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.
The House Government Operations Committee approved a bill Tuesday that imposes severe penalties for sharing Vermont’s voter checklist information with the federal government or other entities for cross-verification or voter registration purposes.
President Donald Trump decided to dissolve his commission on voter fraud Wednesday, citing refusal from states to cooperate with the commission.
Many of the states refusing to cooperate with President Donald Trump’s election commission aren’t in compliance with federal law on maintaining voter registration lists, according to government watchdog groups.
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.
“The ulterior motive here is, the plaintiffs believe that everyone should be able to vote, even if they are not eligible, are noncitizens or felons.”
According to state records on same-day voter registration, 212 Vermonters were among the 6,540 people who registered to vote in New Hampshire on Election Day using an out-of-state license.
The Heritage Foundation’s ever-growing voter fraud database now documents 1,088 proven instances of election fraud, including 949 cases that have resulted in criminal convictions, 48 that have ended in civil penalties, and 75 that have seen defendants enter diversion programs.
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.