 Good morning. It's Wednesday, February 10th, 2021, and this is House Government Operations. We're going to do introductions of 3 bills, H177, H127, and H154. So Representative Kitzmiller is with us to introduce H177, which is an amendment to the Charter of the City of Montpelier. Good morning, Warren. Good morning, Vice Chair and members of the committee. I have several old friends still on this committee and several new people that I have known for a long time, and at least a couple that I haven't yet met. But it's good to be with you all. So H177 is a relatively short bill that deals with one very specific subject. It's a bill that would allow non-citizen residents of the city of Montpelier to vote in city elections on city issues. They would have to be legal residents of the United States, either with a green card or indefinite but long term thing, but they have to be a legal resident of the town. And they would be allowed to vote in city elections on any city specific issue. They would not be allowed to vote for any federal office, any state or county office, or even a city issue that was shared with another town, such as school board, which we share with Roxbury, and they would not be allowed to vote for justice of the peace. I'm not entirely sure why justice of the peace is excluded, but I expect it's because they also serve as the board of civil authority and have to count and certify ballots and elections. But they could vote for, as for instance, mayor or city council, or any other elected and non-appointed office. And it's a way for them to feel even more a part of the community in which they live. One of you who have been around heard this a couple of years ago. This, this was passed by the city in November of 2018. And I suspect it was in the spring of 2019 that we last looked at this and I don't know why we didn't get all the way through with it. But I know we passed it out of GovOps and I believe it passed the House. But then it must have gotten caught up in the Senate and end of the year stuff. And the city of Montpelier passed it pretty overwhelmingly. I don't actually have the numbers right to hand anymore. Perhaps Tucker does. But I know that it was not close. It was an overwhelming yes vote from the city of Montpelier. And we think it's very fair. Some of you may recall the testimony of the woman who had lived in Montpelier for a very long time, 30 years or so. She loves being in Montpelier. She feels very much a part of this community. But she retains her Norwegian citizenship and she said, you know, there's just something about that that I can't give up. She said I'm Norwegian and she proud to be Norwegian. And if only the US allowed dual citizenship, like Norway does, she could have been both. She just so much wanted to be able to be part of the voting of Montpelier. And I was very touched by by her testimony and I've carried that with me for a long time. That's that is really all there is a the city would have to maintain a separate checklist that had just those city issues on which people who fell under this law could vote and that they wouldn't get a ballot that had any issue on which they could not vote. So there's a there's a certain additional burden put on the city clerk to maintain that separate checklist for these people. And we're not even entirely sure how many people these people are. My own guess is it's probably under 100. If it were 50 or 60 I wouldn't be at all surprised. But it's comprised almost entirely of people who have been in the community for a longer period of time. I think it's. Yeah, how has a question. Okay, good morning, how. Good morning. I'm sorry representative Colston, my other bow tie guy. Representative Kessler good to see you again. So, so thanks for bringing this forward. We're going through the same process and when you ski and and and what a common pushback that I get, and I even I surmise this might have been taking place in the Senate is the constitutionality of the issue. How do you respond to that that this is unconstitutional. I don't believe that it is. I suspect it may well take a court to decide that. But I believe that it is I know that it is used around the country with great success in cities that are much larger than ours. I think it's used in several cities out in Oregon and I'm trying to remember the name of the moderately large Tacoma part. Yeah, that's right it was Tacoma park I knew it was a two word city, and they've been using it successfully for a number of years now. And I guess if it were truly unconstitutional at least under the federal Constitution, we would have known about that by now, whether it's unconstitutional under the Vermont Constitution, I don't think so. I'd be interested in Tucker's opinion as to the probability of that. But it may well get challenged. That's fine challenges happen and that's one way you officially determine whether things are okay or whether they're not. Tucker do you want to chime in on that and Rob I see your hand up and then you can ask your question after Tucker chimes in with each of you. Representative Coulson and representative kits Miller. I'm highly likely that this is constitutional, and there is a wealth of Supreme Court decisions in Vermont that state that the legislature has plenary authority to decide quality qualifications for voters in local elections. In the last biennium, Betsy and Rask prepared a very thorough report on the constitutionality of this particular charter provision and any similar charter provision that would allow non citizen voting in the United States. As the committee continues its work, I will send Betsy and report along it would be happy to answer any questions you have about the constitutionality of these provisions. But it is the opinion of our office that this is constitutional, and you can move forward safely and securely. Thank you. Good morning, Mr chair good morning Warren. Good morning representative. I have a couple questions are my good man what is around the functionality of being able to do it this way. I would require the city clerk to have a separate what voter checklist. And I know that there's been some concerns around that and the privacy issue for one. How would you address that, or how should that be addressed. Well, I would assume that. The person walks up to the ladies who are manning that the voting tables. This person would give give the folks at the table their name, and they would be found on a checklist. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was something like a master checklist that had a little star or a little symbol beside that person's name that would identify them as a non citizen resident. And they were therefore automatically be given the ballot that had only the city issues in it. That's that checklist would identify that person as non resident. I have a follow up question. Sorry, go ahead, Warren. I'm sorry. That's okay. Go for it. Well my follow up question would be is and so how, how would those folks established their, their non resident but you said that they have to be here legally. How, how do you go through and establish that. Well, I think, I think that all. Those who are not citizens have federal identification they have a green card, most likely, or some other official document that shows they are here legally for some indefinite period of time. I don't, I don't think proving that there are non citizen will be hard at all. Another thought on the privacy issue is there, there is nothing in this law that would force a person to register for this scheme. If someone was so concerned about their privacy that they didn't want any chance of someone being able to identify them on this non citizen checklist, they're not required to register to vote under this. So they could avoid it that they could avoid it that way. And just to share fact that they're going to have to take a separate ballot from anybody else, wouldn't that be kind of a red flag. I don't think so. I mean they don't spend very much time at the table with the people who are ready, who are handing out the ballots and checking the name on the list. I think there's going to be much likelihood that there would be people hovering over them and looking over their shoulder to see what ballot they got any more than when we vote in a primary we get Democrat Republican progressive ballots and we're allowed to fill out our choice of those, but not the other two, and nobody's watching over our shoulders. But they pretty much know that you're a Democrat and I'm a Republican and so. You have to come over from the dark side I'm impressed. Thank you Warren. To offer some clarification on what is contained in the charter section 1502 would require the city clerk to maintain a separate voter checklist for non citizens. Access to the voter checklist is restricted by general law that applies to all checklists in the state whether they are state or local. But when this charter provision initially came up before the committee, that issue about the confidentiality of voter checklist was also brought up and the committee had a committee bill to correct those issues with voter checklist confidentiality for everyone in the state. To tackle the other issue about the ballots, the Charter Amendment here before you is the version of the charter proposal passed out of your committee. And again one of the issues that you highlighted in the proposal as it came out of the city was what representative kits Miller was bringing up about when people go to vote, and there are different ballots for different people. The way that that was addressed is that in section 1503 the city clerk is required for any election. After this passes to maintain separate ballots for city elections and for school district federal state special district whatever ballots. After the table, everyone in the city is going to get a city ballot. Some voters will not get the additional ballots that cover federal state and other special districts. And the discussion in the past was that there was not very much practically that could be done to protect someone. When they go to the table from having someone spy from the side to see whether they're getting the full complement of ballots or just the city ballot. Thank you, Tucker. Are you done Robert. I am. Thank you, Mr chair. Nice job member thank you. All right. I'm Peter and then Samantha. Just to go back a step on the constitutional issue I was reminded and I think any of you who listened to the NC SL redistricting that for instance challenging challenges to a districting plan, as long as the plan is essentially upheld by or under the authority of the state Constitution. And that holding is in quotes independent and sufficient to defend the district thing. There's no challenge from a federal court or based on the federal Constitution this is the same sort of thing. As long as our Constitution says it's okay. And the Vermont court says it's okay, solely and sufficiently under the Vermont Constitution there is no challenge beyond that. That's already been held by the federal courts they don't get involved. If it's strictly based on Vermont law held by Vermont court. Thanks. Thank you very much. I had would just like to clarify one more time with Mr Anderson that the Vermont court and the Vermont Constitution do find that this supports that that is constitutional. And then also, can we go over one time one more time who this would cover so it would cover someone who is a resident in this data Vermont that holds a form of a legal resident. Can you just say it one more time real fancy because Mr Anthony is waving at me. Well, I would describe this person as a legal resident of the United States, who legally resides in Vermont, probably owns a house pays taxes certainly or some other federal or state identification that shows they are a legal resident and is of a proper age to be allowed to vote so it doesn't apply to 12 year olds or 14 year olds. Only adults. And that's about as much definition as I think they would need to have. Tucker, do you want to explain a little further. Sure. So I'll, I'll start with your second question and jump off of what representative kits Miller brought up. This would be for legal residents of the United States that have some sort of permanent or indefinite basis for their legal residency in the United States, and that is a definition that was chosen and applied by the city in these charter proposals. Other, all other voter qualifications apply. So that would require that they are a resident of the city of Montpelier that they are 18 years of age or older, and that they take the voters oath. Those are the qualifications that are set in general law, absent the requirement that they be a United States citizen. To answer your first question. It is the opinion of our office that it is constitutional for the General Assembly to set the qualifications for voting in local elections. There is no Supreme Court case that is specific to voting rights for non citizens in local elections, but there are a wealth of decisions that point to the General Assembly's control over qualifications in local elections. So the decisions say this is within your power. This isn't within your authority. So there are no decisions that say this is unconstitutional. So we say it is highly likely that this is constitutional and is the opinion of our office that you can move forward. And just for historical perspective remote actually encouraged in its early years, non citizens to vote as a way for them to become citizens. Samantha you have another question. Yes I do thank you very much and thank you for that recap. I was wondering if there were any other towns in the state of Vermont that currently have this in place I heard representative Colson say that they're working on it but are there any other towns in the state of Vermont that currently do this. Currently there are no municipalities in Vermont that allow non citizens to vote in local elections. You have one proposal before you from the city of Montpelier. There is another proposal that has been approved by the voters for the city of when you ski. I am not aware of any other municipalities that are proposing similar provisions. There is a tangent proposal that has come from the town of Brattleboro, which would suspend a different qualification for office for voting in local elections and that is the town of Brattleboro is proposing to allow youth voting and local elections. And I have heard of several other towns that are watching this with great interest. I think if this is approved and goes through, we will see more towns doing it fairly quickly. At least that's the rumor that's been out there for several years. I know you have a question. So I live in a town where there's one location for voting in multiple districts and you check in with your town clerk and they choose the ballot that they give you at that point. I'm wondering why it's not going to be done in that manner and why they're going to be separated out from a confidentiality standpoint it feels to me like it would make more sense to hand someone a different ballot as opposed to handing some people a bunch of ballots and some people one ballot so I'm just curious why the decision was made to do it the way that it is being done. I have to leave that one to Tucker. So one of the issues that did come up with separating out the ballots was that you couldn't give, for example, a different. ballot to identify different ballots if you're only handing out a single one to someone who can vote in all of the elections and someone who can only vote in the city election. And you can't give the non citizen voter a ballot that will allow them to vote on the federal state or special district elections. So the solution that was proposed was to simply have a city ballot, and then any other ballots that may be required for the particular election day. It seems interesting like I said I live in a town where you have to decide you know you go to the one polling place and they have to figure out are you an eight one resident or an eight three residents and hand someone two different ballots that could be like it just seems like a more confidential way to do it and there is precedent for doing it in that manner where you do just separate out which ballot someone gets so I was just curious. And then I think Samantha and then I think we'll wrap this up and move on to Rob's chart change for the town of Barry. So go ahead Samantha. Thank you I was hoping just to get so it was voted that the city of Montpelier was in support of this and do you know what their vote was. I don't recall the actual vote because the vote was a couple of years ago, and I don't have the little packet of information, someone in the committee may have the packet of information with them that has the actual vote. But I can tell you there was overwhelmingly in favor. I might my memory very nearly two in favor. It was quite widely supported I remember that. Thank you. So, just so people understand what we're doing this morning is introducing bills. It's likely we will take up all these bills in much more detail. As we go on in the session. I know with respect to the Montpelier charter change we took a lot of testimony in the last biennium I anticipate that we will do something similar with respect to that. So this will not be our only opportunity to discuss this. This charter change and I want to thank representative Kits Miller for participating and having an engaging conversation on this important charter change. Thank you Mr vice chair was a pleasure to be back in gov ops for a few minutes and I'm only disappointed that Tucker seems to have lost his very handsome handlebar mustache. He didn't see him a few months ago or missing out. He had a beautiful Western. That was huge. Anyway, good to see you all and representative is it. Do you pronounce it by off ski. You were the two that I have not yet met in person at all and I look forward to saying hi to you in person one of these times so thank you Mr vice chair and thank you committee. I'll be seeing you again. Bye bye. Thank you.