Board for Registration of Voters — Burlington, VT
Date: 2025-05-06
Time: 18:00

Board for Registration of Voters



Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 6:00 PM, 1st Floor, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington, VT
 05401 OR Via ZOOM

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/93712437108
Meeting ID: 937 1243 7108
1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Meeting Length
 2.1. Set Meeting Length

3. Adopt Minutes
 3.1. Motion to adopt previous meeting's minutes
 File Attachments
 1. Minutes 04012025 Minutes 04012025.docx

4. Public Forum

5. Clerk's Report

6. Eligibility Inquiry Process

7. Approval of Voter Challenges

8. New Business

9. Adjournment
 9.1. Motion to Adjourn

Board for Registration of Voters



Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 6:00 PM, 1st Floor, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington, VT
 05401 OR Via ZOOM

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/93712437108
Meeting ID: 937 1243 7108
1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Meeting Length
 2.1. Set Meeting Length

3. Adopt Minutes
 3.1. Motion to adopt previous meeting's minutes
 File Attachments
 1. Minutes 04012025 Minutes 04012025.docx

4. Public Forum

5. Clerk's Report

6. Eligibility Inquiry Process

7. Approval of Voter Challenges

8. New Business

9. Adjournment
 9.1. Motion to Adjourn




 Page 1 of 5
BOARD FOR REGISTRATION OF VOTERS

MEET: April 1st, 2025 at 6:00pm

Where: Police Station Community Room (1 North Ave) and remotely via Zoom

Present: Alison Harte, Grace Grundhauser, Karen Rowell, Alex Demoly, Annie Schneider, Lesley
Gendron, Lauren Ebersol, Colleen Montgomery, Michelle Lefkowitz, Jeanne Keller, and Youth Member
Will Cunningham

Absent: Olga Bravo, Mike McGarghan

Also Present: Sarah Montgomery, Assistant City Clerk

Meeting called to order by Chair Grace Grundhauser at 6:04pm

Agenda: Jeanne Keller made a motion to accept the agenda. Passed unanimously.

Meeting Length: The meeting was set to end at 7:00pm.

Previous Meeting Minutes: Jeanne Keller made a motion to approve the previous meeting minutes.
Seconded by Colleen Montgomery. Passed unanimously.

Public Comments: No members of the public spoke.

Clerk’s Report Sarah Montgomery reported that there are currently 29,114 registered voters. Out of
those, 3,855 are challenged. In February, there were 169 new voter registrations, 79 voters were
transferred to other Vermont towns, and 40 voters were removed from the checklist. In March, there
were 248 new voter registrations, 104 voters were transferred to other Vermont towns, and 13 voters
were removed from the checklist.

For the March 4, 2025 Annual City Election: 9,823 voters participated. Out of this total, 4,831 cast their
absentee ballot prior to Election Day. An additional 1,326 returned an absentee ballot to their polling
place on Election Day. The remainder cast in person votes. There were approximately 130 new voter
registrations on Election Day. There were 484 changes made to voters’ registrations in March.

Sarah Montgomery reported the state has set a launch date for the new Election Management System –
May 5th. Once it launches, she will work to coordinate training for the board.

Jeanne Keller asked if there were any new registrations for non-citizen voters. Sarah Montgomery
answered that there were around 17 new registrants for this election cycle, bringing us to around 130
total. 59 non-citizen voters participated in this election.

Alison Harte asked if Sarah would let board members know is she had questions about submitted forms.
Sarah Montgomery answered yes, and that she did reach out to a handful of members for clarity.




 Page 2 of 5
Board Member Terms Ending in June Alison Harte, Alex Demoly, and Lauren Ebersol all have terms
ending in June and will need to reapply if they would like to be considered for another term. Sarah
Montgomery will reach out to these members once applications are being accepted.

Grace Grundhauser announced that Olga Bravo resigned from the board. The board member expressed
their gratitude for Olga.

Grace Grundhauser asked when that seat would be filled by City Council. Sarah Montgomery answered
that it will likely be filled with the other seats that will have terms ending soon. Grace Grundhauser
mentioned that the board may want to discuss advertising the vacancy once the applications open.

Election Review

The board reviewed the Annual City Election.

Ward 1 – Colleen Montgomery: She said it was generally a quiet day, but noted an issue with a voter
concerning residency. The voter said he was currently living outside of Burlington, Colleen advised he
should then not be voting in Burlington, but the voter continued to cast his vote anyway. He was already
an active registered voter appearing on the checklist.

Grace Grundhauser asked if this voter would appear on the challenge list for next month’s meeting.
Sarah Montgomery answered that it could, but that she spoke to the voter after the election and he
stated that his legal address for voter registration purposes should remain in Burlington. Jeanne Keller
asked if the appropriate action for this circumstance would to challenge the voter, not remove him from
our checklist – unless he actively registers elsewhere.

Annie Schneider asked if this is voter fraud. Grace Grundhauser said it seems like something the board
should discuss with the voter and that she is confident that it is within the board’s purview to challenge
the voter if they decide to.

Will Cunningham asked whose job is it to report voter fraud? Sarah Montgomery answered that the
Clerk’s office reports instances of voter fraud to the Secretary of State, but that voter registration
eligibility is the purview of the board.

Annie Schneider will reach out to the Secretary of State’s office to determine process. Jeanne Keller
agreed that this situation needs to be treated differently than other challenge cases since there was
overt action to vote after being told he was not eligible.

Grace Grundhauser asked Sarah Montgomery to send the board the voter’s information. She also
mentioned that educating the public around residency and voter eligibility may also be helpful – letting
people know about the 17 day rule and where they are eligible to vote.

Colleen Montgomery noted that this situation was especially frustrating because the voter was also
working as an assistant election official at the polling place. Grace Grundhauser asked if this is




 Page 3 of 5
prohibited. Sarah Montgomery answered that election officials must be registered voters in Burlington.
The clerk’s office does verify this before recommending individuals for appointment.

Sarah Montgomery noted that if the board intends to challenge his voter registration, they should
consider what their next step will be if he affirms that Burlington is his residence. Grace Grundhauser
will look into that. Jeanne Keller noted that it would be good to understand this generically regardless of
this specific circumstance.

Alison Harte asked Sarah Montgomery if she is suggesting that the board challenge the voter, then wait
to receive a response before taking further action, so that they can have a written record from the
voter? Sarah Montgomery answered that challenging the voter always is the first step the board would
need to take to remove anyone from the checklist – she will need to look further into what happens if
the voter responds to the challenge affirming they belong on the checklist, but the board disagrees.

Grace Grundhauser will look into the procedures more. She also noted that the definition of residency in
statute is really a personal judgement, and that there is a gray area about someone’s “intent to return”
for voter registration purposes. There are legally valid reasons that a person would correctly call a place
their legal residence even if they are not currently there, due to intent. If a person is willing to swear
that they intend to return to this address to live, that is something valid to consider. She thinks the next
step will be for one of the board members to personally talk to this voter to ensure he understands what
residency means, rather than jumping to conclusions.

Ward 2 – Laurie Ebersol: Lauren noted that she had several voters whose addresses were reverted to an
old address by the DMV. Karen Rowell asked if this was a difference between the legal and mailing
address. Lauren answered no, in these circumstances, she could see the correct address listed in the
previous address history. Board members speculated that the voters could still have the old address on
their VT ID. Grace Grundhauser asked if people with incorrect addresses were showing up in the ward
they were supposed to vote in, or the ward that their voter registration address was incorrectly linked
to? Lauren Ebersol said that in her experience, voters were at the ward they were supposed to vote in.

Grace Grundhauser clarified that the legal and mailing address are intentionally two separate fields. This
is because the legal address determines voting eligibility, but the mailing address can be wherever they
receive mail.

Ward 3 – Michelle Lefkowitz: She noted that she had one voter who was not receiving ballots by mail.
She worked with Sarah Montgomery to try to verify their address. She also had a voter that was on the
checklist twice – this was resolved. She cancelled her volunteers since it was quiet.

Ward 4 – Jeanne Keller: She noted that this is a very well managed ward with a great ward clerk and
volunteers. She also had a duplicate voter appearing on the checklist (resolved now). Jeanne also noted
a situation where a voter’s address in their registration had been changed without their knowledge. This
was referred to the Clerk’s office who worked with the Secretary of State’s office to look into the
incident. Jeanne had really great conversations with the ward staff where they were able to learn more




 Page 4 of 5
about each other’s roles. She found the flow charts to be very helpful in orienting her volunteers. Lesley
Gendron noted that an update to the flowchart was made post-election, so there is a new version now.

Ward 5 – Annie Schneider: Annie did not have anything to report.

Ward 6 – Alison Harte: She had a rough start with difficulty finding the new polling place entrance, but
had an otherwise smooth day.

Ward 7 – Karen Rowell and Will Cunningham: Karen said she had a good day. She enjoyed chatting with
the ward team and with Will. Will Cunningham noted that some voter situations involve a lot of extra
writing to explain the situation to the clerk’s office. He suggested having a memo sheet to complete to
send to the Clerk’s office. Grace Grundhauser had previously discussed having something similar, but to
give to the voter rather than the clerk’s office.

Ward 8 – Alex Demoly: Had a fairly low-key day. He noted that he saw a lot of unverified social security
numbers – some for newer voters, but also some that had voted before. Grace Grundhauser noted that
in student wards, it is more common to see since a lot of those voters do not have VT IDs.

Lauren Ebersol asked if the “new VEMS” will help alleviate some of the challenges with names that have
punctuation included. Sarah Montgomery answered that the search functionality in the system should
be better (not needing the correct punctuation to pull up results), but that alphabetization on the
checklist will likely still be an issue. Board members shared experiences where voters were sent to them,
but were actually correctly registered on the checklist. Grace Grundhauser noted that is good to walk
voter over to the checklist when this happens to help resolve it.

New Business

No new business.

Adjournment

On a motion by Jeanne Keller, seconded by Alison Harte, the meeting was adjourned at 6:57pm.

Respectfully Submitted By: Sarah Montgomery, Assistant City Clerk




 Page 5 of 5

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
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
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
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.