Board for Registration of Voters

Regular Meeting

Burlington, VT · June 3, 2025

Minutes

BURLINGTON BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF VOTERS CITY HALL, 149 CHURCH STREET, 1ST FLOOR OR REMOTELY VIA ZOOM. MINUTES OF MEETING June 3, 2025 1. Call Meeting to Order 1. Call Meeting to Order Meeting called to order by Chair Grace Grundhauser at 6:00pm Present: Alison Harte, Grace Grundhauser, Michelle Lefkowitz, Karen Rowell, Colleen Montgomery, Lesley Gendron, Alex Demoly, Lauren Ebersol, Annie Schneider Absent: Mike McGarghan, Jeanne Keller, Youth Member Will Cunningham Also Present: Sarah Montgomery, Assistant City Clerk 2. Agenda 2. Agenda Colleen Montgomery made a motion to adopt the agenda. Seconded by Michelle Lefkowitz. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Meeting Length 3. Meeting Length The meeting length was set to one hour. 4. Adopt Minutes 4. Adopt Minutes Alison Harte made a motion to adopt the minutes. Coleen Montgomery seconded. Passed unanimously. 5. Public Forum 5. Public Forum No members of the public were present. 6. Clerk's Report 6. Clerk's Report Sarah Montgomery reported that there are currently 29,124 registered voters in Burlington. Out of those, 5,035 are challenged. In May: 140 new voter registrations were processed, 86 voters were removed from the checklist, and 97 voters were transferred out of Burlington into other Vermont towns. Sarah noted that the larger number of purges reflects responses to challenge letters and also a high volume of out-of-state notifications. Sarah Montgomery reported that the new election management system is now active. The state hasn't made all the anticipated functionality live yet, but all the data has been successfully transferred, and the voter registration is working well. The state is continuing to solicit feedback from clerks and make updates as necessary. Sarah will ensure that all members receive information to activate their new accounts and will share the voter portal link (vote.vermont.gov). Sarah Montgomery reported that four residents applied for the four seats that were open for applications on the board. Appointments are expected to take place at the 6/16 City Council meeting. Colleen Montgomery asked if this is the usual level of interest that is received. Sarah answered that sometimes there are more applicants than available seats - it seems to depend on how much advertising the board does for the vacancies. Grace Grundhauser asked if the agenda packet for the 6/16 City Council meeting has been posted yet. Sarah Montgomery answered no, but the appointment selection committee agenda has been posted, which includes the applicants' applications. 7. Approval of Voter Challenges 7. Approval of Voter Challenges Colleen Montgomery asked if one of the names on the challenge list was the voter the board discussed at the prior meeting. Sarah Montgomery answered no and that the board had already voted to challenge him at the last meeting. The Clerk's office has not received a response to that challenge letter. Alison Harte asked what no response means. Sarah answered that if a voter does not respond to a challenge letter, they will remain challenged on our checklist for two general elections and only after that can the board vote to remove them. Grace Grundhauser asked if there is a reason there are voters on the list based on the undeliverable Annual City Election ballots, rather than having them included with the large batch last month. Sarah Montgomery answered that these were returned to our office by the USPS within the past month. Grace Grundhauser asked if it would be helpful to present more data with these challenged voter lists. The board would like the voter's address and ward included in the data. Sarah Montgomery agreed that her office can provide the board with that data moving forward. Lesley Gendron made a motion to challenge the listed voters. Seconded by Karen Rowell. Passed unanaimusly. 8. Annual Board report to City Council (Discussion) 8. Annual Board report to City Council (Discussion) Grace Grundhauser shared the FY24 Annual Report that the board submitted to City Council. She noted that the board would discuss the report at this meeting and approve a final copy at the July meeting. Grace outlined the structure and content of the report as it was submitted last year. Grace Grundhauser asked for feedback from the board about what should be included in the report for FY25. Alison Harte noted that since she has been on the board, they haven't done voter registration drives. Lesley Gendron said there was the poster creation and distribution to encourage voter registration. She added that the creation of the procedural flow chart could be included. Alison Harte asked if the turnover from the previous fiscal year was unusual. Grace Grundhauser answered that she thought it was. Lauren Ebersol noted the board's strong training program and strong work around volunteer recruitment. Colleen Montgomery noted that the polling places on Election Day were quieter than expected, likely due to increased early voting. Alison Harte noted that the decrease of in-person voting has changed the role of BRV members. Alison Harte suggested including the number of All Legal Resident voters. Grace Grundhauser noted that in ward 8, she has seen an increased volume in helping homeless voters with registration. She asked other members if they had this same experience. The majority of members have not seen an increase, but agreed sharing information in the report could be helpful. Lauren Ebersol asked if something should be reported about the student voter population, and the volume of address changes and registration updates that go along with this. Grace Grundhauser will draft a revised report and share it with the board for approval next month. 9. Board Member Roles 9. Board Member Roles The board discussed different roles that members could fill to help alleviate some of the work of the chair. Suggestions included a parliamentarian (someone to ensure meeting rules), a volunteer coordinator (coordinate volunteers around elections), and an outreach coordinator. Lesley Gendron suggested someone to manage the guides and procedures; Grace Grundhauser suggested calling it Guidance Authority. Annie Schneider suggested that the outreach person could coordinate events and ensure a presence at certain events. Colleen Montgomery said this seems like something all members should always be thinking about. Grace Grundhauser agreed that all members should be thinking about it, but it could be helpful to have someone actually do the work. Colleen Montgomery said that some of these roles could be better assigned ad hoc, as events pop up, etc. to cater to specific skills. She noted that, for example, volunteer coordination alone does not seem to necessitate a whole role. Lauren Ebersol suggested that some items could be combined into one position for items that wouldn't necessarily fill a whole role. Annie Schneider said the roles don't need to be formally elected, but having a person/ people assigned specifically might help ensure that attention is specifically given to that item. Colleen Montgomery said outreach seems well suited to a committee. Alison Harte said it could be helpful to add outreach or events as a standing item on the agenda so it is continually discussed. Lauren suggested adding something like a committee report item to the agenda, where assigned members could report on their specialized areas. Grace Grundhauser is leaning toward having the specified roles. It wouldn't bar anything else from working on that item, but it would help provide accountability for those items. Grace Grundhauser suggested a member doing outreach specifically to residents whose first language is not English. Karen Rowell added that outreach should also be done on platforms besides Front Porch Forum. Lauren Ebersol asked if there is any funding available through the City to help with translation or interpretation. Sarah Montgomery answered that it would likely depend on the project and if existing materials could be used. Alex Demoly suggested working through existing channels to see who we can partner with for language access, such as AALV, the King Street Center, or the state's refugee resettlement offices. Grace added that Michelle Lefkowitz had previously suggested attending naturalization ceremonies for voter registration outreach. Grace added that if a role was created to focus on these specific outreach connections, the person could explore these items further. This role could also be assigned to better understand and educate the board about legal resident voting logistics and implications. Grace Grundhauser also suggested a student liaison role, to do outreach to college students and increase communications to this population. Lauren Ebersol agreed that this would be important because she has heard scenarios where students are receiving inaccurate information. Lauren suggested the existing UVM community engagement forum as another avenue to make these connections. Grace Grundhauser suggested that nominations for these roles happen at the next meeting. Lauren Ebersol suggested having a set list of positions. Grace Grundhauaser agreed to create a proposed list. The board doesn't need to be limited by the proposed list and the listed positions don't all need to be nominated for, but it will reflect the ideas already generated. 10. New Business 10. New Business Colleen Montgomery asked if board expectations would be discussed at the July meeting when new members have come on board. Grace Grundhauser said that if board members want to add an agenda item to the agenda, they should make a motion to add it to a future meeting agenda. Colleen Montgomery made a motion to add a discussion about board member expectations to the July agenda. Alison Harte seconded. Passed unanimously. Alex Demoly said it has been a pleasure to serve on the board. He encouraged the board to recruit young people moving forward - to help young people who are interested in governance, not politics, have this education and experience. 11. Adjournment 11. Adjournment Lesley Genfron made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Lauren Ebersol. Passed unanimously.

Agenda

Packet

Board for Registration of Voters Tuesday, June 3, 2025, 6:00 PM, City Hall, 149 Church Street, 1st Floor OR remotely via Zoom. Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/93712437108 Meeting ID: 937 1243 7108 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Agenda 2.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda 3. Meeting Length 3.1. Set Meeting Length 4. Adopt Minutes 4.1. Motion to adopt previous meeting's minutes File Attachments 1. Board for Registration of Voters Board for Registration of Voters .pdf 5. Public Forum 6. Clerk's Report 7. Approval of Voter Challenges 8. Annual Board report to City Council (Discussion) 8.1. Discuss annual board report to City Council File Attachments 1. FY24 Final Report FY24 Final Report.pdf 9. Board Member Roles 9.1. Per May meeting discussion, members agreed to bring ideas to June meeting for additional board member positions, such as volunteer coordinator, parliamentarian, community outreach, etc. 10. New Business Page 1 of 11 11. Adjournment 11.1. Motion to Adjourn Page 2 of 11 BURLINGTON BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF VOTERS 1ST FLOOR, CITY HALL, 149 CHURCH STREET, BURLINGTON, VT 05401 OR VIA ZOOM MINUTES OF MEETING May 6, 2025 1. Call Meeting to Order 1. Call Meeting to Order Meeting called to order by Chair Grace Grundhauser at 6:01pm Present: Alison Harte, Grace Grundhauser, Annie Schneider, Lesley Gendron, Lauren Ebersol, Colleen Montgomery, and Jeanne Keller Absent: Michelle Lefkowitz, Karen Rowell, Mike McGarghan, Alex Demoly, and Youth member Will Cunningham Also Present: Sarah Montgomery, Assistant City Clerk 2. Agenda 2. Agenda Jeanne Keller made a motion to adopt the agenda. Seconded by Lesley Gendron. Passed unanimously. 3. Meeting Length 3. Meeting Length The meeting was set to end at 7pm. 4. Adopt Minutes 4. Adopt Minutes Alison Harte made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Seconded by Lauren Ebersol. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Public Forum 5. Public Forum No members of the public were present. 6. Clerk's Report 6. Clerk's Report Sarah Montgomery reported that there are currently 29,136 registered voters in Burlington. Out of these, 3,863 have a challenged status. In April, there were 117 new registrations, 97 voters were transferred to other Vermont towns, and 36 were removed from the checklist. She reported that the launch of the new Election Management system was pushed back a little bit, but should still be launched in mid-May. Sarah Montgomery reminded board members that applications for the 4 board seats opening up soon are due at 4:30pm on May 14th. Appointments are expected to take place at the June 16th City Council meeting. The newly appointed members will be voting members at the July meeting. The current members who have Page 3 of 11 terms expiring in June will still be active voting members during the June meeting. She shared that the July meeting is also when the board typically holds chair and vice-chair appointments. Jeanne Keller asked if Sarah had heard anything from the state about the SAVE act and how this would work in Vermont. Sarah Montgomery answered that the Secretary of State has been very communicative with clerks about the federal legislation that passed in the House. The sense is that it will not pass in the Senate, and that if it did, there would still be a lot of logistics to resolve. The core piece of the legislation as presented is that voters would need to provide proof of citizenship. Jeanne Keller noted that some states are trying to implement it at the state level, and she asked if anything similar is happening in Vermont. Sarah answered that she was not aware of anything similar being proposed at the state level in Vermont. She did note that an executive order was signed that had similar contents to the SAVE act, but that the Secretary of State has spoken out against that. Jeanne Keller noted that the executive order had no basis in law. Colleen Montgomery said that she reached out to Senator Welch and Bernie Sanders' offices about the SAVE act and their office staff said there is no date for it to appear in the Senate, and that if it appeared there, it would require 60 votes to pass. Sarah said that she would continue keeping an eye on it, and Grace Grundhauser said that the board should as well. 7. Eligibility Inquiry Process 7. Eligibility Inquiry Process Grace Grundhauser recapped the discussion from the previous month's meeting: there was a voter in ward 1, who was also working as an assistant election official, who told Colleen Montgomery that he no longer lived in Burlington, but he still continued to cast his vote in Burlington. Grace Grundhauser asked Sarah Montgomery what the process is to verify that election workers are still residents in Burlington. Sarah answered that she checks election workers' voter registration status (verifying they are registered to vote in Burlington) before they are recommended for appointment, but she does not specifically ask each election worker if they are still residing in Burlington. Grace asked Colleen if she had spoken to the voter about the definition of residence and about his intent to return. Colleen does not remember having that specific conversation. Annie Schneider asked Sarah what the voter told her. Sarah answered that, via email, she asked him if his residential address for voter registration purposes should still be in Burlington, and he confirmed that it should. Grace asked Sarah if she provided him with further information about how he could make that judgment call. Sarah answered that she did not. Annie Schneider reached out to the Secretary of State's office, who said they were aware of the situation, and that there wasn't much the board could do. They noted that the board could file a complaint, but it may not go anywhere. Sarah Montgomery had reached out to them as well, and looked more into the relevant statute. Sarah shared that there is a portion in statute that outlines that there are only two very specific reasons that a voter whose name is printed on the checklist can have their eligibility to vote challenged on election day. These include 1.) if the voter is not who they say they are, and 2.) if the voter has already cast a vote. Additionally, these challenges can only be made by very specific people - designated political observers. Otherwise, the law states that the voter's right to vote shall not be challenged if their name is on the checklist. Sarah Montgomery said that the Assistant Director of Elections at the Secretary of State recommended that the best course of action in this scenario is for the board to now determine if they want to challenge the voter. If the board challenges the voter and he responds affirmatively, but the board has reason to believe that is not the truth, then they can take further action. Jeanne Keller noted that the limited election day challenge reasons have come up before when discussing voters' citizenship statuses. She noted that those restrictions are specific to election day, not to action the board can take outside of that. Grace Grundhauser noted that there are two separate issues with this situation. One is that a voter, who was potentially ineligible to vote, cast a ballot. This issue is outside the purview of the board. Grace reiterated that for same-day challenges, the reasons for challenging are very narrow, as well as who can bring that challenge up. The ward clerk (or their designee) can also refer questions of eligibility, for new voter applications, to the board. Annie Schneider asked who has jurisdiction in determining eligibility to vote on election day? Is it the board or the ward clerk? She referenced a situation where the person was already on the checklist, but no longer lived at the listed address. Grace Grundhauser said that this is something she has questioned before and has not had a good answer to. She thinks it is something the board should spend more time looking into. She noted that workers at the entrance checklist are asking voters to verify their name and address - this is the opportunity for the voter to make note of any inaccuracies. Annie Schneider asked if the checklist workers need to ask for the address. Sarah Montgomery answered that they should be. Annie noted that it is done inconsistently. Other members agreed. Sarah Montgomery will look at the statute and verify to create Page 4 of 11 consistency in processes across wards. Jeanne Keller said that if there is ambiguity about these processes and who determines the final eligibility of voters who are already on the printed checklist, the board should get guidance from the Secretary of State's office to make a determination. Sarah Montgomery noted that the question should likely go to our City Attorney's office instead, so they can factor in the City Charter. Jeanne Keller said that guardrails and consistency across wards need to be in place. Grace Grundhauser said it might be helpful to look into provisional ballots and if this could be a scenario when they should be used. Lauren Ebersol noted that in New Jersey they used provisional ballots a lot, for scenarios exactly like this and many others. Alison Harte asked how provisional ballots work. Sarah Montgomery said that if a voter's eligibility to vote was questioned, due to potentially having already cast a vote or some other scenario, the voter could cast a ballot that would not be fed through the tabulator until a resolution was determined. Jeanne Keller said the determination of who makes the ruling about the validity of that ballot would still need to be determined in the case of a provisional ballot. Grace Grundhauser shared the process for the board to remove voters from the checklist per 17 VSA 2150. This process outlines steps that need to be taken to determine if a voter is eligible to be registered in Burlington. She highlighted that the Board of Civil Authority (board for registration of voters in Burlington) can consider a voter's eligibility to vote at any time, but they need to follow the specific procedures set forth in this section of the statute. This includes attempting to determine the status of voter eligibility, using official and unofficial records. The board may also designate someone to reach out to the voter personally. If the board is unable to verify the voter's eligibility to vote in Burlington, the board can vote to challenge the voter and follow that process. Jeanne Keller asked if the conversation Colleen Montgomery had with him on election day could be considered as the inquiry by the board. Grace Grundhauser said yes, except Sarah Montgomery contacted him after, so that is the more recent communication. Grace Gurndhauser also shared the affirmation of residence/domicile, which is the form that a challenged voter needs to complete before they are eligible to vote again. This includes the statutory definition of residency and the definition of perjury. The definition of residency includes language about the voter's intent. Once a voter is challenged by the board, they are not able to vote unless they sign this affirmation. Grace noted that the voter's intent could be that he intends to return to Burlington as his principal dwelling place, but it could also be that it was just more convenient to vote in Burlington that day. Grace asked Sarah what her conversation with the voter looked like; Sarah answered that she was updating the voter's mailing address for election pay purposes, and she asked if his legal address for voter registration purposes should remain in Burlington. The voter confirmed that it should. The question was not specified to be in relation to the election day incident. Jeanne Keller noted that, based on the statutory definition of residency, she believes he has lost residency in Burlington, and he should be challenged and sent a challenge letter. Grace Grundhauser suggested that one of the board members call him to have an explicit conversation about residency. Jeanne Keller questioned why they would do more for this voter than they would for any other voter that the board votes to challenge. She noted that there does not seem to be any ambiguity about the situation that needs to be resolved before issuing the challenge. Annie Schneider agrees that the board has grounds to challenge him without further communication. Annie Schneider made a move to challenge this voter. Seconded by Lesley Gendron. Discussion: Alison Harte noted that due to the restrictions on challenging a voter's eligibility on election day, this seems like the correct time to do this. Grace Grundhauser added that her understanding of the statute is that the board should attempt with certainty to determine if a voter is eligible to vote before challenging them, which is why she is suggesting reaching out to the voter. Jeanne Keller said she feels it would be uncomfortable and inappropriate to reach out to the voter. Lauren Ebersol noted that the board already has first-hand information, based on Colleen's conversation with him. Vote called. Grace Grundhauser abstained. The remainder of the present members voted in favor. 8. Approval of Voter Challenges 8. Approval of Voter Challenges The board reviewed the remaining proposed voter challenges. Sarah Montgomery explained that there were two tabs on the spreadsheet she sent to the board. One included voters who had sold property that is listed as their legal address in their voter registration and voters who had voter registration confirmation letters returned to the clerk's office as undeliverable. The second tab included voters who were mailed ballots for Page 5 of 11 the Annual City Election that were returned to the Clerk's office as undeliverable; voters who had undeliverable ballots, but otherwise voted in the election, were marked by the USPS as temporarily away, or who changed their voter information after the mailing data was pulled were excluded from the proposed challenges. Lesley Gendron made a motion to accept the proposed challenges. Seconded by Jeanne Keller. Passed unanaimously. 9. New Business 9. New Business Annie Schneider proposed creating some new positions for board members to help share the workload - to vote on these when voting for chair and vice-chair. Positions like volunteer coordinator, parliamentarian, etc. Grace Grundhauser agreed that she really likes this idea and suggested it would also be helpful to have a designated outreach person as well. She had also considered having a rotating chair, but likes this idea better. Jeanne Keller asked Grace which items could be delegated to others without compromising the duties of the chair. Grace answered anything but agenda approvals would be up for grabs. The board members will come up with ideas to discuss at the June meeting. Annnie Schneider asked if some sort of outreach for getting high school students registered to vote should be done before the school year is over. She suggested doing what the board did last year again now - creating and distributing posters. Lesley Gendron can update those posters. Jeanne Keller will contact some folks from 3rd act, which is an organization who might be able to help with voter registration drives. Grace Grundhauser announced that Alex Demoly will not be reapplying for a new term when his expires. Colleen Montgomery asked about membership and noted that Mike McGarghan has been absent for several meetings. This has been discussed previously by the board. Grace Grundhauser said that attendance expectations could be added as a future agenda item or that board members could always make a motion to recommend another member's removal to City Council. 10. Adjournment 10. Adjournment Lauren Ebersol made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second by Annie Schneider. Passed unanimously. Page 6 of 11 Page 7 of 11 Page 8 of 11 Page 9 of 11 Sarah Montgomery From: Annie Schneider <anniecschneider@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 1:21 PM To: Sarah Montgomery Subject: Approval of BRV Annual Report [ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington. Hi Sarah, I approve the contents of the BRV Annual Report for the fiscal year 2024. Thanks, Annie 1 Page 10 of 11 Sarah Montgomery From: Michael Mcgarghan Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:04 AM To: Sarah Montgomery Cc: Grace Grundhauser Subject: Re: BRV Annual Report FY24 Sarah, With couple exceptions, I agree with this report. I do not agree with #4 as this activity is more partisan than should be for official board duties. I believe the board is less effective than it could be to do a better job than we currently do. In my opinion, there should have been a written mention / acknowledgement of the superior support we recieve from your office to help us do our job. Otherwise, I allow my name / signature to be included on this report. Respectfully, Michael McGarghan, Board of Registration of Voters (802) 233-1238 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Sarah Montgomery <smontgomery@burlingtonvt.gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 10:12:24 AM To: Michael Mcgarghan <mmcgarghan@burlingtonvt.gov> Subject: BRV Annual Report FY24 Hi Mike, Can you please reply to this email indicating your agreement with the attached annual board report for the Board for Registration of Voters? Thank you, Sarah 1 Page 11 of 11