The Burlington City Council on Monday will consider a resolution that would revive the issue of noncitizen voting in local elections.
Councilor Adam Roof (I-Ward 8) sponsored the measure, which asks the city’s Charter Change Committee to consider expanding the right to vote to “all citizens of Burlington, regardless of citizenship status.” The resolution requests the committee report back to the council by the end of November. If the council approves it, voters could weigh in on Town Meeting Day in March 2020, Roof said.
“All residents have the right, in my eyes, to participate in a democratic process, and the highest level of participation in that process is being able to cast your vote,” he said.
It wouldn’t be the first time Burlingtonians considered the question. In 2015, voters shot down a noncitizen voting measure, 58 to 42 percent. That same year, a 55 percent majority rejected another ballot item that would have allowed noncitizens to serve on city boards and as department heads. Both of those efforts are listed as goals in the city’s 2014 Diversity & Equity Strategic Plan.
According to that report, 3,200 Burlington residents were ineligible to vote in local elections due to their citizenship status, a fact Roof cited in his resolution.
The issue has proven controversial in other communities. In 2018, the Winooski City Council voted 3-2 against putting a noncitizen voting question on the ballot. It was a notable defeat in Vermont’s most diverse city, which boasts the state’s only majority-minority student population.
Also in 2018, Montpelier became the first Vermont city to approve noncitizen voting — by a two-to-one margin, to boot. But the issue was stymied by the legislature, which has to approve all municipal charter changes. The House passed it earlier this year, but the Senate punted the question until the next session, according to Vermont Public Radio.
Roof doesn’t expect much controversy at Monday’s council meeting and thinks other councilors will sign on as cosponsors. But he said he’s prepared for the ensuing debate if the charter committee recommends putting a question to voters. Roof, who was running his first city council campaign when the measure failed in 2015, said he’s prepared to lobby for it in Burlington and Montpelier.
“If you’re paying into the tax base, if your kids are in the schools, if you’re part of the fabric of the community, I think it’s at the very least worthwhile of having the conversation,” he said, adding, “I think the city’s in a position to look at this from a different perspective and hopefully have a different outcome on the ballot.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Imagine if a conservative targeted an ethnic group for special treatment such as this proposal envisions.
It’s called cynicism, pure and simple.
The sponsor is pandering to the immigrant population for one reason: it’s his liberal base – without which his seat and others are imperiled.
Targeting immigrants for something similarly sinister but not so cloaked would have the leftists blocking traffic in protest.
But if it’s in the name of voter representation, let err rip.
What a joke.
Burlington City Councilor Revives ….. Tammany Hall ver 3.0. The Redux.
I am disappointed that 7 Days did not post the reason why the Montpelier Charter Change was punted by the Senate. It is no secret or is this just a pot stirring article?
So many legal reason why this can not happen:
-Vermont is a Republic, not a Democracy
– Vermont is a “Dillon rules” state
-The “Catch-22” clause of the Vermont Constitution
-SS 42. of the Vermont Constitution
-“Equal application” clause of the Vermont Constitution
-8 SCOVT cases setting precedence in one way or the other about voting, citizens or governmental rules on town charters and citizens.
I find the biggest laugh is the argument,”Taxation without Representation” for a reason to pass this. Well those that say that have a reading comprehension issue or ignorance of history. The taxation and representation statement was made by British Citizens, living in a British Colony, paying British Taxes, not being allowed a seat in the British Parliament.
The resolution’s sponsor barely held on to his seat in last year’s election.
If you need to understand the impetus for trying to get more votes, that’s it in a nutshell.
The sponsor won his last election by only 113 votes when a UVM student challenged the status quo.
Pure unadulterated cynicism is the real result.
That is what’s behind this latest effort to create a smokescreen blocking what is really going on behind the council table: continuing massive tax hikes.
If the immigrants want some real relief from their skyrocketing rents, voting for incumbents is a fool’s errand.
The non-voting population will get nothing in return for their promised vote beyond being able to say “I voted.”
Their rents will continue increasing until and unless they elect councilors who will stop the insane spending.
Landlords in Vermont’s largest city can’t hold the line on rents when they are facing huge yearly property-tax hikes.
Guess who’s paying most of those rental hikes: immigrants whose councilors pay lip service to those sexy words, “affordable housing.”
“A republic not a democracy” is absurdly meaningless even when said about the United States, and has literally zero applicability to Vermont. The criteria for participating in Vermont and local elections and government activity should be whether one is a Vermont / local resident.
Idiots like this are the reason Burlington is such a giant hole in the ground (literally). Voting in US elections is for US citizens. Deciding how taxpayer dollars are spent is for US citizens. How is this even a debate?
This is a common sense proposal and I am angry that it didn’t happen in Winooski. The immigration process takes so long that people live, work and pay taxes in a community for years without having any voice in who represents them. Good work Dems!
If you have a problem with this, you might want to consider the possibility that you’re racist.
Seems to be a bit of disagreement . Ted Cohen, you have let loose two volleys, hope that’s enough for you.
I’m for letting everyone vote. AND I really wish everyone who was already a registered voter would vote!
Let’s push for early voting, and voting by mail – the more people who vote, the better.
This article misses an important point about the Winooski vote. Winooski’s City Council voted to do exactly what this resolutions proposes – send the issue to the Charter Commission, rather than immediately to a public vote. That Charter Commission is now up and running and will be evaluating this issue in the near future. Please get your facts straight.
ONLY UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY MUST BE A REGISTER VOTER. NOT AN ILLEGAL. These people who are pushing this only wants votes !!!!
I dont have any stake in the issue – but WCAX was on the street interviewing passers by oaths point…so i asked a few questions….none of which the reporter could answer. SO …this tells me there is some public education needed on this issue.
Adam I just SCHIFF my pants
Gee, I agree that only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote. Maybe they should have to be able to spell, too?
I’m clearly in the minority here. People who like and dislike these comments definitely want only citizens to vote. I haven’t seen 63 dislikes in a while!
But my mind has not been changed.
Even if there are two schools of thought on this issue, don’t forget to vote, folks.
Be a good citizen.