Editor’s note: This commentary is by Garrett M. Graff, a writer and a former magazine editor who was deputy national press secretary on former Gov. Howard Dean’s presidential run in 2004.
[T]hree weeks ago Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, introduced a bill in the Senate that would rewrite the rules of “residency” that determine whether candidates are eligible to run for the highest public offices in Vermont. The bill might as well have my name on it. If I had not returned home to Vermont last fall and considered a run for lieutenant governor in 2016, the bill would never have been proposed. For many reasons, however, what the bill actually argues represents bad public policy.
The underlying dispute and confusion stems from the residency requirements outlined in the Vermont State Constitution for various elected offices — including four years of residency for governor and lieutenant governor and two years for the state Legislature. Secretary of State Jim Condos has taken that term literally, asserting that the standard is “You have to live here,” and interpreting it to mean “uninterrupted physical presence” within the boundaries of Vermont. That standard, though, redefines how Vermont has determined “residency” for the past 200 years — and, unfortunately, it’s a new standard that will make life difficult for future generations of state leaders.
There’s a good reason that in the entire history of debates of “residency” in Vermont, the state courts and attorneys general have never relied solely on one’s physical presence in the state: Such a standard threatens to prevent public-minded Vermonters from pursuing career and volunteer opportunities — or even attending graduate school.
Most importantly, though, at a time when the state badly needs to encourage young people to remain in the state — or to encourage native Vermonters to return here after college or other opportunities out of state — these efforts to establish a new standard are only going to make it harder to attract future generations to politics and elected office. In today’s interconnected world, in fact, it’s increasingly likely that Vermonters, particularly young Vermonters, will find their future electoral prospects altered by such a narrow-minded interpretation of the state’s residency requirement.
What about a longtime St. Albans schoolteacher who takes off the spring semester of an odd-numbered year to work with orphans in Nicaragua for six months, gets inspired, and decides to run for the Legislature the following year? Or a Bennington doctor who takes a leave of absence to go work with Doctors Without Borders to help displaced Syrian refugees or fight Ebola in Africa? Or a Norwich University grad and National Guard officer who deploys to Afghanistan for a year? Or a native-born Vermonter who sold all her furniture in September and moved to Iowa to work for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign — should she, if so inspired, really be prohibited from returning next month and running for the state Legislature in November in her hometown?
Presumably, all of the above are people Vermonters would want to encourage to get involved in helping run the state, but each would be shut out of the legislative races this fall under the new proposed definition.
This standard also threatens mid-career professionals as well. Take a businesswoman who worked in Vermont for 15 years after college, spent four terms in the Legislature, and then had the chance to go to London for a year to work at her company’s headquarters — but who had the unfortunate luck to move back to the state on Nov. 16, 2016. Is it really Jim Condos’ belief that she should be prohibited from running for lieutenant governor in 2020, given that she would not have lived here “consecutively” for four years before that election?
Consider an established state senator who is his or her party’s unsuccessful gubernatorial nominee and then spends six months in Washington lobbying for, say, Bill McKibben’s 350.org before returning home to the state. Can that established lawmaker not run again for lieutenant governor or governor three years later — or even try to rejoin the Legislature until at least two full years have passed?
The very people we want to encourage to be involved in our state government are often people who will have opportunities to live, learn or work beyond Vermont’s borders — sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity. State leaders often say that they want to encourage young people to come back, but this new bill will discourage Vermont’s most ambitious, most innovative, and most engaged young people from doing anything outside of the state — no matter how brief or enriching — if they have any thoughts of trying someday to put their talents to work in legislative or statewide office.
Yes, I’ve had the opportunity to have a successful career in Washington, D.C., over the last decade, but it is precisely the experiences I’ve had outside the state and the knowledge of the wider world that I have gained during that time that made me think I might have ideas that would help me make a difference here in that state I love and help pave the way for other young Vermonters to see a future here for them.
Brandon Riker, one of the declared candidates for lieutenant governor who lives in Marlboro and graduated from Twin Valley High School, has in the last four years attended the London School of Economics for his master’s degree and worked on U.S. Senate campaigns in Montana and Alaska. In each case, his absences were temporary and he intended to return to Vermont afterwards. All three of those experiences also make him a stronger candidate for office today — but under the proposed “uninterrupted presence” standard, his electoral clock should have reset each time he left to pursue one of them.
That doesn’t make sense.
This is precisely why in Vermont law “residency” has always been balanced between “physical presence” and “intent to return.” Over the last 200 years, the state Supreme Court and the attorney general’s office have maintained that it is OK to leave the state as long as you are clear — officially, at least — that you are coming back. “Residency” doesn’t expire the moment you leave the state’s borders; instead, to lose your “residency,” you must take active steps to relinquish it and establish a residence somewhere else — and the best and only way to measure that is by relying on documents like one’s voter registration and driver’s license. Thus, if you are only “temporarily absent,” but have “acts consistent with an intent to return,” you can maintain your residency. After all, you can have multiple houses — or a job that requires you to be out of state for weeks or months at a time — but you are only allowed one driver’s license and one voting registration, which makes such official measures an excellent way to determine where someone considers “home.”
That standard makes sense. The point of a residency requirement is to ensure that someone running for office has ties to and knowledge of the state of Vermont. I support residency requirements. I don’t want some flatlander like Jack McMullen arriving to buy a Senate seat any more than the next Vermonter. But I am no flatlander and have the credentials to prove it. Born at Central Vermont Hospital and reared in Montpelier, I am a product of the city’s great public schools — and our family ties go back centuries. One of my ancestors was even a Green Mountain Boy at Fort Ticonderoga with Ethan Allen. No matter where I’ve been in the world, I’ve always considered Vermont my permanent home. I’ve been a registered voter in Montpelier since I turned 18, and I proudly held onto my Vermont driver’s license through my years of working in the nation’s capital.
Yes, I’ve had the opportunity to have a successful career in Washington, D.C., over the last decade, but it is precisely the experiences I’ve had outside the state and the knowledge of the wider world that I have gained during that time that made me think I might have ideas that would help me make a difference here in that state I love and help pave the way for other young Vermonters to see a future here for them.
I support Jeanette White’s efforts to clarify the issue of the state’s residency requirements. But to do so, Sen. White and the Legislature should codify a definition of “residency” that reflects the statutory and legal history in Vermont that clearly relies on more than evidence of physical presence.
Besides, trying to create a new standard is simply unnecessary. The Legislature doesn’t need to protect Vermonters from making decisions at the ballot box that they’re more than capable of making themselves. Ultimately, the residency requirement is only about getting on the ballot in the first place. It’s up to the voters to decide whether someone is “Vermont enough” to represent them — and that’s the way it should be, because here’s the thing: Vermonters are pretty good at spotting other Vermonters.
In my case, by considering running for office here, I have never assumed anything would be handed to me on a silver platter. I was merely asking for the chance to spend time traveling the state, making my case to the people of Vermont, and offering policy ideas about where I’d like to see the state go in the years ahead. And if they don’t like what I have to say or don’t think I’d represent Vermont well, they can vote for one of my opponents. In elections, it’s the voters who are the ultimate deciders. And Vermonters have shown themselves to be a very discerning crew. When a Massachusetts millionaire moved here with the express purpose of running for the U.S. Senate, he was easily exposed and soundly beaten by a 79-year-old Tunbridge farmer.
Jim Condos, any legislator, or any Vermonter is welcome to argue in the press or on the campaign trail that I don’t deserve to be an elected official in Vermont — now, two years from now, four years from now, or anytime down the road. But they can’t tell me that I’m not a Vermonter. Neither should the Legislature be rushing to create new standards that are only going to discourage a future generation of aspiring leaders from entering public service when it forces them to choose between their political dreams and exciting career opportunities. Ironically, to help ensure Vermont’s young people see a path for themselves in charting the state’s future, we have to give them the flexibility to leave.
