Attorney General report: 56 voters received wrong Bennington‑1 ballots, exceeding 23‑vote margin

Assistant Attorney General Leslie Waltz told the House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs that her office’s report found 56 registered voters in the Bennington‑1 House District were sent Bennington‑5 ballots and therefore “were unable to properly cast a vote” in the Bennington‑1 race.

The report — produced after four requests to the secretary of state and reviewed at a committee hearing — concluded the difference between the certified result and the number of affected voters matters because the certified margin of victory was 23 votes, smaller than the 56 potentially disenfranchised voters. The requests to the secretary of state asked, in various forms, for a revote or for remedies limited to the affected voters.

Nut graf: The attorney general’s report summarizes how a post‑2020 reapportionment and a data‑entry problem in the state voter checklist led to 56 voters being placed on the wrong district checklist. Requesters including the candidate Bruce Busa, a petition group labeled “Panel 45,” and two local boards of civil authority asked for remedies ranging from issuing correct ballots to a district‑wide revote. The report does not itself order a remedy; it documents the facts, the statutory framework and the options for the committee and the secretary of state to consider.

Waltz explained that the office received four distinct requests that triggered the report: a petition from candidate Bruce Busa (attachment A), a petition submitted under the label Panel 45 (attachment B) and near‑identical requests from the boards of civil authority for Stamford and Lewisborough (attachments C and D). She said the Panel 45 filing carried 57 listed signatures but that some signers had moved and the office concluded 56 voters were affected.

The report traces the underlying cause to the reapportionment that followed the 2020 census (Act 89), and to the practical difficulty clerks face when a single street line splits two districts. Waltz said the affected addresses were primarily on Barber Pond Road and South Stream Road, with six additional voters on Moonrise Drive. She told committee members the error arose during checklist updates in the Vermont Elections Management System (VIMS) and that clerks, boards of civil authority and E‑911 mapping coordinators ordinarily work together to assign voters correctly.

The transcript and attachments reported that a recount took place and followed the court procedures in Title 17. The recount was conducted on Nov. 18 and certified in an amended judgment dated Nov. 26; the recount narrowed the margin from 25 votes to 23 votes. Waltz said her office reviewed the recount procedures and found they were followed with integrity: ballots were transported under appointed custodians, counted according to statutory process, and the county clerk certified the amended master summary sheet used by the court.

Waltz summarized the office’s legal conclusion: "56 voters that were registered in Bennington 1 House District received the Bennington 5 House District ballot, and were unable to properly cast a vote in the race for Bennington 1 House District. The margin of victory here was 23 votes. So the number of registered voters who are not able to properly vote is greater than the margin of victory of 23 votes." She also noted the office did not investigate races beyond the Bennington‑1 House contest and that no appeal about how the recount was conducted had been filed as of the report date.

Requesters asked different remedies: some asked only that the 56 affected voters be sent the correct Bennington‑1 ballots or be allowed to cast the correct ballot (the boards of civil authority asked that only the affected voters receive ballots to avoid the cost of reopening elections for entire towns), while Bruce Busa’s filings included requests for a revote of the district. Waltz told the committee she could not say how many of the 56 had actually voted without information the secretary of state would supply and that the secretary of state’s office was expected to provide additional turnout data.

Committee members asked logistical questions the report did not answer, including whether a revote would use a “point in time” voter list or include people who moved into or out of the district after election day; Waltz said those are significant implementation questions and that she would defer to the secretary of state on specifics. She also described the role of VIMS and the statutory deadlines for printing and mailing ballots under the state’s universal vote‑by‑mail process.

The report’s attachments include the four filing requests, maps and the court’s amended judgment and town vote totals (attachments A through H). Waltz recommended the committee use the materials to consider next steps and offered to answer follow‑up questions by email.

Ending: The committee did not take formal action at the hearing. The attorney general’s report establishes the factual record and the committee and the secretary of state remain positioned to consider whether a limited cure for the affected addresses or a broader revote is warranted; legal challenges to recount procedure would proceed through the courts if filed.