Vermont Democrats have introduced yet another sweeping elections bill — and once again, it comes with a familiar progressive feature: more lawsuits, more enforcement power, and more ways for municipalities to get dragged into court.

Senate Bill S.298, billed as the “Vermont Voting Rights Act,” is being sold as a civil rights measure. But buried inside its 25 pages is a major shift in how elections will be regulated in Vermont: it expands private causes of action, increases state-level control over local election changes, and creates new legal pathways for voters and advocacy organizations to sue towns, cities, and election officials.

The bill’s stated purpose is broad. It would prohibit discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group, regulate local election practices, create language assistance mandates, and criminalize certain forms of election interference. But the most significant practical impact may not be symbolic at all — it may be legal and administrative.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

A Lawsuit-Driven Voting Regime

One of the clearest themes running through S.298 is enforcement through litigation. The bill repeatedly establishes private rights of action, meaning individual voters or organizations can file suit in Superior Court when they believe a municipality has violated the statute.

For example, the bill creates a right to sue over language assistance requirements, allowing any “resident qualified to vote” who is “aggrieved” to initiate a cause of action.

It also allows voters to challenge certain municipal election changes — including redistricting, polling place moves, or changes in election systems — if they believe those changes have the “purpose or effect” of denying voting rights or causing “retrogression.”

And it explicitly authorizes lawsuits over at-large election systems if a protected class alleges vote dilution.

In plain terms: S.298 invites courts deeper into local election administration.

Small Towns, Big Legal Exposure

Supporters frame these provisions as protections. But Vermont is not California or Virginia. Many Vermont municipalities are tiny, rural, and run elections with minimal staff. At-large elections are common simply because dividing a town of 3,000 residents into wards would be impractical and costly.

Yet the bill directly targets at-large systems when they are alleged to impair the ability of protected classes to elect candidates of choice.

That may sound theoretical in Montpelier, but in practice it means even small-town election structures could become subject to civil-rights litigation — with attorney fees and court-ordered remedies on the table.

Voter ID Not Included — For Now

Committee members also noted a flood of constituent emails about voter ID. Senator Alison Clarkson (D – Windsor) made clear it is not part of this bill and not currently under consideration.

But the larger pattern remains: Vermont Democrats continue to introduce expansive election legislation that increases legal complexity while offering little reassurance to towns tasked with implementing it.

State Control Through “Preclearance”

Another major shift is the bill’s creation of a preclearance-style oversight system. Municipalities seeking to implement certain “covered practices” must either undergo an extended notice and public hearing process or submit changes to the Attorney General for a “Certification of No Objection.”

Legislative counsel described this as essentially getting an “okay stamp” from the Attorney General’s office.

This represents a centralization of authority: local election decisions increasingly require state approval or risk legal challenge.

Speech, Intimidation, and Edge Cases

The bill also adds new criminal provisions for voter intimidation and interference.While few dispute the need to prevent threats or coercion, committee testimony revealed how quickly these standards drift into gray territory.

Senator Becca White (D – Windsor) recounted an incident involving a man dressed in an American flag outfit waving a large flag near a polling place, describing it as intimidating. Legislative counsel acknowledged such situations raise First Amendment “true threat” concerns and are highly fact-dependent.

When criminal penalties intersect with political expression, enforcement becomes subjective — and lawsuits follow.

Ranked Choice Voting and Structural Remedies

Perhaps most revealing was testimony from advocacy groups suggesting the bill could be used to restructure Vermont elections entirely. A witness from RepresentWomen explicitly floated multi-member districts paired with ranked-choice voting as potential remedies for vote dilution.

A Harvard-affiliated witness urged amendments to expand “coalition claims,” allowing multiple minority groups to combine for standing.

In other words, S.298 is not just about protecting ballot access — it is a platform for future structural election redesign through litigation.

The Bottom Line

S.298 may be branded as voting rights. But in practice, it expands the power of courts, advocacy organizations, and the Attorney General over local elections. It creates new avenues for private lawsuits, imposes new mandates on municipalities, and opens the door to election system restructuring far beyond Vermont’s traditional small-town model.

For a state built on local control, town meeting governance, and straightforward election administration, this bill represents something else entirely: another step toward a litigation-driven, centralized, progressive elections regime — with small towns left holding the bag.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram

#fyivt #VermontPolitics #ElectionLaw #S298

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!