less than three years after Gov. Phil Scott appointed her to the bench in November 2023.
As a lobbyist for the Vermont Bar Association, Paolini often advocated for specific policy outcomes, helping draft proposals, identify sponsors, recruit witnesses and guide bills through the process.
In contrast, he said, the work for judges is done largely outside the Statehouse and is more akin to a trial lawyer preparing witnesses before they appear in court. The goal is to prepare a judge for conversations with members of the Judicial Review Committee and to ensure committee members have the information they need.
Earlier this month, that committee — a bipartisan panel of representatives and senators — voted against recommending Malone after reviewing concerns about the timeliness of her written decisions. The committee noted that she had been working under an improvement plan and had made some progress, but a 5-3 majority concluded that the issues were significant enough to withhold support. The other judges under review received unanimous recommendations.
The vote has led Malone to seek support from the rest of the legislature ahead of Wednesday’s vote.
“I think it’s unfortunate that Judge Malone has been put in that position, but we respect the committee process, and we respect the independent judgment of the committee members who voted not to retain,” Iarrapino said.
He described his role as ensuring that legislators understand Malone’s qualifications, experience, outlook and desire to continue serving. “It’s really about being a connector” between the judge and the lawmakers who will vote, he said. His outreach, he added, is not targeted to specific committees or political blocs.
“It is part of our system that to be retained to keep your job, you have to go before the legislature and affirmatively ask that they vote for you to do so. So whether they do that on their own or hire a lobbyist, I don’t see that it makes a difference,” Iarrapino said.
This marks Iarrapino’s first direct involvement in a judicial retention effort, though he has seen the process up close before. In the early 2000s, he served as a law clerk to the Vermont Supreme Court, when several justices appeared before the legislature following the court’s landmark civil unions decision, a ruling that sparked protests and, at times, hostile public reaction.
“This is very much a people’s process, and sometimes that’s for better, and sometimes that’s for worse,” Iarrapino said.
Paolini noted that some past judges withdrew from consideration once it appeared likely that they would not be retained. The fact that most judges are retained is not cause for concern, he said.
“If the best people are becoming judges, then it’s no surprise that they’re retained,” Paolini said.
Now, attention turns to Wednesday’s vote, when the House and Senate will meet in joint assembly. Judges must secure a simple majority to remain on the bench, with votes cast by secret ballot — a feature Iarrapino said helps reduce the risk of any quid pro quo arrangements, and which Oski said helps limit partisanship and protect judicial independence.
Malone has worked with Iarrapino and Oski to reach out to some legislators as the vote approaches.
Until this year, Oski said, she had not needed to speak with lawmakers outside the retention committee about a judge under review. Even now, her conversations remain focused on ensuring legislators understand Malone’s background and record.
“I’ve not asked any lawmaker to support her,” Oski said, in line with how she sees her role as helping inform lawmakers and support the judge rather than advocate for a specific outcome.
The current situation, she added, may have exposed weaknesses in the process, though she added that whether changes follow remains to be seen. Overall she said, the system has worked well.
“We have a good judiciary as a result of it — an independent judiciary — and I have all the faith and confidence that that will continue as well.”
Correction, March 24, 2026: Anthony Iarrapino’s name was misspelled in an earlier version of this story.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!