Select an issue concerning voting rights or practices and briefly tell us your thoughts about it.
In the days when the grounds of Bennington shook and the waters of Lake Champlain stirred from attempted Redcoat advances in this place now known as Vermont, people were agitated by the idea of “taxation without representation.” This notion fueled our commitment to American independence, and has since sculpted our national and state identities as democratic institutions.
However, taxation without representation continues to permeate Vermont’s current voting practices. Any wage-earning, non-U.S. citizen living in Vermont has part of their pay extracted via income tax. Yet, while many of these residents help secure the salaries of those in government, they do not have the opportunity to decide their government. Arguing that these residents are ineligible to cast a ballot contradicts our own historic rhetoric of civic freedom. If non-U.S. citizens are taxed, they should have direct representation in local elections. Recently, in the case Ferry v. City of Montpelier, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of non-U.S. citizens voting in local elections, as the Constitution does not explicitly disallow them from doing so.
Vermont is historic in her step toward this progressive enfranchisement, containing three diverse cities that have recently granted voting to non-U.S. citizens. The change has positively impacted countless people who have previously been barred from exercising their voice through voting. Now, legal immigrants can help make decisions about issues such as the roads that they drive on and the schools that their children attend. Especially considering the long wait times for citizenship, Vermont can encourage non-U.S. citizens’ integration into American society by way of voting.
Nonetheless, Governor Phil Scott has vetoed bills that support non-U.S. citizen voting, saying, “this highly variable town-by-town approach to municipal election policy creates separate and unequal classes of legal residents potentially eligible to vote on local voting issues.” This argument is not to be discounted. If all towns determine their non-U.S. citizen voting stance individually, Vermont loses the opportunity to set a statewide precedent. Permitting non-U.S. citizens voting in only some towns is not equitable. For instance, living in one of the towns that provides immigrants with the right to vote may not be affordable for them. Generally, creating an atmosphere in which some immigrants’ rights are more extensive than others normalizes subjectivity regarding towns’ inclusiveness toward immigrants.
Vermont’s approach to non-U.S. citizen voting should be unified. Certainly, Winooski, Montpelier, and Burlington have paved the way for a new era of immigrant-friendly election policies. Unlike these cities, however, the hundreds of remaining municipalities should make this change collectively. Introducing a bill that comprises the legality of non-U.S. citizen voting across Vermont would not only ensure fairness across town lines, but strengthen us as an example to other states. Just as the colonies had to come together to achieve their right to select a government of, by, and for the people, Vermont towns must collaborate to combat the longstanding evil of taxation without representation, now in the context of accepting international residents.