This commentary is by Lachlan Francis of Westminster. He is chair of the Windham County Democratic Committee and a member of the Vermont State Democratic Committee.
This legislative session made one thing very clear: it is time for electronic voting in Montpelier. While this is nothing new, our esteemed legislators are far too comfortable casting votes that will never be recorded, denying their constituents the opportunity to be fully informed about how they are represented.
Take, for example, a few of the most high profile issues of this past legislative session. In January, we know from reporting that 18 Vermont legislators voted to overturn the 2024 election for Lieutenant Governor, yet the identity of those 18 is forever concealed because it was done via secret ballot.
That vote came just months after many Democratic and Progressive legislators were telling their constituents that “Democracy is on the line” in the 2024 elections — and yet, roughly one in five of them voted to overturn the election as a first order of business in 2025, despite a margin of six thousand votes, nearly 2% of the statewide electorate. We will never know who these 18 election deniers were.
More recently, after having spent months debating the education transformation bill — the singular policy debate of the year — the House of Representatives took the two most vital votes of the year without record.
First, to suspend the rules so that they could consider a conference committee bill that overstepped the procedural boundaries of such a bill, they held a “vote by division” — meaning supporters stood and were counted, then sat, and then opponents stood and were counted. None of which, of course, was written down.
Within seconds, a voice vote on the entire package was called, and it was deemed that the “ayes” had it, sealing the bill’s fate without a single recorded vote in the House. This prompted outcry from some members, and ultimately a roll call vote was held on the procedural issue of whether to send the bill to the governor for his signature.
Legislators who are embarrassed by that lack of transparency have already attempted to claim that the procedural roll call vote should be deemed the vote of record — it’s better than nothing, but it’s a certainty that some legislators voted one way on the rules suspension and adoption votes, then another on the procedural vote. For example, there were 113 “aye” votes to suspend the rules, but only 96 “aye” votes on the procedural motion.
What’s worse is that, in both of the instances above, multiple legislators have told me and others that it happened because they were not sure what they were voting on at the time that they voted. That is even more concerning, and more reason for an electronic voting system that would make the process faster and more transparent for legislators and citizens alike.
Nearly every other state utilizes electronic voting in their legislative assemblies, and Vermont has a bipartisan bill — introduced by Democrat Mike Mrowicki, D-Putney, and Republican Jim Harrison, R-Chittenden — that would mandate such a system in the Vermont House. Both chambers in Montpelier should adopt such a system before they further embarrass themselves.
