Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court held that neither Vermont statutes nor the Vermont Constitution required the South Burlington School District to place a petitioned, nonbinding advisory question about reinstating the “Rebels” athletic-team name on a district-wide ballot. The court concluded that the voters lacked statutory authority to decide the matter and that the constitutional right to instruct representatives is individual rather than a collective right to compel an advisory vote. The court reversed the trial court’s order denying the District’s motion and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the District.
Holdings
- The applicable statutes require a municipality or school district to include a petitioned article only when the matter concerns business within the authority of the voters to decide at the relevant meeting. Because voters lacked authority to designate the name of the District's athletic teams and the proposed vote would have had no binding legal effect, the District was not required to place the article on the ballot.
- Article 20 does not create a collective right to compel a municipality or school district to conduct a district-wide advisory vote. To the extent Article 20 protects an enforceable right to instruct representatives, that right is individual, and the residents did not allege that the District denied them individual opportunities to communicate their views.
- Mandamus relief was unavailable because the residents did not establish a clear and certain legal right to require the District to place the advisory article on the ballot.
Questions Presented
- Whether 17 V.S.A. §§ 2642-2643 and 16 V.S.A. § 551 required the South Burlington School District to place a petitioned, nonbinding advisory question concerning the name of school athletic teams on a district-wide ballot.
- Whether Chapter I, Article 20 of the Vermont Constitution's right to instruct required the District to submit the advisory petition to a district-wide vote.
- Whether the residents were entitled to mandamus relief compelling the District to place the petition on the ballot.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (16)
- Condosta v. Condosta, 139 Vt. 545, 431 A.2d 494 (1981) (per curiam)(followed)
- Buxton v. Springfield Lodge No. 679, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., 2014 VT 52, 196 Vt. 486, 99 A.3d 171(followed)
- Provost v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc., 2005 VT 115, 179 Vt. 545, 890 A.2d 97 (mem.)(followed)
- Wool v. Menard, 2018 VT 23, 185 A.3d 577(followed)
- Royalton Taxpayers’ Protective Ass’n v. Wassmansdorf, 128 Vt. 153, 260 A.2d 203 (1969)(followed)
- Bargman v. Brewer, 142 Vt. 367, 454 A.2d 1253 (1983)(followed)
- Whiteman v. Brown, 128 Vt. 384, 264 A.2d 793 (1970)(followed)
- Pominville v. Addison Central Supervisory Union-Middlebury Union High School District #3, 154 Vt. 299, 575 A.2d 196 (1990)(followed)
- Clift v. City of S. Burlington, 2007 VT 3, 181 Vt. 571, 917 A.2d 483 (mem.)(followed)
- Kirchner v. Giebink, 150 Vt. 172, 552 A.2d 372 (1988)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…