Non-Citizen Voting in Burlington (real estate, renters, mobile home)

[NYLIER]

I just read an article that Councilman Adam Roof wrote a resolution to allow non-citizens to vote in city elections. It passed 10-2 and now has to be approved by the State Legislators.

I feel only American citizens should be able to vote in any election in the US, but how does everyone else feel about this.

[harry chickpea]

When non-citizens are resident, they pay taxes - whether directly as homeowners or through the filter of a landlord. Allowing votes in local matters speaks to one of the primary cries and causes of the American revolution; "No taxation without representation!"

A disenfranchised population is a population of serfs. True citizenship is not automatic in many countries, even if you were born there. The U.S. tried to get away from that with birthright citizenship, so that the entire population (of free, white, landowning males) could vote. Eventually it became more inclusive and true to the moral precept.

A population that is well and truly represented is less likely to foment unrest, civil disobedience, and even revolt.

[arctichomesteader]

It's in fact unconstitutional as the VT Constitution sets being a U.S. citizen as a condition to be able to vote:

"§ 42. [VOTER'S QUALIFICATIONS AND OATH] 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:" https://legislature.vermont.gov/stat...te-of-vermont/

This will no doubt end up in the courts if the legislature approves any of it. I think the governor rightly pointed out the can of worms this opens in cases like property owners in towns they're not residents of. If a foreign citizen can vote in that election, why can't the property owner who will suffer more if a decision is made unfavorable to them via town meeting day or such?

[harry chickpea]

There is ambiguity, as evidenced here:

§ 66. [CITIZENSHIP]

Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all rights of a natural born subject of this State, except those privileges, the right to which is herein elsewhere determined, and except also that such person shall not be capable of being elected Treasurer, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years' residence, nor be eligible to the office of Governor or Lieutenant-Governor until the person shall have resided in this State as required by section 23 of this Constitution.

One can proffer an oath to the state without being a U.S. citizen. As a matter of fact, that was required when the state was an independent republic.

Further, city and state governments are independent in structure. Strong mayor/weak mayor/council are all allowed, indicating that in purely local matters the state government is silent. The hook would be state funding for various projects contingent upon---. There will undoubtedly be a court ruling. (waves Hi to Duke, who sits on the bench)

[ansible90]

So then we would have to keep 2 sets of voter rolls? Have a separate city ballot for non-citizens? Have some way to prevent a non-citizen from filling out and scanning a state or federal ballot?

This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. A non-citizen is a guest here.

[ben young]

Originally Posted by ansible90

So then we would have to keep 2 sets of voter rolls? Have a separate city ballot for non-citizens? Have some way to prevent a non-citizen from filling out and scanning a state or federal ballot?

This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. A non-citizen is a guest here.

Its the Progressive, Democrat way. Open Borders, One world government .When someone sneaks into the US and buys property they should be allowed to vote .
See two wrongs do make a right.

[Biker53]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

When non-citizens are resident, they pay taxes - whether directly as homeowners or through the filter of a landlord. Allowing votes in local matters speaks to one of the primary cries and causes of the American revolution; "No taxation without representation!"

A disenfranchised population is a population of serfs. True citizenship is not automatic in many countries, even if you were born there. The U.S. tried to get away from that with birthright citizenship, so that the entire population (of free, white, landowning males) could vote. Eventually it became more inclusive and true to the moral precept.

A population that is well and truly represented is less likely to foment unrest, civil disobedience, and even revolt.

So are you saying that all the non-resident 2nd home owners in VT should be able to vote in local elections given they're paying taxes and should have representation too? Or are you saying non-resident 2nd home owners in VT shouldn't pay property taxes given they don't have representation?

[NYLIER]

Originally Posted by Biker53

So are you saying that all the non-resident 2nd home owners in VT should be able to vote in local elections given they're paying taxes and should have representation too? Or are you saying non-resident 2nd home owners in VT shouldn't pay property taxes given they don't have representation?

I did not know that non-residents, who pay more taxes than residents, don't have the right to vote in local elections. That doesn't seem right. Non-citizens have more rights than American citizens?!

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

There is ambiguity, as evidenced here:

§ 66. [CITIZENSHIP]

Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all rights of a natural born subject of this State, except those privileges, the right to which is herein elsewhere determined, and except also that such person shall not be capable of being elected Treasurer, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years' residence, nor be eligible to the office of Governor or Lieutenant-Governor until the person shall have resided in this State as required by section 23 of this Constitution.

One can proffer an oath to the state without being a U.S. citizen. As a matter of fact, that was required when the state was an independent republic.

Further, city and state governments are independent in structure. Strong mayor/weak mayor/council are all allowed, indicating that in purely local matters the state government is silent. The hook would be state funding for various projects contingent upon---. There will undoubtedly be a court ruling. (waves Hi to Duke, who sits on the bench)

That particular section is about state citizenship not U.S. citizenship. The qualifications to vote I quoted before explicitly require voters to be U.S. citizens (this clearly came about later in VT's history when it was a state obviously), and the state has no role in defining who is a U.S. citizen. Without amending that section of the state Constitution, non-citizens have no right to vote here.

[NYLIER]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

When non-citizens are resident, they pay taxes - whether directly as homeowners or through the filter of a landlord. Allowing votes in local matters speaks to one of the primary cries and causes of the American revolution; "No taxation without representation!"

A disenfranchised population is a population of serfs. True citizenship is not automatic in many countries, even if you were born there. The U.S. tried to get away from that with birthright citizenship, so that the entire population (of free, white, landowning males) could vote. Eventually it became more inclusive and true to the moral precept.

A population that is well and truly represented is less likely to foment unrest, civil disobedience, and even revolt.

Harry, a few years ago, the homeowner next to me put a mobile home on his property, lived there and rented the main residence. So two separate families were able to vote in the local elections.

I have heard before that renters indirectly pay property taxes, but I don't agree. You pay property taxes when your name is on the deed of the home and you get a property tax bill. Some people rent so they don't have to have the burden of paying taxes. If someone isn't a permanent property owner, they shouldn't be allowed to vote to raise taxes on my property. If it is so important to a person to be included in the community, then save your money and purchase a home. Unlike other States, it is possible to purchase an inexpensive home. The neighbor that was renting that home decided to move a short time after Town Meeting Day. She went and voted to raise the education taxes when she wasn't even going to be living there. What was more appalling is that I watched her child for years and didn't charge her a penny, but she didn't have a problem voting to raise my taxes.

I think this is going to open up a can of worms....give non-citizens legal voting rights in local elections and next push to give them the right to vote in the general election. (Not that they aren't voting illegally anyway)