Local Vermont Elections Affected by Fraudulent Votes

by Rob Roper

The vote fraud case in Victory, Vermont, concluded with eleven “voters” being removed from the town checklist. For the small Vermont community, this means a full 13 percent of registered voters were illegitimate, and these illegitimate votes were more than enough to alter the outcomes of elections.

What’s truly alarming about this case is that the root problem had more to do with election officials – either stubbornly ignorant or flat out corrupt — than with the non-resident voters. It’s hard to blame the out-of-towners who were told repeatedly, and defended by those in charge, that what they were doing was okay. It was the election officials who had a complete misunderstanding of the law. As Judge Thomas Devine stated in his decision, “This is not a situation where the Plaintiff contends that the BCA [Board of Civil Authority] made erroneous determinations of fact. Rather, this is a situation where the facts as found by the BCA do not support the legal conclusion of residency.”

The point at issue here is that the BCA contended that these second home owners were eligible to vote because they had an “intent” to establish a primary domicile in the district at some point in the future, owned property, and that was enough to give them status to vote. The BCA believed this despite the law, which clearly defines a resident as:

“a natural person who is domiciled [not will be] in the State as evidenced by an intent to maintain [not establish] a principal [not secondary] dwelling place in the State indefinitely and to return there when temporarily absent, coupled with an act or acts consistent with that intent.” Emphasis and bracketed comments added.

Judge Divine’s ruling in Victory clarifies the obvious, “…domiciled requires having residence ‘coupled with an intention of remaining indefinitely,’ and neither residency or intent alone is enough to establish it.” In other words, it is the job of local election officials to determine that a potential voter is A) currently domiciled in the district in which they would like to vote, and B) that they intend to maintain that residence as their primary domicile as evidenced by action. The Victory BCA did not do this.

So, what about other BCA’s around the state? Some big questions to ask now are how and why did the Victory BCA come by its erroneous interpretation of the law that allowed non-resident second homeowners to vote in local elections? Is this a common belief/interpretation among BCAs and election officials throughout the state? is this the standard upon which our entire statewide voter checklist has been built?

I will assert that the answer is yes.

Remember when Garrett Graff attempted to run for lieutenant governor after having lived in Washington D.C. for over a decade? To qualify for that ballot there is a four-year residency requirement, and, as VT Digger reported at the time, “While Graff has lived in Washington, D.C., for nearly a decade, he recently quit his job at Politico and moved to Burlington with his wife. He said he has remained a registered voter in the Green Mountain State … ‘If someone is able to vote for office, they should be able to run for office,’ said Graff.” (VT Digger, 1/27/16, emphasis added.)

Sound logic. But, as we know in accordance with Judge Divine’s ruling, Graff was not and never was “able to vote for office” in Vermont after he left our state and established a primary domicile in D.C.. Yet, despite these very public comments in a statewide debate, nobody batted an eye at the fact that Graff had been voting illegally in Vermont as a non-resident for over a decade. Not local election officials, not legislators, not the Secretary of State. And this was a guy running for the second highest statewide office we have! Why not? Because they all believed Graff was correct about his voting status.

The “future intent” or “intent to return” is the standard that has been applied – and applied wrongly — to Vermont’s voter checklist on a statewide level for at least a decade and for likely longer than that. This has allowed people who do not reside in our communities to influence the outcomes of or local elections. First, we need to find out how widespread this problem is. Is it the 13% level of Victory? It’s a small town, but not as hot a second home destination as many other Vermont communities.  And then we need to get to work cleaning up our voter lists and correcting this injustice?

Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

SHAZZAM February 19, 2018 at 10:23 pm

“a ‘natural person’ who is domiciled [not will be] in the State
What we got here, a new pronoun?


Eddie Cutler February 19, 2018 at 10:50 pm

I remember an article where a guy who lives in England votes here every 2 years. I think it as either in the papers at the time.


Willem Post February 20, 2018 at 2:51 pm

Bob Roper,

Please check with the DMV regarding renewing a driver’s license.

You get AUTOMATICALLY added to a voter list if you do NOTHING when applying for a license.

This is insanity on steroids.
What happened to local control? Local checking?


William Hays February 24, 2018 at 4:58 pm

Does VT require ‘proof of citizenship’ to obtain a driver’s license? I think not. Many states are the same, yet accept a driver’s license as proof when voting. Sum ting wong!


James Mitchell February 25, 2018 at 1:55 pm

In Bellows Falls May 2017 we had more votes cast by a show of hands 4 to be exact than where registered by the ballot clerks . A vote for a 2 million dollar budget passed by those 4 votes alone. It was fraud done by a union fire dept.

I got mad so I gathered signatures for a revote of the village budget . Only July 20, 2017 we voted again . 221 voters showed up and by an overwhelming vote 138 voted the budget slashed by 243K . The vote in May only 62 people showed up of which some that voted firemen to be exact did not even reside in Vermont rather New Hampshire is where the union man lives. We have a new non union fire dept now


Mark Shepard February 25, 2018 at 4:35 pm

Perhaps with the exception of hurricane Irene, all of Vermont’s crises have been the result of government enacting stupid ideas. But this is what you get when you have super long legislative sessions that essentially limits serving to unproductive people who are largely incapable of thinking. They just react, react and react. No thinking needed.

So Vermont has a childcare crisis, a housing crisis, a healthcare crisis, … and the solution is to expand the taxation crisis.


Mark Shepard February 25, 2018 at 4:37 pm

Meant to post the above comment on the childcare crises article, not here. So that is why it will not make a lot of sense here.


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...