Editor’s note: This commentary is by Patrick Cashman, a Marine originally from Barre who is currently a resident of Shelburne.
Mr. Steve Farnham provided a commentary regarding town meeting on Feb. 25 that I feel demands a response. I will readily concede that my particular interests are focused on the restriction of military voters’ suffrage imposed by the traditional method of town meeting, however I maintain that the failures of this method apply equally to any Vermonter who by physical ability or grim circumstance must exercise their right to vote via absentee ballot. While Mr. Farnham refers to “propaganda” by those who oppose the use of the traditional town meeting, it really just boils down to some simple facts and a desire for truly inclusive democracy.
To begin with, the full suffrage of all Vermont residents meeting legal requirements is granted by our state Constitution, not by individual towns, and it is not up to towns to deny or impede that suffrage. From the Vermont State Constitution Chapter 2, Section 42: “Every person of the full age of eighteen years who is a citizen of the United States, having resided in this State for the period established by the General Assembly and who is of a quiet and peaceable behavior, and will take the following oath or affirmation, shall be entitled to all the privileges of a voter of this state:…”
Additionally, contrary to common myth Vermonters in the military are still Vermonters, they do not lose their residency based solely on absence due to their service. – From Vermont Statutes, Title 17: Elections, Section 2122. Residence; special cases; checklist: “(a) A person shall not gain or lose a residence solely by reason of presence or absence while in the service of the state or the United States…”
I fully understand the allure of the traditional method of town meeting, even if for no other reason than it has “traditional” right in the name and most of us are drawn to it.
Unfortunately in those towns that continue to hold traditional meetings, Vermonters who must vote by absentee ballot are afforded only a diluted version of their full suffrage. – From the Vermont Secretary of State’s Citizens Guide to Town Meeting: “At a traditional town meeting you have to be present to vote-if you are sick or at work you miss out.”
Vermonters in the military are a population frequently forced to vote by absentee ballot due to their service requirements. As a result they are only able to have their voice heard on those issues properly warned and included in that ballot. All the additional activity such as amendments, unwarned resolutions, and other business that Mr. Farnham himself lauds as the most important part of town meeting is conducted out of their view and without their input. Yet the decisions made in that exclusive forum will affect their lives, chart the course for their towns, or lend the name of their own hometown to some resolution or another. Mr. Farnham takes a paternalistic view of this situation stating that military members are not informed enough about local issues and would surely not mind being denied the opportunity to weigh in on them, so therefore it is OK to do so. While I would heartily disagree with the idea that military members are uninformed, I have to disagree even more with the very idea that this is a decision Mr. Farnham gets to make. Vermonters in the military are Vermonters, entitled to all the privileges of a voter of this state, and whether or how they choose to vote on a school budget (or the latest trendy non-binding resolution) is their decision and no one else’s.
Additionally Mr. Farnham’s presumption that a floor meeting provides some singular and essential level of education is flawed. While it is frequently alleged by proponents that the use of a traditional town meeting leads to better educated and informed voters, that may or may not be true depending on the individual and the meeting. However true or not, it is also irrelevant as this argument confuses what is “nice to have” and what is obligatory. While I am all for informed voting fundamentally there is no requirement a legal voter be educated on an issue in order to vote on that issue. I would offer this is a good thing as requiring “education” would mean defining what we mean by education. Mr. Farnham appears to define it as physical presence at a floor meeting, but it could just as well be a matter of a literacy test (a la Jim Crow), or perhaps a formal certification such as a high school diploma or bachelor’s degree to vote? Or is the determination that a potential voter is sufficiently “educated” left up to the interpretation of a poll worker who may confuse a voter’s lack of agreement on a particular issue as a lack of sufficient and correctly oriented “education”? And is this really a standard we want individual towns to define? Fortunately we instead have a system in which all residents over 18 and meeting the legal requirements commonly agreed to and commonly applied have full suffrage without them having to conform to another’s interpretation of what a good voter is.
I fully understand the allure of the traditional method of town meeting, even if for no other reason than it has “traditional” right in the name and most of us are drawn to it. I also understand that making such a massive change to the Vermont political landscape makes some crinkle their noses and suck their teeth in distaste and will take time. However if you appreciate the idea of an inclusive democracy in which all voices are heard, please consider taking some small action to protect the rights of those who are not present to protect themselves. Move to adjourn the meeting following completion of items properly warned and included in the absentee ballots. If that is not possible please consider offering amendments to ensure all items introduced from the floor are accurately described through the addition of a clarifying statement such as: “By a simple majority of those residents afforded the opportunity to physically attend town meeting.”
Mr. Farnham maintains that traditional town meetings are “Participatory democracy at its finest” and in a way he is right. Some Vermonters are allowed to participate, many others are not. But that is hardly my definition of democracy.
Disclaimer IAW DODDir 1344.10: The views expressed here are wholly my own and do not represent policy or position of any Federal agency or body.
