An update on the House debate about a proposed rule that would restrict the length of a representative's explanation of a vote that are published in the House Journal.

Earlier this week, lawmakers got into a tangle over a plan to limit published explanations to 50 words. Lawmakers would still be free to speak as long as they wanted -- and they certainly have gone on in the past. Some in the House have gotten tired of lengthy, after-the-vote commentaries that seemed more like election-protection. Opponents of the word limit said the rule was a violation of free speech.

Today a substitute proposal came up for a vote. The new proposal said only, "It is generally recommended that vote explanations should be infrequent and brief."

Most House members agreed with this admonition or wanted to just get done with this debate. The vote to pass the resolution was 125-19.

Rep. Duncan Kilmartin, R-Newport, objected to the original rule and still objected to the revised admonition. He said so in a explanation of his vote!

Here is what he said: "I do not need advice as to the exercise of my Constitutional right and duty to explain my reasons for a recorded vote. Neither will I affront or insult my fellow representatives in recommending how frequently or to what extent they exercise their individual rights of recording their reasons for their votes. To do so is an insult to the Constitution and the citizens of Vermont from whom we derive our power and authority.

-- Nancy Remsen