Tuesday is town meeting day in Vermont. Municipalities in New England and elsewhere are increasingly taking up national and international issues at the local level, beyond routine votes on schools, snow plows and road repairs.
These centuries-old Town Meetings are direct-democracy gatherings where residents vote on municipal business. Lately, activists have used them to push resolutions demanding things like defunding ICE, condemning “the unprovoked attack and start of an illegal and immoral war against Iran,” calling for removal of the president and vice president “for crimes against the U.S. Constitution,” or pledging to end local support for Israel’s “apartheid policies, settler colonialism, and military occupation and aggression.”
Local resolutions are a tactic activists say is uniquely effective and empowering. “People feel isolated, helpless and hopeless. And when you hear about other people who are just like you taking a stand and representing something that you believe, that gives you not only hope, but it gives you power,” said Dan Dewalt, an activist in Newfane, Vermont, which drafted an anti‑Iran‑war resolution for its Town Meeting.
Newfane residents passed a divestment resolution concerning Israel 46–15 last year after hours of intense argument about Palestinians’ plight, Israeli security, the resolution’s language and whether such far‑away issues belong on a town agenda. Opponents argued that Town Meeting should focus on town business and accused activists of “virtue signaling” and “hijacking” the event. “It’s a Town Meeting for town issues,” Newfane resident Walter Hagadorn said at a Select Board meeting urging officials to block resolutions not directly tied to municipal affairs.
Select Board member Katy Johnson‑Aplin countered that outside forums or protests don’t achieve the same effect. When an issue is on the formal Town Meeting agenda, she said, “it goes in the newspaper and it’s recorded that the town of Newfane has agreed to have this conversation.”
Scholars warn of risks when local bodies take up polarized national topics. University of Pennsylvania political scientist Daniel Hopkins said the trend is spreading across states and could further polarize communities, making local coalition‑building on other matters harder. In Newfane, the resolution was so divisive some residents skipped the meeting, according to Select Board vice‑chair Marion Dowling. In Burlington, a similar proposal drew such heated reaction that the City Council blocked it from a public vote after councilors and the proposer received harassing calls and death threats.
Vermont has a history of “big issue” local resolutions — from calls for a nuclear arms freeze in the 1980s to debates over genetically modified foods in 2003. Dewalt has led several high‑profile local initiatives over the years, including an effort to impeach President George W. Bush in 2006; he says the visibility of Town Meeting gives grassroots actions disproportionate reach. “I can guarantee you if I stood up on my soap box and made a declaration of the exact same wording, I wouldn’t have had anybody asking me questions about it,” he said.
Critics contend activists overstate their mandate. The Newfane vote, they note, reflected a tiny fraction of the town’s population — 46 people amounted to less than 3% of residents — yet was presented as a town endorsement. “I feel like they’re using the town as a vehicle for their personal messages and that bothers me,” said resident Cris White.
Burlington City Council President Ben Traverse criticized what he called inflammatory, one‑sided language in some resolutions. He supports allowing contentious questions but argues for an official review to ensure fair, neutral wording — similar to how many states vet ballot questions. In Vermont, any registered voter may place a resolution on the Town Meeting warning with signatures from 5% of voters; while elected officials can permit or block items, there’s no formal process to edit or standardize language.
The debate reflects a tension between local democratic traditions and the nationalized political climate: some see Town Meetings as a place to signal values and influence broader discourse, while others worry the practice distracts from local governance and amplifies division.