Thirty-Five Vermont Towns Vote to Impeach

Thirty-Five Vermont Towns Vote to Impeach

by Kagro X

Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:00:05 PM PST

In that charming democratic tradition that still lives in New England, today was the day the people of Vermont got to speak. And to govern.

In Town Meetings all over the state, Vermonters gathered to debate and decide town business, and in some places, to make larger statements.

Today, news reaches us that thirty-five towns in Vermont said they'd had enough of waiting for someone to probe the depths of George W. Bush's crimes, and would wait no longer.

On the day that Scooter Libby, Special Assistant to the President (let's not forget that he held that title), was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, and on the day that U.S. Attorneys from all over the country revealed that they had been pressured by Republican operatives and elected officials to drop cases against friends and bring cases against enemies, and on the day that the New Mexico State Senate cleared an impeachment resolution for floor consideration, we've received word that thirty-five the Vermont towns have voted to call for impeachment. (Note: the article lists 33, but reports are that Burke and Newbury have joined the ranks, and more are expected to report in tomorrow.)

The impeachment resolutions have passed so far in Bristol, Calais, Craftsbury, Dummerston, East Montpelier, Greensboro, Guilford, Grafton, Hartland, Jamaica, Jericho, Johnson, Marlboro, Middlebury, Montgomery, Morristown, Newfane, Peru, Plainfield, Richmond, Rochester, Roxbury, St. Johnsbury, Springfield, Stannard, Sunderland, Townshend, Tunbridge, Vershire, Warren, Westminster, Wilmington, and Woodbury, according to organizers. Organizers based their information on reports from people in each town.

Several towns voted to not take up the measure: Bakersfield, Londonderry, Dorset, Stamford, and Walden.

This is the culmination of a year's worth of work by some of the most dedicated activists Vermont can boast. Dan DeWalt, whose town of Newfane was the first to take up the resolution last year, led the charge this time around, finding willing allies across the state and elsewhere in New England. You should also be aware of the work of fellow Kossacks mataliandy, Anne from Vermont, Odum, maplefrost, and jjem, who put in countless hours in helping launch this project. A debt is also owed to former-Vermonter bumblebums, who put me in touch with a high school friend and ex-State Senator with a sympathetic ear.

Yes, this project was, especially in its infancy, largely fueled by the netroots, and successfully transplanted into the "real world" by these and other dedicated and patriotic Vermonters.

More than a year ago, I picked up the torch carried to Daily Kos by arbortender, and put out the call for state-based activism on the impeachment front:

Arbortender's diary linked back to another blog, where the idea apparently originated. And to be perfectly honest with you, this read at first like just another fringe-y, kooked-out misreading of procedure. But I just happen to have an old copy of Jefferson's Manual here on the desk, and sure enough, that's just what it says. The legislature of any state or territory may transmit charges to the Congress and recommend impeachment.

Now, to be sure, there is nothing that forces the House of Representatives -- still the sole body capable of adopting actual articles of impeachment -- to act on such charges. In fact, you can be assured that they'd do everything in their power to avoid doing so.

But what a story it'd make! A little known constitutional procedure that has lain dormant for decades, never before used against a president, and pitting the duly elected and sworn legislature of a state against a federal Congress sitting on its hands and refusing to act!

What drama! What passion!

So, where to start?

The answer, of course, was Vermont. A favorably comprised state legislature, abysmal approval ratings for Bush, the highest losses to the war per capita of any state in the nation, and an activist culture that had led the legislature to call for repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

And Vermont responded. Fellow Kossack maplefrost, the Vermont presidential elector who drafted that state's call for an investigation into the Ohio voting irregularities, succeeded in passing a resolution through the Rutland County Democratic Committee a month later.

By April, more than half the state's county Democratic parties had followed suit, and the State Committee ultimately adopted a compromise resolution endorsing impeachment, but stopping short of calling on their state legislature to act. Perhaps unsurprisingly, that State Committee meeting recorded a rather heavy attendance from -- you guessed it -- state legislators.

Even so, by the end of that month, the torch had passed to Illinois, where State Rep. Karen Yarbrough introduced our first state legislative impeachment resolution. California would soon follow, along with Vermont, where it took a member of the Progressive Party to actually do the heavy lifting and introduce a bill.

For the balance of the 2006 legislative sessions, leadership produced every excuse in the book to prevent the bills from moving forward.

This year, however, Vermont is back to try again. But even in February 2007, that state's leadership declares that we must "focus our energy" on... the next elections. Yes, November 2008.

Meanwhile, resolutions have since been introduced in Washington and New Mexico, the latter bill clearing the Senate Rules, Public Affairs and Judiciary Committees with favorable recommendations, and headed for floor consideration.

And now, back in Vermont, where House Speaker Gaye Symington apparently insists that no controversy be brooked before November of 2008, the citizens of 30+ towns say she's just flat wrong.

The citizens of Middlebury and Jericho certainly made themselves clear:

In Middlebury, where Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, is the town moderator voters approved both the impeachment and troop withdrawal measures. Douglas, ironically, was the chairman of Bush’s 2000 election committee and 2004 reelection committee in Vermont.

Ellen McKay, a backer of the impeachment measure, said some members of the Middlebury Selectboard and Douglas tried to limit debate to one minute per person. Douglas also questioned whether something that was not warned should warrant a vote.

"But, there were a lot of people in Middlebury who understood what other business was going to mean and this huge issue for our community," said McKay, who says the Iraq War, proportionally, has cost Middlebury $8 million to fund the war.

In Jericho, home of Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington, who is not supportive of the impeachment measure, voters approved the impeachment resolution 88-67, as well as the troop withdrawal measure.

Will our leadership hear?

Consider how far we've come in the face of their opposition. What might we have accomplished if they'd actually led?