The point at issue here is that the BCA contended that these second-home owners were eligible to vote because they had an “intent” to establish a primary domicile in the district at some point in the future, owned property, and that was enough to give them status to vote. The BCA believed this despite the law.
A ruling by a Vermont Superior Court judge has led to the removal of 13 percent of a small Northeast Kingdom town’s electorate from the voter checklist, a win for plaintiffs who argued that part-time residents are not allowed to vote in Vermont elections.
How many other out-of-state part-time property owners, how many town clerks, how many Boards of Civil Authority have received this misguided, illegal advice from our secretary of state?
Here they have admitted that they don’t live in Vermont — they won’t live in Vermont until they retire. They are second-home owners, but the BCA in Victory has apparently deemed that enough to remain on the voter rolls. This is crazy.
Mr. Roper asserts our “wildly loose” interpretation of the residency requirement “does not reflect the spirit or the language of the statute.” I could not disagree more.
They were voting by absentee ballot in Vermont, deciding who would represent in public offices people who actually live here. That’s vote fraud, right? Wrong! At least according to our Secretary of State’s office.
A Connecticut family listed among the defendants in an ongoing voter fraud lawsuit has admitted voting in Vermont elections, according to public court documents. Family members said they got approval to do so from the Vermont Secretary of State’s office.
Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos is responding to accusations that he disparaged Victory residents and tainted an ongoing judicial proceeding in the town, saying his comments have been misunderstood.
Controversial comments Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos made about a voter fraud lawsuit in the Northeast Kingdom aren’t sitting well with one of the attorneys in the case.