March 25, 2026
Dawn Fancher wanted to vote on the Plainfield town budget at this year’s Town Meeting Day on March 3. But due to a disability, they couldn’t attend in person — and the ballot they received didn’t include that question.
“Our town does floor vote for the town budgets … so I was not able to participate,” said Fancher, a member of Plainfield’s Accessibility Committee.
Fancher shared their experience March 12 at the first membership meeting of REV UP VT, a new nonpartisan disability voting rights coalition.
The coalition aims to address barriers that limit disabled Vermonters’ ability to fully participate in local democracy, plus work toward equal access to voting, town meetings, and civic decision-making.
REV UP stands for “Register, Educate, Vote, Use your Power!” It is a campaign of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), and Vermont is the 22nd state to form a REV UP coalition, which was launched on Town Meeting Day.
Who Doesn’t Show Up — And Who Can’t
As of 2022, an MIT study ranked Vermont the 49th worst state for the gap between disabled and non-disabled in-person voter turnout. Rates among disabled voters were 13 percentage points lower than for non-disabled. The national average difference is seven points.
“Vermont likes to tell the story, particularly around Town Meeting Day, that Vermont is first in the nation when it comes to civic engagement,” said Kate Larose, a REV UP VT organizer and youth services coordinator with the Vermont Center for Independent Living, during the membership meeting. “Except it’s not entirely true.”
Vermont towns take a variety of approaches to Town Meeting Day, but 68% use one or more floor votes, according to Larose. People not in the room cannot vote on many questions. In-person requirements may exclude not only disabled but also ill people, those who are working, those living in care facilities, and incarcerated voters. Others may skip attendance if they are uneasy about publicly expressing opinions.
Why Get Together?
Defenders of traditional town meetings say that as people come together for real-time debate, voting, and sometimes food and other celebrations, they can learn, hear others’ opinions, and influence the democratic process, which can foster community and encourage civic involvement. They express concerns that a remote participation option could shrink in-person gatherings, reduce engagement, and make the vote less relevant. Hybrid meetings also require technical support and potentially additional training for moderators. In addition, curbside voting is already available upon request, and disabled voters can request that the town office grant them an ADA accommodation.
But disability activists argue those options can pose problems, including privacy concerns: the voter making the request must explain to the town office how their disability impacts their ability to participate fully.
What Does the Law Say?
A March 2 article in Mother Jones magazine on disabled Vermont voters reported that Vermont Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas considers election improvements to be “up to the towns, not her office.”
But local officials are bound by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as by state access and voting laws, the article then noted.
On March 11, Hanzas spoke at an online event by the League of Women Voters of Vermont about two federal bills, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the SAVE Act, the latter of which would require voters to prove U.S. citizenship.
The Bridge asked what her office is doing to protect and improve residents’ ability to vote in town meetings if they are unable to attend.
Hanzas replied in part that, by state statute, the only way a community can decide to eliminate their in-person town meeting and go to ballot voting is by a vote at an in-person town meeting. But Larose told The Bridge the state should be doing far more.
“Our Secretary of State, our legislature, our Attorneys Generals’ office have allowed [Vermont] to have a system that is in direct violation of state civil rights laws and federal civil rights laws,” she said.
A recent document suggests multiple advocacy groups think state law requires towns to ensure access.
On Jan. 20, the Secretary of State’s office submitted an Act 133 Working Group report to the legislature about improving accessibility and civic engagement. It advised that municipalities adhere to the ADA to enable remote participation for people with disabilities, but it added that implementing large-scale change “would require legislative action” to balance inclusivity with other considerations.
(Larose served on but resigned from the Act 133 Working Group. She told The Bridge it did not make meaningful recommendations about changing any laws.)
In a dissenting addendum to that report, disability rights advocates stated they believe “a correct interpretation of state election and public accommodations law would require towns to ensure that individuals with disabilities have full and equal access to Town Meeting discussions and voting. Equal access means alternatives to in-person attendance and floor votes.”
Signatories included the American Civil Liberties Union–Vermont, Disability Rights Vermont, the Vermont Human Rights Commission, and Vermont Legal Aid.
Expanding Access
REV UP VT wants to see Australian (private) ballots and hybrid meetings become universal for Town Meeting Day (see “Post-pandemic, more Vermonters are voting by Australian ballot for Town Meeting” in the March 2, 2026 issue of The Bridge).
About one-third of Vermont towns offer Australian ballot, according to Larose. However, many ballots don’t include all questions up for a vote, reserving some for the floor meeting only — as Fancher found out in Plainfield.
REV UP VT discussed a town-by-town push for change. In 2024, Jericho restructured its meeting to allow for a January hybrid town meeting. Participants choose between in-person and online participation, and a recording is available afterward. Voting takes place later by Australian ballot. In Plainfield, Fancher hopes to help bring an article to a future town meeting to move to Australian ballot.
“What it’s going to take to get this done is the tail of the small towns wagging the dog of the state,” said Laura Cushman, a lawyer with Disability Rights Vermont. “If we can get the towns to come around, then maybe the state will have to follow.”
An Incomplete Legacy
As it happens, March 12 was the anniversary of the 1990 Capitol Crawl, when disabled advocates crawled up 83 steps toward the U.S. Capitol Building — many ditching canes and wheelchairs — during a campaign to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The bill soon became law and improved access for disabled Americans to public spaces through measures such as curb cuts, plus rights to workplace accommodations and inclusion in public services.