Commentary: So, Second Homeowners Can Vote In Vermont (September, 2017)

By Rob RoperRob Roper

There is a vote fraud case in Vermont, currently in the Essex Superior Court, in which a family of second homeowners from Connecticut (parents and two adult children) registered to vote in the town of Victory, and did so. Their votes likely altered the outcome of a local election, which was decided by fewer than four votes.

Now, all four of these family members listed Connecticut as their primary residence on their income taxes, had Connecticut drivers licenses, paid property taxes on a primary dwelling in Connecticut, did not pay residential property tax rates on their second home in Vermont, had jobs in Connecticut, and spent an overwhelming amount of their time in Connecticut. But they were voting by absentee ballot in Vermont, deciding who would represent in public offices people who actually live here. That’s vote fraud, right?

Wrong! At least according to our Secretary of State’s office.

Robert and Toni Flanagan, two of the defendants in this case, testified under oath that they consulted with the Vermont Secretary of State’s office and were advised that their voting in Vermont under these circumstances was okay, that they should just leave the residency box on the voter registration form blank.

Vermont statute says, “… ‘resident’ shall mean a person who is domiciled in the town as evidenced by an intent to maintain a principal dwelling place in the town in definitely and to return there if temporarily absent, coupled with an act or acts consistent with that intent.”

So, how does one establish “intent?” In a recent interview, Secretary of State Jim Condos said, “My staff refers to the law and tells the person that they need to determine for themselves whether they qualify under the legal standard.” What? Determine for themselves?

Will Senning, who serves under Condos as Director of Elections, was asked under oath, “when a voter registers, does that voter have to have a principle residence in the town at the moment that they register?” Senning’s answer: “Not necessarily.” Asked “why not?” His answer was, “Because they may be intending to make that place their principle residence in the near future.” Pressed further with the question, “How far out can that intent be?” Senning testified, “There’s no objective standard in terms of that time frame.”

This wildly lose interpretation of the residency requirement does not reflect the spirit or the language of the statue. In practice it means that there is no legal standard of residence for voting in Vermont. If individuals can determine for themselves that they qualify to vote here and can validate that determination simply by expressing an “intent,” which cannot be objectively challenged, what’s to stop anybody from anywhere from voting in our elections?

What allegedly happened in Victory is that the Town Clerk, an elected position, actively recruited these out of town friends to join the local voter rolls in order to help assure her own re-election.

The implications here are profound. According to Census data, there are over 40,000 second homes in Vermont, 14.6 percent of the total number of households. If these folks decide they don’t like their property tax bills – or love Vermont but don’t like its politics – they can register to vote here. All they have to do if questioned is tell election officials that they “intend” to make their second home their permanent residence at some point in the future. Whether they actually ever do or not is irrelevant.

In fact, what’s to stop someone from registering in Vermont to vote in elections they think are more important here, and then re-registering in their real home towns to vote in elections they deem more important there – just so long as you don’t vote in both places for the same election you are apparently not committing any crime. Or at least not one that can be proven.

There are two ways of looking at this: A) this is good, legal, pubic policy. Or, B) our Secretary of State’s office under Jim Condos is not only turning a blind eye to but actively facilitating vote fraud.

If A, let’s alert all those people from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc. who own ski chalets and lake cabins in our communities of their legal options for participating in Vermont elections. The more the merrier. After all, in little old Vermont where elections are often decided by a handful of votes, your absentee ballot can really make a difference.

If B, we need to put some teeth into our residency requirements for voting and make sure this kind of nonsense does not and cannot happen.

Jim Condos is fond of saying there is no illegal voting going on in Vermont. I guess it’s easy to think that if you allow that nothing is illegal.

– Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute. He lives in Stowe.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Bradford Towne September 1, 2017 at 9:23 pm

I am a little mystified. We allow college students to register to vote in Zvermont yet most are not legal residents of the state. I agree with Condos. Let property owners have local voting rights. As a second homeowner in a small town who gets very little services from the town including road maintenance I believe I should have an equal say in the town’s business. Let’s be fair John, town business is local and all property owners should be able to have a say in town business.


Joel Mumford September 2, 2017 at 2:43 pm

Yes, corruption even in a small VT town, who knew!! How Orwellian—cannot be any illegal voting here, we just make all unsavory actions legal in our interpretation of the statutes. Very noble, Mr. Condos.

I disagree that there is anything to be mystified about. Because VT allows a class of non-residents, college students, to register for and to vote is just plain wrong in my opinion. College students if they qualify, are certainly free to take up VT residency and then exercise their prerogative to vote. They can also get absentee ballots from their state of residency. If they are too lazy to exercise these options, that is their problem, but it should not be a problem for others to solve.

The issue of non-resident property owners getting “….very little services…” is the same argument made in the past for those same property owners advocating to be exempted from local taxes for schools which these families never used. That argument was long ago adjudicated against non-resident property owners. Yes, town business is local, and the legal residents of the town should be the ones to make the best decisions for that town.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

VT Left Wing Media Bias Unmasks Itself

July 24, 2020 By Rob Roper Dave Gram was a long time reporter for the Associated Press, is currently the host of what’s billed on WDEV as a...

Using Guns for Self Defense – 3 Recent Examples

July 24, 2020 By John McClaughry  The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal last week published eleven news stories about citizens using a firearm to stop a crime. Here are...

FERC ruling on solar subsidies could help Vermont ratepayers

July 21, 2020 By John McClaughry Last Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finalized its updates to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in what the majority...

The Moderate Left’s Stand for Free Speech

July 17, 2020 By David Flemming Harper’s Magazine, a long-running monthly magazine of literature, politics, culture, finance, and the arts, is hardly what you would call a ‘politically...

Trump’s Regulatory Bill of Rights

July 16, 2020 by John McClaughry “President Trump [last May] issued an executive order entitled  ‘Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.’ The executive order includes a regulatory bill...