Luna v. City of Burlington

• Decision Date: 11 February 2022
• Docket Number: 21-AP-201
• Parties: Benjamin Luna* v. City of Burlington
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Benjamin Luna*
v.
City of Burlington

No. 21-AP-201

Supreme Court of Vermont

February 11, 2022

In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division CASE NO. 21-CV-00550 Trial Judge: Samuel Hoar, Jr.

ENTRY ORDER

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his complaint seeking to invalidate the City of Burlington's March 2021 election results. We affirm.

The following facts are drawn from plaintiff's complaint and attached exhibits. Plaintiff is a legal voter residing in Burlington. Prior to the March 2021 annual city meeting, the City published a warning on its website and in the Seven Days newspaper indicating that on March 2, 2021, voters would be asked to vote upon six special articles, including four proposed charter changes. The proposed charter changes contained in articles 2, 4, and 5 were too long to fit on the ballot, and as a result the warning did not include the full text of those changes. Plaintiff alleged that the warning violated 17 V.S.A. § 2645(a)(6)(B)(ii) by neglecting to inform voters that the language was incomplete and that they could view the full language at the clerk's office. According to plaintiff, the warning also violated 17 V.S.A. § 2642(a)(2), which required the City to "specifically indicate the business to be transacted." Plaintiff further alleged that the City violated 17 V.S.A. § 2472(e) by failing to state in the supplemental voter handout it mailed to voters that the handout contained the full text of the charter changes proposed in articles 2, 4, and 5. Plaintiff asserted that the articles were numbered inconsistently in various notices and documents published by the City in advance of the election and that the City's election website was confusing. Finally, plaintiff alleged that the City should not have permitted articles 3 and 7 to appear on the ballot as written because they were unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.

The proposed charter changes were approved by a majority of the voters, and plaintiff timely filed a complaint challenging the election results pursuant to 17 V.S.A. § 2603.^[*] He asked the trial court to invalidate articles 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, to enjoin the City from processing the

1

election results, and to order the City to improve its voting procedures to ensure greater transparency and clarity of voter information.

The City moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted, arguing that plaintiff had failed to allege that the ultimate result of the election was affected by the defects in the warning, as required by this Court's precedent. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.

Plaintiff argues that the statute governing election challenges, 17 V.S.A. § 2603, does not require him to allege that the defects in the warning affected the outcome of the election. Section 2603 provides...