Town Meeting Day, a deeply ingrained tradition in New England, is facing renewed scrutiny as advocates raise concerns about accessibility for voters with disabilities. Even as celebrated as a cornerstone of direct democracy, the practice—particularly in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine—often presents significant barriers to participation, from physically inaccessible meeting locations to the sheer length of the proceedings. For Kate Larose, a youth services coordinator with the Vermont Center for Independent Living, and her husband, who lives with Long Covid, this year’s Town Meeting Day meant exclusion from a vital civic process.
Every first Tuesday of March, residents of many New England towns gather to deliberate and vote on local issues directly, a practice dating back centuries. But this cherished tradition often clashes with modern accessibility standards. Larose’s request, and that of her husband, to vote remotely were both denied, highlighting a systemic lack of accommodation for individuals with disabilities. The situation underscores a broader challenge: ensuring that the principles of democratic participation extend to all citizens, regardless of physical limitations.
A Tradition at Odds with Accessibility
Town meetings, predating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), are often held in buildings that lack ramps, accessible restrooms, or adequate seating for individuals with mobility impairments. The meetings themselves can stretch for hours, posing a challenge for those with chronic health conditions or sensory sensitivities. Beyond physical barriers, the format of open floor debates can be difficult for individuals with communication disabilities to navigate effectively. This isn’t a new issue; advocates have long pointed to the inherent inaccessibility of the format.
The problem is particularly acute in Vermont and New Hampshire, which in 2022 were ranked first and third, respectively, in the MIT Elections Lab’s assessment of states with the worst disability access, according to MIT’s research. “There is really a lack of enforcement, and in some of these states, they have conflicting laws that really place historic treasured tradition above access,” explained Alexia Kemerling, director of accessible democracy at the American Association of People with Disabilities. “It’s a really heartbreaking example of who gets left behind in systems that are not built for everyone.”
Beyond Physical Barriers: A Systemic Issue
The challenges extend beyond physical access. Larose noted the irony of towns debating policies that impact vulnerable populations—including measures to restrict the rights of unhoused individuals—while simultaneously denying those same populations a voice in the process. “There are towns right now in Vermont that are voting on making sure that essentially, unhoused people can’t exist in their town,” she said, “And I can’t vote [against] that.”
The situation in Vermont highlights a broader bureaucratic hurdle. While Vermont Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas has expressed openness to increased accessibility—noting that the state already allows all registered voters to vote by mail in state and federal races—she maintains that implementing changes is the responsibility of individual towns, not her office. This division of responsibility, as highlighted in a report from the Brennan Center for Justice, often leads to inconsistent application of accessibility standards and delays in implementing necessary improvements. Hanzas stated, “We can’t burn the place down because we don’t like what they do in terms of accessibility with their local elections,” but added her office can “offer them best practices.”
Models for Change and the Path Forward
Despite the challenges, there are examples of successful accessibility improvements. In Iowa, the Democratic Party shifted its caucus model in 2024 to include in-person discussions followed by mail-in voting to better accommodate voters with disabilities, as reported by the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD). This demonstrates that adapting traditional democratic processes to ensure inclusivity is possible.
In Vermont, advocates like Larose have pushed for solutions such as allowing voters to drop off ballots or participate in hybrid meetings via platforms like Zoom. However, even a state-level working group formed to address these issues produced guidance that advocates found inadequate, leading to Larose’s resignation in February. The ADA, Kemerling emphasized, does cover local elections, and the Department of Justice issued updated guidance in 2024 clarifying this point.
Jessica Radbord of the ACLU of Vermont pointed to historical precedents, noting that women were once excluded from town meetings. “We can do things a little bit differently to make this process more accessible to people, to take advantage of new technologies or new systems that are going to make our democracy more inclusive,” Radbord said. “Because a more inclusive democracy is a healthier democracy, and that’s what everybody wants.”
The debate over accessibility in New England town meetings reflects a larger conversation about the balance between tradition and inclusivity in democratic processes. As states grapple with ensuring equal access to the ballot box, the experiences of voters like Kate Larose serve as a stark reminder of the work that remains to be done.
The Vermont legislature is expected to revisit accessibility measures for Town Meeting Day during its next session. Updates on legislative action and potential changes to voting procedures will be available on the Vermont Secretary of State’s website.
What are your thoughts on accessibility in local elections? Share your comments below, and consider sharing this article to raise awareness about this important issue.
