296 A.3d 749
Vt.2023Background
- Montpelier voters approved a city-charter amendment (authorized by the Legislature in 2021) permitting noncitizens who are "legal residents" to register and vote in Montpelier municipal elections, with a separate city voter checklist created by statute.
- Chapter II, § 42 of the Vermont Constitution (the "freeman/voter" provision) requires U.S. citizenship for those entitled to the "privileges of a voter of this state."
- Plaintiffs (including two Montpelier registered voters, other Vermont voters, the Vermont Republican Party, and the RNC) sued for a declaratory judgment and injunction, alleging the charter amendment violates § 42.
- The trial court concluded two Montpelier plaintiffs had standing at the pleadings stage but dismissed on the merits, holding § 42 does not apply to municipal elections.
- On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed: it held the two Montpelier plaintiffs adequately pleaded standing at the pleading stage, and, as a matter of law, § 42 does not apply to municipal elections, so the charter amendment is constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring facial § 42 challenge | Plaintiffs (two Montpelier voters) say the charter facially changes voter qualifications under § 42 and that their votes will be diluted/affected, giving a particularized injury. | City argued plaintiffs lacked a particularized injury and therefore lacked standing. | Court: Two Montpelier plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded injury in fact at pleading stage because the law on its face changes § 42 voter qualifications and they are voters in the affected pool. |
| Whether Chapter II, § 42 applies to municipal elections | § 42's text and oath apply to any "voter of this state"; local elections now have statewide impacts, so § 42 should govern municipal voting eligibility. | State/City: historical precedent distinguishes "freemen" (statewide voters) from municipal voters; § 42 addresses statewide elections and does not constrain municipal voter qualifications. | Court: § 42 does not apply to municipal elections as a matter of law; longstanding precedents (Woodcock, Marsh, and successors) draw a categorical distinction between statewide and local elections. |
| Whether changed modern "extra-municipal" impacts require overruling precedent | Plaintiffs: changes in municipal functions and extra-municipal effects make older cases "outmoded," so § 42 should now cover municipal elections. | State/City: even if municipal roles changed, constitutional structure and stare decisis counsel refusing to overrule established distinctions; facial challenge burden is heavy. | Court: Declined to overrule precedent; changes do not erase the constitutionally rooted distinction between statewide and municipal governance, and plaintiffs brought a facial (not as-applied) challenge, so precedent stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodcock v. Bolster, 35 Vt. 632 (Vt. 1863) (holding constitutional "freeman" qualifications do not control municipal voting/officeholding)
- Town of Bennington v. Park, 50 Vt. 178 (Vt. 1877) (Legislature may prescribe distinct qualifications for municipal voters)
- Rowell v. Horton, 58 Vt. 1 (Vt. 1886) (Chapter II provisions target state officers and statewide governance, not municipal officers)
- Martin v. Fullam, 90 Vt. 163 (Vt. 1916) (distinguishing freemen/statewide voting rights from municipal voter qualifications)
- Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. State, 166 Vt. 337 (Vt. 1997) (Vermont standing test: injury, causation, redressability)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (facial-challenge standard: challenger must show no set of circumstances in which statute would be valid)
- Trudell v. State, 193 Vt. 515 (Vt. 2013) (the right to vote includes the right to cast votes effectively)