 So it is April 2nd, this is Senate government operations and we are going to, we were scheduled to meet at one o'clock, I am right, right. Okay, so we're looking at the Montpelier Charter, and we have John Odom with us, and I think Dan Richardson is going to join us. I don't see him yet, but so I guess until we'll hear from him when he comes, did you hear back from him Gail? I guess I'm not sure, maybe she doesn't hear me. The button is supposed to give me an unmute and it didn't, so. Okay. Yes, we did hear back from him when I sent the invitation I haven't heard back from him today but my understanding is that he will be joining us. Okay. Okay, so Tucker, if you want to, we had a little bit on this before but if you want to give us any details remind us where we are because it's been some time since we looked at this issue and then we'll go to John and Dan. Sure, the high level overview is that the Montpelier Charter would establish a system of city voting for non-citizen residents of the city. This would permit for city issues and city candidates, non-citizens to vote on a ballot prepared by the city clerk according to procedures adopted by the city clerk. And the city clerk would also be obligated to keep a separate checklist for these city voters. One issue that I highlighted late in the discussion last time as I was walking you through it was that I noticed that inadvertently the authorizing section in A1 provided city voters to the non-citizen legal residents of the city. So I prepared an amendment based on the request of the committee to add a clause that states expressly that you can vote in city elections if you are a United States citizen, or a non-citizen legal resident of the city. And that would create an interesting conundrum, wouldn't it? It would have created an interesting conundrum and it was just one of those situations where the definition of legal resident of the city was narrowly focused on ensuring that it was non-citizens who were permanent or indefinite residents of the United States and didn't go as far as making sure that United States citizens were also included. Good. Thank you. And you gave us that amendment. Yes, and it is posted on the committee's information page for today. Have you seen that, John? You're muted. Ah, rookie mistake. I haven't looked at it yet. I just, I understand that it's there. Okay. All right. So I just have one question and this might be answered in there. Can non-citizen residents currently run for an office? Or because you have to be a voter in order to run for the office. So this would buy, not stating it directly, but just allow them to also run for an office in a city position. Yes, the right to vote and the right to hold office under the Vermont Constitution and our statutes are unified. So by granting the right to vote in the city elections, non-citizens would also be permitted to run for city offices. That's what I thought. So do we have any questions or anything right now for John or Tucker? I have a sort of a random one kind of I was thinking about this last night, you know, what else you do with social kind of life we have, you know, that we think about these things at night, but so somebody comes in to register to vote John to city, city hall or wherever. They're going to have to say hi, I want to register to vote and I'm a non-citizen. I mean, how are you going to know that obviously it's just up to them to say so. I mean, have you thought about that at all? It's going to be the same system when somebody indicates that they are a citizen on the form. They're giving us an oath on a form to which perjury attaches theoretically. So it's basically the same just the mirror as any old form, you know, you say. Are they going to say on a form or something? Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be a pain. I'm just trying to visualize how this would happen. So the form doesn't say I'm a non-citizen, right? Well, it says I'm a citizen. So we would either, and I think that the language is gives a lot of deference to me, I would either use the same form and just if they leave that blank reassure, you know, with them that that was left blank intentionally or I might just create a whole new form based on it. I'll try to forget that off. Probably I would just use the same form, honestly, and just verify with them that they intended to leave that blank and then those go in a special place. The form now has a thing that says I'm a citizen. Yeah. I haven't seen the form in a while. I've been registered to vote lately. So I don't remember. So yeah, a couple of ways I might do that. Okay. Thank you. Hi. I'm sorry I was a bit late. John, would it be possible for you to get from US, whichever department in the United States government would give it to you, a list of all the green card residents living in Montpelier so you'd have a list so you could just work from that. You know, I'm not sure that might be very difficult to get, but again, I would be concerned about creating new bars and new types of verification. We don't, for example, you know, compare when somebody comes into to register to vote we don't match them against the grand list. We don't match them against any other kind of verifying list. So, I mean, I could but again, I think one of the underlying principles under this is we're not adding any additional burdens, because that's a slippery slope I mean if you if you get that situation then, you know you could step back and say the non citizens we're making them go through this extra hurdle. So, you know what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander why aren't we making other voters go through the same hurdle and so I think to avoid that kind of argument. It's been very much. We're treating them just like other voters in the city. But other voters are checked I mean other voters you have to put your driver's license that's checked. I mean there are things that check with when you register to vote. I mean it's, you know, just. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. Yes, if they obviously they don't have a driver's license or a social security number technically, we are still allowed to allow people to vote. But if they mail it in, they have to provide some proof of residence. But yeah, I mean under the current system. If they don't get me at the proper ID, I still let them vote that's that's the rule from on high. It's all about the oath on that form. But you know I would hear a driver's license if it's available. When I register to vote, when I register to vote these days I don't have to show proof of residency do I. You write it down you you write down your driver's license number or the last four of your social security. I guess I should look at the form and look for the registration form in a while. But ID is not required. ID is required in two places you either have to have a driver's driver's license. You don't have to show it. You just write it down. Show it. Driver's license writing down my driver's license number or my social security number doesn't sound that I live on Elm Street in Montpelier. No, no, it's true but that's how you register I'm sorry I'm confusing going to vote versus registering to vote. When you register to vote, you fill out the form and it asks you for your address. And it asks you for your town of residence, both your mailing address and your town of residence and your, either the last four digits of your social security number or your driver's license. And then you take the oath and say that everything I've said here is true. Exactly what John is saying he would do for a non resident he would just leave off the, the line that says are you a US citizen. Yeah, and they wouldn't check that but they would do everything else that a red voter who is registering to vote. And I guess all what I was meaning was that you don't have to prove it in a sense like, you know, you've got you write it down you're taking my word for it that I live on Elm Street in Montpelier. Right. You signed that. Oh, right. Right, I've taken an oath that says it's true. And, yeah. And that's because this stuff goes way back. Right. And it hasn't been changed over the years, simply because there hasn't been a reason to. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it kind of idea. I always tell folks, you know, in terms of the access versus fraud balancing act. If you start seeing that balance start to shift. If we start finding evidence of fraud and this would include at the city level, then obviously we would need to return to the conversation about restrictions but just making that oath on that form and we verify to the extent possible is hasn't been a problem so far, but just not to say it can't be a problem someday. But at this point it's not to hasn't been an issue. What I'd like to do is switch to Dan Richardson, who, when you, you came in last year, or last biennium and spoke to us and gave us some history about the, when we started requiring citizenship to vote and, and just gave Dan some background information on this topic and would like you to, to do the same thing for us today, if you would, we're, I don't know if you know all the committee members. I, I'm Jeanette white from Wyndham. I'm Anthony Washington County. I call more Rotland County. Allison Clarkson Windsor County. Kasia Ron Chittenden County. Good afternoon everyone. Thank you. I'd be more than happy to, to, to walk through. And I did. You know, I think one of the, the good parts of this process last time around was, you know, Tucker's predecessor Betsy and Rask did a really excellent job of outlining a lot of the constitutional issues that are involved here. And we had a very good dialogue back and forth. This was mainly in the house, but I'll be happy to walk you through some of the historic precedent. The thing to keep in mind is that when Vermont was initially formed, the idea of citizenship wasn't necessarily codified as a concept, quite the same way as we would perceive it today. And the original Vermont Constitution did not have the citizenship element to it. It did add to that. I believe in 1828, the citizenship requirement. And it is in the Constitution under section 42 that it requires citizenship as an element of voting. But the distinction that was in place. Even at that time, as far as we can consider as far as we can see from the case law is that voting and the Freeman status was a state level voting qualification, and that the subdivisions of the state the municipal corporations were always seen as different and that really. So one of the cases where that really is illustrated is in, let me just call it up, it's in state versus March, which is from 1789. And it discusses the Vermont Constitution and whether an election at the town level had the same requirements as a state election because of course town meetings at that point in time were primarily conducted by voice vote. And so there was a challenge to whether it needed, whether the election of a select board member could be done by voice vote or whether it could be done by written ballot as the Constitution seemed to require for elections. And Chief Justice Chipman for the, for the court wrote that it was not. He wrote that the framers of the Constitution were forming a plan for the general government of the state. They do not appear to have had an eye to the internal regulation of lesser corporations, which are municipalities. In this section they point out the mode of electing officers to the general government and in this view, they can find it to elections by the people and General Assembly. And this means the collective body of the people who have a right to vote in such elections and is used synonymous to Freeman. The word election, when the choice is to be by the people or Freeman is in every part of the Constitution used in the same appropriate sense, as in the seventh section in order that the Freeman of the state may enjoy the benefit elections, as equally may be for the people in each town within the state may hold elections there in for what purpose for the choice of choosing representatives in the 10th section, etc. I'm therefore clearly of the opinion that the 31st section of the Constitution does not extend to the choice of town officers and is to be laid fully out of the case under your consideration. So what the court is saying in that respect is that the legislature can set the terms for local elections and in that case it was a voice vote. But it also deals with the idea of citizenship and we have an 1863 case after the Vermont Constitution had required expressly that citizenship be a component of qualification so there's no question that the Vermont Constitution required for qualification that that US citizenship be a component of it yet in 1863 we have the Woodcock case in which the an Irish national who was living and owning property here in Vermont was elected I believe the delinquent town that the delinquent tax collector for for the town. He was a resident alien. And he was challenged by whether whether he could hold office. And in that time, the court upheld his right to vote and hold office, because the requirements for this. I believe at that time it was a school district but it was was that the person be 21 years of age reside in the town and own property. And because he met those qualifications he was eligible to vote and hold office. So, as of 1863, you know we have fairly good historic records from the court cases that one non citizens were allowed to vote in these local elections and hold office. And that did not offend the same constitutional structures that are in place now currently that require electors on the state level to be voted into office. And that changed subsequent and really in the latter 19th century and early 20th century you had a shift away from these requirements of voting that were really more property based as opposed to residents or citizen citizenship based and we moved away from that so for you know we don't require people to own property to vote in elections or pay a poll tax, but we do require them to be citizens, but that's really by statute and that's a statutory change on the local level and what we've evolved in Vermont is a system where by by statute. Any local election carry the same voter qualifications as as a statewide or state level office or federal election qualifications and that's, you know, age of 18 or older US citizenship, Vermont residency, and taking the free freeman's oath as a requirement. And so, historically, that's, you know, I want to be clear that that's not. That's not anything that was necessarily the historical trend it's something that did develop. It's been around for a long time so certainly in any of our lifetimes, this these have been the rules. And, you know, it did represent a shift away from other requirements for how we determine voter eligibility, such as owning property. And the right now, it's a single test. And so what this proposition with this charter change does do is it does create a different classification of voter would be the non citizen voter. So what Betsy Ann, and I don't want to speak for her because obviously she's not here but what both Peter teach out myself and and I believe Ms Rask attorney Rask came to as a conclusion was, you know, that it was not a violation of the Vermont Constitution to allow local non citizen voting. And that's also consistent to with the difference that courts have long recognized between state level and local level. And I'll just use by analogy, taxpayer standing. So, if I'm upset with the federal government or the state government in the way they're spending some program. Say I'm not happy with a weather balloon program that the atmospheric Institute is running and I like that my tax money is going to that. I can't sue the federal government for that I couldn't sue the state government for that, simply because my tax money is going to that. But if I'm a local resident of a municipality, and I don't like, you know, I feel that something, some local tax money or government program is being run against either a constitutional principle. For example, I've been involved in litigation where town was sued for giving money to do the historic preservation of a church and opponents sought to challenge that as a violation of the First Amendment and the separation of church state. They had standing to bring that case because of local taxpayer standing that the court recognizes, it's different on the local level, we're much more closely connected on the local level than we are in the state, or federal level. It's a long tradition of treating local government and municipalities as as different. And, and so what the Constitution mirrors in this particular case is that the legislature sets the rules, and they define what a voter is for a local election. And what they have done, you know, we've done the shift where we've gone from a property based sort of a stakeholder based type of voting status to one that's much more sort of unified as based on citizenship and residency. I'm more than happy to answer any questions I've laid this out in a couple of memos and I would certainly recommend to the committee if they really want to dig into this there's some really excellent law review articles that I cite in my in my memo. A couple congressional representative Jamie Raskin actually wrote was this was an area of his scholarship when he was a law professor and has a couple of really wonderful articles on what this means historically. And, and across the sort of colonies that became states and how that idea citizenship evolved over time. Thanks. Any question as Senator Plena. Excuse me at the end of what you were saying Dan, you ended by saying that the legislature sets the rules for local elections. If you were to go out there would you say you would then say that local communities can change those rules, or can. It sounds like you're saying it's up to the legislature to define who can vote when you say that it is. And that's why we're, that's essentially why this is here. I don't think you could create something where a local community could could on its own do this where because we're Dylan's rule state has to come from on high and we're on high. Okay, I got it. We are on high. Yes. We're high on ourselves. If you look at under the charter the section 2069 it says, and they are to be under the patronage or control of the state but the general assembly shall provide by general laws for organizations of all corporations here after to be created. All general laws passed pursuant to the section may be altered from time to time or repealed. So, we, in this case we're not doing a general law, we're doing a specific charter change but we could even make change the general law, if we wanted to to say that in local elections, all non citizen residents could vote we could we could do that. You, you could and, and that's, and that's really sort of I think there's a really two excellent points embedded in that comment, Senator right which is. First of all, there's a constant there was a constitutional question of whether this could be done. And I, I feel that the scholarship that we've, we've put together has shown that it, this is outside of constitutional mandate so it's really a policy decision by the legislature. So the ordinance that can be changed you couldn't change it for statewide elections, but you could change it for local. And the other point here is is really sort of a larger and you deal with this every day as this committee. You know, there is a theory that local governments are laboratories. You know we use this on a federal level to talk about states as laboratories within the federal experiment but it's really true on a local level you have a wide array of charters for towns and cities and villages. And they offer different, different options. And, you know, one of the think the proposals that's embedded in here is that Montpelier is a relatively small community to try this experiment out. And, and it is, it is an experiment because we've met we haven't done this in Vermont. Other communities throughout the United States have done it. Maryland and I believe Chicago have have either done it or in the process of it. And so, you know, the way we have our government set up and the legislature controlling the local municipalities is that does give that you the opportunity to say well. If we give one community the opportunity to try this and if it's successful, we can adopt it more broadly. And if it's unsuccessful, then we can quickly fix it and it's, it's like a contained plague. So, the, the two objections. Oh, first of all, does anybody have any questions for Dan before I. So the two objections that I've heard most expressed and if you, you might want to comment on them are if non citizens are allowed to vote then what is the meaning of citizenship. The second one is if we allow non citizen residents to vote. Why would we not then allow non residents to also vote in local elections those are the two concerns that I've heard expressed the most about this. Well, I don't think allowing citizen non citizens to vote at a local level. And, and to be clear, this is not a slippery slope this isn't something where, if, if this got really popular, we'd suddenly be able to, you know, people would suddenly be able to to move it up to the state or federal constitutional controls that would require constitutional amendments and we know how difficult it is to change the Vermont Constitution, let alone the federal one. So it really is a cap this is a limited place and citizenship. You know it's a it's an interesting question because it's an evolving concept and I would suggest that citizenship on the national level, which is what we're really talking about here. That would continue to have the same meaning that those today and local elections are different. We're talking about local communities and how they spend their money on paving streets. You know we don't. I happen to be now on the city of Montpelier City Council. I can tell you we do not have a foreign policy. We do not have, you know, most of our decisions are really about neighbor to neighbor. I get calls from people saying, there are some big potholes in front of my, my street. Those are the common calls that I get and those are the, that's the business of local government. And so I don't think it would really impact that. You know, the question of citizenship is a really tricky one and I'll use an example my one of my law partners, his wife is a Japanese citizen. And she has kept her Japanese citizenship, in part because her family lives there, and giving up that citizenship would would be significant and and particularly right now. She hasn't seen her family in over two years because of the pandemic. And she's going this summer. Now my partner can't go because right now in Japan, only citizens are allowed entry into the country. So she had given up her Japanese citizenship. She'd be prevented from seeing her parents from taking her kids to see their grandparents and aunts and uncles and family members. And so there's a number of personal reasons why people don't convert citizenship from one country to another that really don't have anything to do with how they live or vote or reside. Now, this is a this is a woman who happens to live in Montpelier has lived here for more than 10 years. She works here. She pays property taxes she owns a house. She lives here she sends her kids to the local schools. You know she is a member of the community in all respects shapes and forms that we consider membership in the in the local Montpelier community and and really residency in a local community is not as much of a function of citizenship. You know, because it is something where right now under statute if you're a US citizen and you move to Montpelier, you can become a Montpelier voter the minute you step foot off of the bus or car and arrive in town, and under the rules that you've declared your your residency. And so, you know the idea and given the way society works now, people move around. You know it's rare for somebody to live in one place or time for an extended period, and that may be driven by family by jobs, by all kinds of different situations and so we have a very malleable and permeable sense of what means being a member of your local community and So, you know, giving, I don't think it changes the concept of citizenship, but it does give voice to members of the community and what on the local level. You know, and I think that's ultimately a very conservative argument for for this proposition, which is that, you know what we're talking about our participants and members of a community, having a voice in that community, and directing where they want their money spent or not spent. So as your second question, you know, it's certainly, as I said before it's a legislature's prerogative, how they choose to define voting on a local level. But I would suggest that it's a very different proposition when you talk about non non residents who just happen to own property because now you're making ownership, a component of voting which we've, we've moved away from. And you also would have the result where somebody would have effectively to two residences. They'd have their primary residence, and they'd have the local voting rights in the community where they happen to own property, which is I think a very different philosophical conception and I, I've, I should say I've actually litigated voting, voting roll cases in various communities and we had a town where there were people that own property. And they lived in they lived in Connecticut, and it was pretty clear that's their that was where they were employed that's their primary residence where they spent most of their time, but they registered to vote up in this northeast kingdom town. Because they, because it was in some ways it was a was a wonderful thing because they, it was such a small community that they're bringing their family up to vote made them a huge voting block, and they were power brokers in this town. And so, you know, we had to remove them from the voting rolls and it went to litigation, because they did not establish the residency up here and while they own property they really were, you know there's a difference in a distinction where somebody chooses to make their residence and defining voting rights on a local level based on residency, as opposed to just mere ownership. And the fact of the matter was, if these people want to go on the voting rolls, they can in the future and that was actually part of their argument is someday we do plan to make this our primary residence, which the court said, that's great, that's wonderful but someday it is not, and therefore, you're not allowed on the voting rolls, and then they were removed. And that was defined because they, while they own they weren't participants in the community in the same level as a as a primary resident and and one one primary residency. That was that was helpful I mean, I think the same thing but I just wanted to hear you, you say it. Sure. That was done. I just wanted to echo that non citizen voting is distinct from non resident voting. I mean they're there. They're connected in as much as they're all about voting, but that means, you know non resident voting is just as related to the 18 year old limit, or the oath I mean yes they're all under voting but they are very, very distinct issues that I think it would make the legislature to take up separately from each other, the same way you would take up any other separate things. And as far as the citizenship thing goes, I do think there's a sort of implicit statement that comes from the Montpelier community that is to implicitly informally consider these folks who we want to bring into our voting process to be citizens of the community. And I don't think there's any contradiction there any more than, you know I can be a citizen of the US without being a citizen of North Dakota. You know those things aren't quite that linear. And again we're talking informally here but I think that's, that's the concept that the, that the Montpelier ads want. You know, Senator Clarkson. Dan isn't there a national. I mean, there is, I feel like there is a law that says you can only vote in one place. I mean you're not allowed to vote. You need to vote where your primary residence is isn't that a national law. There are either state or federal elections. But if you think about that that law doesn't extend to local communities. And that's really about the qualification for voters for for voting, which is, you know, you can't vote twice in a national election you couldn't say vote for president in Connecticut, and then again in Vermont in the same election. That's against the law. Just as you couldn't vote for governor from Sharon, and from Burlington. You can't vote twice in that same same election, but these are non these are separate elections so there's no, there's no law saying you can't vote in Montpelier in their local, you know, town city election, and then go vote in Boston Massachusetts in their local town election because they're not there they're disconnected and unrelated elections. So the primary resident issue is a tax issue. I mean because we think of you can only vote where you're where your primary resident in your primary residency so are you saying that's a tax overlay on voting policy. That is not residency primary residency is is a bit more complicated than that in the Supreme Court the Vermont Supreme Court has been a bit reluctant to to define it it has two components there's an objective component and there's a subjective component. The subjective component is basically the person the voter saying this is my primary residency I have no others. I live here and it's something they can, as I said that doesn't have we used to have historically used to be times you had to live in Vermont for so long before you could make that declaration a year or six months. That's been removed, so that the minute you move to the state or to the community, you can declare yourself a resident on a subjective basis. The objective component basically talks about some indicia that backs that up like I can't stand stand in North Dakota and say, I'm a Vermont resident never having touched the state, but mentally I'm in Vermont all the time. It won't work, you have to have objective standards and and within that there are really two types of tests that we would. I think are evolving in the court system one is, how do you create that residency, and the other is how you maintain it and I think it's important to think about that in separate ways. With it, you would have to take affirmative steps, and oftentimes it's creating an address, you know, if you are. If you if you are voting in Montpelier you have to have an address for your voter registration. Now if you're homeless, and you're voting, you know, you're going to have to show other indicia that that you are not only intending to be this your primary residents, but also, you know what have you done what steps have you taken. And, and to go back I think their conversation before I joined in. These are all done under the penalty of perjury. So, you know they can be tested and challenged, and people can be removed from voting roles. If the objective indicia are not satisfactory, and you know so things like tax, is this your primary residents for tax purposes. Those are generally indicia that are used. So once you form that residence once you sign that lease. Once you, you move to the state. Effectively those all become elements but there's not one the Supreme Court hasn't said, this is the one test for residency on the objective standard they've always said it's a it's a very fact specific. And when they've looked at it from the other side from people whether when when they leave a community. That's led to a couple of interesting cases and that's actually a bit harder. It's harder to lose your primary residency than I would say it is to gain it. In that you have people that leave the state. For example, my, my spouse is living in California this year in a postgraduate program. She hasn't lost her Vermont residency because she still owns our house. She still pays her taxes here. She still, you know, she has an intent to return her absence is temporary. It's a defined temporary absence and even if, even if this graduate program was sort of endless. The fact that she continues to see Vermont as her primary residents means that she continues to be a Vermont residents for purposes of voting. Obviously if you enroll and say, my primary residence is somewhere else. That's evidence that you no longer have that subjective intent to make that your primary residents. And then if you've taken steps such as moving out of state that that couples with that. But that's a slightly different test, but but they're all very facts specific. And so I think it's very, very, very important in Disha to to determine and and in part the way the statutes is set up is if somebody makes that a verment under oath and is challenged, the BCA hears that challenge and does a fact specific hearing in which persons can bring evidence forward why this person is in a resident or bring evidence forward in support of that residency. Yes, that's interesting and helpful. Tucker, did you have. Yeah, I just it tickled my mind when you were all we're talking about whether or not non residents could vote. I think that there are a few municipalities with specific municipal boards where non residents can vote. And those are the municipal enterprises water and sewer and electric utility districts for some of them and I just looked up the charter for Northfield. The commissioners of those boards are elected by rate payers, not by voters but specifically by those that are paying the rates for the utility they're receiving. And I don't know if this is the practice in any of those communities, but a non resident who qualifies as a rate payer on that system could vote for those elected offices. But not for the select board, because presumably there are great payers for select people. I don't think too many select boards get paid from their constituents in the terms of rate, it would be nice. They do get paid. Well they get paid but they get paid out of the town budget not out from rate payers. Correct. Yes, I guess if you know that that that is interesting thanks Tucker, that's any other questions or comments or concerns or it just passed on the house floor I think yesterday right the Wanooski Charter so this is coming at us again. More towns may be interested in extending this right and after we've done it. Once it we could extend it to, as Dan said I mean we have it in our authority to extend it to every locale. By changing the general statutes. But on the other hand it's I want us not to forget the fact that we didn't bring this to the floor last year because we didn't have votes to pass it. Right. So it's not it's not easy as it sounds. I'm wondering, I'm not saying you guys would know this necessarily but I'm wondering what kind of arguments were made against it on the floor of the house. And if you paid attention to the floor debate or not. No but we get the nice thing about our life now is you can go and watch it. Oh, thank you. I'd rather have somebody recap it for me if they wanted to. I don't know if anybody from Montpelier watched the debate on the floor for either Montpelier or Wanooski and if you had any, what the concerns were. I did not only offer this and I did not watch the floor debate but I have, you know, in discussions, you know, I think the concept of citizenship is often the thorn. You know, and I'll be honest. I first dealt with this when I was representing working with some city counselors in Burlington when this issue came up as a proposal. Eight or more years ago. And I was hostile to it at first because I think there's a certain presumption of, well, this is a function of citizenship and we divide, you know, the people that have a voice in government between the citizens and non citizens. And, you know, it wasn't until I dove deeper into this concept and started to parse it apart. And what I came to is I'm a Meribatch counselor for the Scouts. And when you're in Scouts when you're working through your ego badge you have three citizenship badges you have to earn citizenship in the world citizenship in the nation and citizenship in the community. And I think that's a really helpful framework. Because I think we mix the concept of citizenship in the nation with citizenship in the community, and they are different. That is a helpful way of looking at it. I have to tell you that when I first heard this, I felt the same way I said, no way was a no way. But I've learned, I've learned more by, as Senator Sears said, by listening. Senator Plena, you had a. I was just going to say that the argument, the argument we heard from people in our caucus last year was that voting was a privilege of citizenship and it's something that you don't give away lately you don't don't. If people want to vote they should become citizens it's privileged to vote and it should only be retained by citizens that's that's the argument people are making in the caucus. So can Dan, can you remind me. I believe that when, when the US Constitution started required citizenship as a, it was around the same time that we started having a lot of Irish immigrants. Am I right about that, when there was kind of a the first the movement against immigrants. It was part of, you know, if you think about, I don't think the founders would have had the same concept of citizenship that we articulate now. Because a lot of them weren't, you know, they weren't natural born citizens they weren't. You know, they created the idea of this country and so, you know, you only have that sort of first wave of immigrants, and, and they were primarily from from Ireland that you start to. I think we'll start to codify the difference between those who've been here and those who have just come. And of course, you have a lot of the pushes to change the requirements for voting coming during different periods of time you know the Chinese immigration in the latter 19th century out west. Early 20th century, particularly around 441 with the fear about Germans and Japanese that were, were driving the sort of pro citizen pushes in, in the legislation and these are are in part reflective of it it's not the only reason I think there's sensible reasons why we create citizenship and create these distinctions and in part that's what that's what informs people the concern and I would echo the caucuses sentiment voting at the franchise or voting is a serious thing. And, you know, the, when you think of expanding it, you should do so thoughtfully. That's what certainly led me along this path to say, you know, to come from a skeptic to someone who believes that this is a good thing and a good policy, you know, because of the different standards that are employed here. Oh, John. Sorry. Yeah, I just want to add into that and follow up with the comments, Senator Polina said, although I do tend to bristle at the idea of voting as a privilege personally I think it's a basic expectation, rather than something granted from on high which privilege applies. But let's start from the, you know, let's, let's, you know, but assume that it is. I think it's absolutely right. Voting is a privilege for citizens of the country, they have that privilege. Voting is a privilege for citizens of the state, they have that privilege. What the community of Montpelier is saying is that they want to extend that privilege in that context to people they consider, we consider citizens of our community. So we're not speaking to the privilege of citizenry to the state, or this or the US we're talking about the privilege of citizenry to Montpelier. And so I think it's a completely consistent approach. Yeah, yeah. Dan was it 1828 of the citizenship was became a requirement is that what I wrote down correctly was required to as an element of voting. Yes, at least in the Vermont. US citizenship was added to the Vermont Constitution as a voting requirement in 1828. And when was it added nationally, just before that. I believe so although I don't have that information in front of me so I does parallel with the potato famine as I recall I mean with the huge first exit exodus out of Ireland. Right. And I just to go to john's and the privilege. What's a right and what's a privilege and it's an interesting balance here because one. That's a policy and philosophical difference, I think as we think of it something as a right or a privilege and how much prejudice and we they the human gut wiring I mean it's so bizarre that we're so wired for, for the plant for we they it's just always amazes me how much prejudice plays into our, our laws never ceases to amaze me. Senator Clarkson, I'd suggest going back to some of the research and memos that Betsy and Dan and others produced about the timeline of voting in the United States and federal elections and the reason that it's fairly complicated to track from at least the time that the Vermont Constitution incorporated citizenship as a requirement is that it went state by state until federal law was amended, requiring citizenship, and the perhaps the last state changed in the 70s or 80s. And then federal law was amended, I think in the 90s, you should go back and look at the timeline of events because it's from what I recall it's fairly recent 1880 80s and 90s. It's 1920s, and it took 6070 years to complete 20th century is what I was talking about. Well, it took 100 years or more for this slow roll out to take place. Wow. Amazing. And that's actually still reflected in federal law I know one question that came up is, if we allow this will it cause problems with federal law and, you know, so so non citizens who vote in local elections. Would that impinge upon their ability to seek citizenship or would they be in violation of federal law and 18 USC section 611, which is the relevant statute actually allows for this type of of voting and says that it is not a violation of federal law for a non citizen to vote in a local election, where the either state or the state legislature or the local ordinance allows for such. You know, have we lost our chair somewhere didn't we. Yes, she just disappeared. Yes, she's just vanished off the zoom. She got sucked back into history. You want to just go see want to go see if she's out in the hallway. Yeah, I'm going to go check and see if she's gone to a probes to get us more money for something. Mr. Vice chair master sure. I just want to say that also, that's fine, Senator Clarkson's question but we're going to wrap this up in just a minute or two because we have to move on to another topic at two o'clock. You are so good. I guess my favor is to Gail and Tucker if we could refresh all those documents and put them currently on the page on our page people who are wanting to do that, but we can send people to those documents that are current which without them having to go back two years or a year. Yeah, was in 1999. 2019 we discussed this last I think. Right, we can refresh it and have everything on our web page now that would be great. Yeah I was going to make the same request actually appreciate. Great minds. And you're in the square next to me on my computer. I know. Well okay. Well I'm sure we'll spend some more time talking about this another time but I think we should move on. Thank you john and thank you Dan for joining us and all your expertise and knowledge that's really really helpful. I just want to remind us that this was not an easy thing to do back in 2019 or whenever it was we brought it up. It wasn't to talk about privilege and citizenship you should have been in the caucus meetings we had you would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall there believe me. And I speak to john on a point of personal privilege, it is always a joy to live in this small state where I just spent the previous hour with your wife in a in the women's caucus. And then to come into this. It's just, it's great you know I was like, Oh, I've got the whole family now I just need the boys. That's right. Well you can invite, you know them to to testify to their full of wisdom. Oh, I'm sure. Thank you guys for being here appreciate it. All right. Thank you very much senators. Thank you. Always a pleasure. Thanks. Thanks.