If you haven’t lived in some New England towns, it’s hard to grasp their centuries-old town meeting tradition, where residents directly vote on routine municipal matters like school funding, snow plows and road repairs. Lately, however, voters are also being asked to weigh in on national and international controversies—calling to defund ICE, condemning an attack on Iran, seeking the removal of the president and vice president for alleged constitutional crimes, or urging an end to support for Israel’s policies.
Those national-scale questions are fueling a fierce debate about what belongs on a town meeting agenda. Dan Dewalt, an activist in Newfane, Vermont, helped rush a resolution opposing the Iran war onto that town’s annual meeting and says local action matters: “When you have people sleepwalking into an authoritarian regime, it’s up to us to sound the alarm.” Dewalt and other activists argue local resolutions are effective and empowering, especially as national politics grow more polarized. “People feel isolated, helpless and hopeless. … When you hear about other people who are just like you taking a stand … that gives you not only hope, but it gives you power,” he said.
Several Vermont towns were set to consider resolutions calling for removal of the president and vice president, while many others planned votes on pledges to end support for Israel’s “apartheid policies, settler colonialism, and military occupation and aggression.” Newfane last year approved a divestment-style resolution 46–15 after hours of emotionally charged debate over Palestinians’ plight, Israeli security, the resolution’s language, and whether foreign-policy questions belong at a tiny town’s meeting. Newfane has about 1,650 residents, and the 46-person majority represented under 3% of the town—an example critics cite when arguing activists overstate such resolutions’ legitimacy.
Opponents say town meetings should focus on local business. “It’s a Town Meeting for town issues,” Newfane resident Walter Hagadorn told the select board, urging officials to block resolutions unrelated to municipal governance. Some suggested activists hold separate events or rallies instead. Select Board member Katy Johnson-Aplin countered that offsite protests don’t have the same impact: only a formal town meeting record and media coverage show “that the town of Newfane has agreed to have this conversation.”
The phenomenon isn’t unique to Vermont. University of Pennsylvania political scientist Daniel Hopkins has observed communities across the country taking stands on issues beyond local government. He warned this trend can deepen polarization: in a media environment rewarding attention-grabbing moves, nationalized local votes may make it harder for communities to build broad coalitions on other issues.
In Newfane, the Israel-related resolution was divisive enough that some residents stayed home rather than attend town meeting, Select Board vice-chair Marion Dowling said. In Burlington, a similar proposal prompted heated backlash; City Council President Ben Traverse says he and his family received harassment and death threats, and the council eventually blocked the question from a popular vote. Traverse also criticized the resolution’s “inflammatory” and one-sided wording and favors an official review process to ensure language is fair and neutral—similar to how many states vet ballot questions. Vermont law allows any registered voter to place a resolution on the town meeting warning by gathering signatures from 5% of voters; while elected officials can permit or block items, there’s no statutory process to edit petition language.
Vermont has a long history of “big issue” town resolutions—from nuclear freeze campaigns in the 1980s to calls for bans on genetically modified foods in 2003. Dewalt, who supported a 2006 effort to impeach President George W. Bush, says local declarations can have outsized effects: if he had made the same statements privately, they likely wouldn’t have drawn attention, but the town meeting platform generated media coverage and wider impact.
Critics remain unconvinced. Newfane resident Cris White called the use of town meetings for personal political messages “so junior high.” Traverse agrees contentious questions can be appropriate but insists their wording must not be leading. He supports contentious resolutions being debated locally if the process ensures clarity and neutrality.
As more communities consider national and international issues at town meetings, the debate continues over whether these gatherings should remain focused on municipal governance or serve as a formal forum for broader civic expression.