Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contested Election Bennington topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs whether to seat certified Bennington lawmaker after mis‑mailed ballots
Summary
A legislative committee heard legal and election‑administration advice as it considers whether to recommend that the House seat the certified winner of the Bennington‑1 race or order another election after about 55 voters received incorrect ballots.
The House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs met Thursday, Jan. 30, to consider how to advise the full House on a contested Bennington‑1 legislative election after about 55 voters were mailed ballots for the wrong district.
The committee received legal and historical guidance from former Deputy Secretary of State Paul Gillis and from legislative counsel (Tucker/Dr. Anderson). Gillis said the committee’s most straightforward option was to “confirm the election as it happened on the day of election,” while counsel outlined statutes governing voter qualifications, checklists, recounts and the narrow set of circumstances in which state law requires a revote.
The matter before the committee is narrowly defined: recommend to the full House whether the currently seated representative should remain in the seat or whether another course of action—such as ordering a new election or another remedy—should be pursued. Gillis argued that reopening the result risks disenfranchising voters and that the “snapshot” of election day turnout cannot be reliably recreated. Tucker/Dr. Anderson explained that Vermont law treats most revotes and runoffs as new, separate elections and that the only automatic revote in Title 17 concerns a rejected municipal budget (17 V.S.A. §2680). She also reviewed the 5% recount threshold (17 V.S.A. §2601) and procedures for recount committees and checklist review (17 V.S.A. §§2141, 2122 and related provisions).
Committee members expressed sympathy for voters affected by the mis‑mailed ballots and concern about precedents. Some members favored seating the certified winner and moving to statutory fixes; others asked whether a limited revote (for affected voters or a town) could be defensible. Gillis and several members noted practical problems with partial revotes: small sample sizes could risk privacy or make vote totals nonrepresentative, and voter checklists and other conditions have changed since election day.
Members and staff reviewed historical examples and special committee reports from past contested legislative elections (noting 2017 and 2011 contested‑election special reports) and a Congressional Research Service memorandum and court cases cited in that literature (for example, McCloskey v. McIntyre was cited in the federal context). Counsel emphasized that federal precedents do not change Vermont statutory defaults and that the Legislature’s remedies are broad but constrained by the State Constitution and statute.
The committee also discussed non‑remedial steps: tighten statutory language, mandate additional training for town clerks, and improve checklist and absentee‑ballot procedures to prevent recurrence. Several members suggested working with the Secretary of State’s office and the Town Clerks Association on statutory or administrative fixes.
No vote or final recommendation was recorded in the hearing. Committee staff said they will prepare a special report for the committee to consider at a future meeting and that journalizing the committee’s remarks will help later review. The committee paused the discussion to resume work at a later date and to bring forward additional materials and clarifications from counsel.
Ending: The committee will continue deliberations next week after reviewing a draft special report and additional legal guidance; no formal action to seat or unseat the member was taken at Thursday’s session.
