Burlington city councilors voted on Monday against placing a pro-Palestine resolution on the March 5 ballot, denying voters a chance to weigh in on an issue that has divided the council and the community at large.

The symbolic resolution would have declared Burlington an "apartheid-free community" that supports ending "Israel's apartheid regime, settler colonialism, and military occupation" of Palestine. Close to 1,700 registered voters signed a petition to place the item on the Town Meeting Day ballot, more than the 5 percent required by state law.

But the council, which has discretion over whether to put advisory questions on the ballot, wasn't persuaded. After more than three hours of public forum — during which proponents outnumbered opponents by about a dozen — councilors voted 7-5 to reject the ballot item.



The six council Democrats and Councilor Mark Barlow (I-North District) voted no, while the four council Progressives and Councilor Ali Dieng (I-Ward 7) voted yes.
The council debate was the second in as many months on a resolution related to the Israel-Hamas war, which has left tens of thousands dead since it erupted in October. In December, the Burlington council failed to pass a measure calling for a cease-fire in Gaza and another that condemned the shooting of three Palestinian students who were visiting Burlington for Thanksgiving. Both resolutions were defeated by a 6-6 vote.

As with the cease-fire resolution, the meeting's pro-Israel contingent told councilors on Monday night that putting the anti-apartheid question on the ballot would stoke anti-Jewish sentiment and endanger Jews — a contention rebutted by pro-Palestine advocates who said the measure condemns racism outright.

Others opposed to the resolution said councilors should instead focus on Burlington issues, such as crime and homelessness. Those in favor countered that the city council has previously taken stands on other international conflicts.

But much of the night's debate centered on the council's right to reject citizen-led advisory ballot items. By contrast, binding items, such as charter changes, can bypass the council and go directly to the ballot if organizers collect enough signatures.

Advocates tried to change the rules last year with "Proposition Zero," a ballot question that would have allowed citizens to place any question on the ballot directly, including advisory measures. It failed last Town Meeting Day, with 53 percent of voters against it. That same election, voters rejected a charter change that would have created a new police oversight board — a question that made it to the ballot by skipping council review.
On Monday night, Rabbi Eliyahu Junik of the Chabad of Burlington synagogue urged the council to reject the anti-apartheid ballot item, saying councilors' roles are akin to parents who must sometimes refuse their children's wishes.

"Saying 'no' is not a rejection of democracy but the exercise of democracy," Junik said, "and a commitment to keep Burlington a safe and inclusive place."

Ballot item proponent Maggie Chadwell, meantime, said the council should follow the petitioners' wishes because they had followed the proper procedure.
"You have an obligation to allow us, as a community, to vote on this referendum," Chadwell said. "It would be a moral failing to take that away from us."

Councilors had similarly mixed opinions. Councilor Gene Bergman (P-Ward 2), who cosponsored the resolution and is Jewish, urged his colleagues to vote in favor, saying they could do so without supporting the measure itself.

"I believe we owe it to all Burlington voters to have the right to cast their votes on this question of great concern," he said. "Deny that right, and we weaken democracy, and I cannot do that in good conscience."
Councilor Joe Magee (P-Ward 3), another resolution cosponsor, agreed, saying advisory questions are a form of direct democracy. "I don't think it's our place to stand in the way of that," he said.

But Democrats, who have a functional majority on the council, disagreed. Councilor Ben Traverse (D-Ward 5) said the ballot item could spur dialogue about conflict in the Middle East but that those conversations could happen without putting it to a vote. He also said the meeting's debate had been less than civil, noting that pro-Palestinian activists had laughed at a pro-Israel Jewish woman who misspoke when she said that people should not invoke "other genocides to describe this one." She quickly rephrased what she said, and Traverse, sympathizing with the woman, chided audience members for laughing.

"And we question why those folks would feel unsettled and unsafe?" Traverse said.

Councilor Hannah King (D-Ward 8), who supported last month's cease-fire measure, said she would vote against the anti-apartheid resolution because it was too one-sided.



"This issue is undeniably painful and complicated," she said. "I recognize the emotions of the folks within our community and truly hope we can find a path forward."

Correction, January 23, 2024: A previous version of this story mischaracterized what one speaker said during the public forum.