Roll Call: How your senator voted on letting 15- 17-year olds in Brattleboro vote, hold elective office

/ February 18, 2022

Editor’s note: Roll Call is published by the Ethan Allen Institute.

H.361, an act relating to approval of amendments to the charter of the town of Brattleboro, passed in the State Senate on February 11, 2022, by a vote of 20-9.

The purpose of the bill is allow children 15-17 years old to vote in local elections and on local issues, and to hold elective office.

Analysis: H.361 changes to the Brattleboro charter to allow 16-17 years olds (and 15 years olds if they will turn 16 by election day) to vote in municipal elections and serve on town boards, such as the select board.

Those voting YES believe this will help get young people more involved in the political process and establish the habit of voting.

Those voting NO believe that children who are not legal adults are not ready to make fully informed decisions relating to voting or mature enough to hold positions of authority and responsibility over critical municipal decisions.

As Recorded in the Senate Journal, Friday, February 11, 2021: “Thereupon, the bill was read the second time by title only pursuant to Rule 43, and third reading of the bill was ordered on a roll call, Yeas 20, Nays 9” (Read the Journal, p. 162).

Watch the floor debate on YouTube (senators White, Hardy, Benning, Pearson, McCormack, Terenzini, Pollina and Ram Hinsdale).

HOW THEY VOTED

Becca Balint (D-Windham) – YES
Philip Baruth (D-Chittenden) – YES
Joseph Benning (R-Caledonia) – NO
Christopher Bray (D-Addison) – YES
Randy Brock (R-Franklin) – NO
Brian Campion (D-Bennington) – YES
Thomas Chittenden (D-Chittenden) – YES
Alison Clarkson (D-Windsor) – YES
Brian Collamore (R-Rutland) – NO
Ann Cummings (D-Washington) – YES
Ruth Hardy (D-Addison) – YES
Cheryl Hooker (D-Rutland) – YES
Russ Ingalls (R-Essex-Orleans) – NO
M. Jane Kitchel (D-Caledonia) – YES
Virginia Lyons (D-Chittenden) – YES
Mark MacDonald (D-Orange) – NO
Richard Mazza (D-Chittenden-Grand Isle) – YES
Richard McCormack (D-Windsor) – YES
Alice Nitka (D-Windsor District) – NO
Corey Parent (R-Franklin) – NO
Chris Pearson (P-Chittenden) – YES
Andrew Perchlik (D-Washington) – YES
Anthony Pollina (P/D-Washington) – YES
Kesha Ram (D-Chittenden) – YES
Richard Sears (D-Bennington) – YES
Michael Sirotkin (D-Chittenden) – YES
Robert Starr (D-Essex-Orleans) – YES
Joshua Terenzini (R-Rutland) – NO
Richard Westman (R-Lamoille) – NO
Jeanette White (D-Windham) – YES

Image courtesy of Bruce Parker/TNR

Related posts

6 thoughts on “Roll Call: How your senator voted on letting 15- 17-year olds in Brattleboro vote, hold elective office”

  2. This is more of the Progs/Dems wanting control, The Marxist way! These people are playing to their base, the Special Interest of crazy ideas. “We The People” must Rise-Up and stop the crazy!
    Gregory

    #WakingUpVermonters
    #WeThePeopleParents
    #TurnVtRED
    #GregoryThayer4VermontLtGovernor

  3. I can almost remember when legislators fought together for the good of the state, without playing thier “party” wishes,,,our system is dirty. what a joke allowing kids, most of whom just want to play video games and hide from 40 hours a week, to allow them to make judgement on how money should be spent,,,,right, you work, you pay taxes, that’s where to vote comes in

  4. This simply harks back to the Vermont Prog/Dem entitlement generation. These Prog/Dems believe that, from birth, there is an entitlement available to you regardless of your ability to act responsibly on that entitlement. Obviously age is not always the arbitrator of responsibility, but is is the only reasonable measure we have. Reasonable citizens have determined 18 is a reasonable age of responsibility, not 16, not 14, not 10…
    What I do not understand is what is the urgency to change the age of responsibility. It seems there are many, many more issues facing Vermont today that are screaming at its elected officials to address. Why this and why now?

  5. Clearly, these legislators relate to the ability of 16- and 17-year-old children to make reasonable life judgments on a peer-to-peer basis. And that’s not to say that these children are wise beyond their years. Just the opposite. But it does give us some indication that these older legislators have equally questionable judgment. They apparently have developmental mental issues.

    • I’m ready for 15 year old Senators and Representatives
      15 year old Judges. Maybe 15 year old traffic cops.
      Who needs maturity, money $sense, and re$ponsibility?
      OUR GOVERNMENT – HOPELESS, AIN’T IT!!

      Sound like we already have some Senators and Rep’s, with
      15 yr old mentality and maturity.

Comments are closed.