This is what democracy looks like!

by Rob Roper

The recent poll by Vermont Public showed – sadly, but not surprisingly – that a majority of Vermonters (57 percent) support taxing more heavily owners of second homes in our state. This has been a topic of conversation under the Golden Dome for at least the past couple of years, and the reasons behind it expose some really ugly sides to our collective character. It also illustrates the important difference between the concepts of “Democracy” and our Constitutional Republic.

First the ugly.

Why do the politicians want to tax second homes? Not because it’s fair. It’s not. The folks who own vacation homes in Vermont already pay very high property taxes for services, mostly for public education, that they, by definition, don’t use. They are more likely to employ Vermonters to help maintain those properties when they are not there, and often (heaven forfend, so let’s add a third tax to this outrageous activity) rent these houses out to tourists who, pound for pound more than us locals, eat in our restaurants (who else eats out for the majority of their meals) and shop in our local stores buying stuff, let’s be honest, most frugal woodchucks wouldn’t spend their money on. All of this is a huge net positive for local economies.

So, why do the politicians want to punish these people who provide much but require very little in return, and demonize them in the process in order to justify the unjustifiable? Simple – and ugly – because second homeowners are defenseless victims, unable a vote them out in protest. This is a classic case of middle school bullies picking on and stealing the milk money from the second graders because the little kids don’t have the ability to fight back.

Pick on someone your own size? It doesn’t work out so well. Look what happened in 2024 when Democrats got the blame for a 14 percent property tax on people who mostly could vote – and did. They lost six senate seats and nineteen house seats. That’s called accountability, and what politician likes that?

But the ugly doesn’t just belong to the politicians. Those 57 percent of Vermonters support this policy too. Again, not because it’s fair or just. It’s not. I’m sure envy has something to do with it. Most of us don’t own second homes, so screw those guys! Greed plays another part, using the political system to loot your neighbor’s bank account for your own benefit. But I think the biggest reason is fear: better the bullies are picking on them than me. As my friend Bill Sayre is fond of quoting, “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that [second homeowner] behind the tree.” A sentiment that, of course, brings to mind the Martin Niemöller poem with the famous conclusion, “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Which gets us to the Democracy versus Constitutional Republic issue mentioned at the outset of this piece. The one that makes so many roll their eyes when that one guy in every political conversation (full disclosure, it’s often me) makes a point of pointing out that we do not, in fact, live in a democracy. But it’s an important point.

Democracy, as many have said, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Or, in this case, a bunch of people who can vote voting to tax a bunch of people who can’t vote. And in a pure democracy the government’s duty is to follow the will of the majority, even if the majority is up to no good.

A Constitutional Republic, on the other hand – and ours in particular – is set up to protect minority and individual rights from majority opinion (a.k.a. The Mob). In other words, the majority of wolves may want to eat the sheep for dinner, but in a Constitutional Republic the government’s duty is to defend the sheep’s constitutional right not to be eaten.

So, it really it shouldn’t matter that 57 percent of Vermont wolves want to effectively mug the second homeowner sheep among us, no matter how fat and juicy they may appear to be. And hat tip to Campaign for Vermont for pointing this out, legally speaking, it (likely) doesn’t matter. As CFV writes in their October Newsletter:

Can Vermont tax only out-of-state owners? Probably not. In Camps Newfound/Owatonna v. Town of Harrison (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Maine property tax rule that favored in-state interests. The Court held that the dormant Commerce Clause, which bars states from discriminating against interstate commerce, applies to property taxes.

As it should. Property is property and its owners should be treated equally under the law – equality under the law being a cornerstone principle of our Constitutional Republic. So, say this second home tax does manage to pass into Vermont law, it will very likely be the subject of (another) losing lawsuit. And when that happens, do you think the folks pushing this tax will simply walk away from the programs they hoped the revenue would fund? No, they will not. They will get the money from someone else. And, as Martin Niemöller warned, there will be nobody left to speak for you.

Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com