By John Klar
Dismissing any conservative claims of voter fraud as conspiracy theory, Democrats surely do not want the citizenry to become aware of their active effort to subvert the voting process and then cover it up – right here in Vermont! Vermont Democrats hate voter fraud so much that they object when theirs is exposed.
As I wrote here last November, Representative Carolyn Partridge solicited out-of-town residents to vote in a local school vote while she was on the school board. In an email to me on November 19, Ms. Partridge wrote “The short answer is that the allegations are completely false. Thanks, Carolyn.” That appears to be less than forthright, and now is the time for a longer answer for voters.
Carolyn Partridge didn’t just involve herself in voter fraud – she actively solicited it with apparently no fear of accountability. By persuading other people to vote in her town’s election, Partridge embroiled them as the named defendants in the lawsuit challenging the vote. The Town and others did all they could to hide her emails from the citizen plaintiffs: Superintendent Bill Anton dragged his feet and objected to their records request language; the Vermont League of Towns and Cities had no opinion to offer on the records request; and then the Town through legal counsel has repeatedly tried in court to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not moved faster!
Vermonters, here is what actually happened. On September 7, 2021, the Town of Windham voted to close the Windham Elementary School, and at least three non-residents voted. Per the 12/20/21 Amended Complaint, “Almost immediately after the vote was confirmed, Defendant Carolyn Partridge, began a campaign for a re-vote.” The same three non-residents participated in petitioning for a revote, leading to a revote on November 2 in which they again voted.
Concerned that they lived in Peru and that their only connection to Windham was that they owned an “uninhabitable” property there (that was for sale), one of the nonresident voters emailed Carolyn Partridge with her concerns. As stated in the Amended Complaint:
24. On October 13, 2021, Ms. Beshay, in an emailed addressed to Partridge, Ms. Beshay stated the following “If I own property in Windham but reside in Peru, can I not vote in Windham? I thought I could vote in Windham because we own property but Alexis just told me Crystal is going after me for voting illegally.”
25. Partridge replied by email: “She would! If you intend to return to your house/land eventually and have not registered somewhere else, you may vote in Windham. You might say that for health reasons you have had to rent elsewhere but it is your intention to return. That’s all you need to say. If she goads you, remain silent. Maureen Bell has a brother who lives in Montreal and votes in Windham. And he knows nothing about the school!! As long as you’re on the checklist, you are a legal voter.”
This email appears to coach a nonresident to commit voting fraud – this is called subornation, and is generally condemned when non-elites do it. When the surrounding facts are assessed, there is no other way to view this. Instead of protecting voters or the voting process, however, the Town of Windham and its lawyers have committed all possible energies to defend the out-of-town voters and Partridge, repeatedly attempting to dismiss the case on technicalities.
Per the Court’s latest (July 1, 2022) Order denying the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Superior Court Judge Katherine A. Hayes observed:
The Town also argues that the plaintiffs’ argument that the election result should be set aside due to fraud must fail, because even had the three voters not voted in favor of the school remaining open (which it is not clear that they did) the outcome of the vote would have been tie, and therefore the school would have remained open. They disagree with the plaintiffs’ argument that a tie would have left the prior vote in place, requiring that the school be closed. Therefore, the town argues, even if the voters’ participation was in fact fraudulent, it was insufficient “to change the ultimate result,” and was therefore not a basis for a valid contest of the election under 17 V.S.A. § 2603(b)(2). ….The parties have made these arguments before, and the court has ruled on them. ….Accordingly, the court again denies the Town’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.
This is why Americans have a third branch of government to oversee the other two – without a Court of integrity, every bureaucratic abuse available would ensure the truth of Carolyn Partridge’s perfidious betrayal of law and voters would still be unknown – statewide liberal media are not reporting on this brazen fraud, and will likely just keep hoping it goes away!
But perhaps that too is a story to be shared widely – the House Ethics Panel has investigated this case and ruled that Representative Partridge did nothing wrong!:
The House Ethics Panel considered your complaint against Rep. Carolyn Partridge in accordance with the House Ethics Panel Procedure for Handling Ethics Complaints. ….After considering the circumstances related to your complaint, including the above-described BCA and Court review, by this memorandum, the Panel is closing your complaint. However, pursuant to the Panel’s Procedure, the Panel reserves the ability to reopen this complaint in the future, if necessary. Also in accordance with its Procedure, the Panel is providing a copy of this notice to Rep. Partridge.
How nice and cozy for Partridge and the bureaucrats who cover for her! Vermonters can see in plain view just how corrupt all of these people are, and just how far they will pervert truth and process to rule over others very undemocratically for their own power. If there is no accountability at the polls in November, they will continue with the same shameless impunity they exhibit in this lawsuit, while scoffing at anyone who questions the voting process.
(Editor’s note: Rep. Partridge, a longtime committee chair and leader in the House Democratic caucus, declined to run for re-election this year. A search of the House Ethics Panel on the Vermont Legislature webpage shows no information about any meetings or decisions. The panel members are Reps. John Gannon, Chair, Brian Cina, Lawrence Cupoli, Kimberly Jessup and Laura Sibilia. Responses by any of the representatives mentioned above will be published as they become available.)
The author is a Brookfield resident, farmer, lawyer, and candidate for state senate from Orange County.