Needless to say, as is well known, the Chabad-Lubavitch movement does not endorse any political candidate, and this and any other information Chabad.org publicizes is for informational purposes.

Below is the information more-or-less in chronological form, along with some interview notes and additional explanatory information.

Chabad.org’s Margolin’s research unearthed some additional interesting facts about Sanders and his Judaism which have not yet been reported. We share that, too, below.

The research sheds new light on Bernie Sanders’ role, as mayor of Burlington from 1981-1989, in defending Chabad’s menorah, which in turn garnered an extraordinary amount of media and advocacy attention to the menorah cause, helping to catapult the public menorah and the Chanukah holiday to great prominence in the U.S.A. and even abroad.

While so doing, Margolin stumbled across a number of facts that might be of wider public interest just now.

Researching the menorah court cases that colored much of the 1980s and early 1990s (which culminated, in part, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1989 decision allowing the display of menorahs in Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union), Chabad.org Associate Editor Dovid Margolin searched the archives of Chabad-Lubavitch of Vermont for information pertaining to the controversy and subsequent court case that surrounded Burlington, Vermont’s public menorah. His research led him to the University of Vermont’s Bailey/Howe Library, and subsequently to interviewing people who remembered the case.

While large Public Chabad-Lubavitch Chanukah Menorahs are very much a part of the fabric of American life today, gaining permission to display the menorahs on public property was not without hurdles. Indeed, almost from the inception of the public menorah by enterprising Chabad-Lubavitch emissaries, opponents of the effort brought their grievances to the courthouse, claiming the menorahs violated the separation of church and state. Defenders countered that the public display was protected as a matter of freedom of speech and freedom to practice one’s religion.

The early and strong support from the Sanders administration played a significant role in the now widespread phenomenon of public Chanukah Menorah celebrations countrywide.

Defying significant pressure from political peers, Sanders strongly supported the Chabad-Lubavitch Public Menorah and directed his administration to defend it in court.

Background:

With its small Jewish population, Vermont is historically not used to much public Jewish expression. In December of 1982 the Burlington Free Press ran an opinion piece titled: Attempting to Celebrate Hanukkah Always Seems Difficult in Vermont.

In the winter of 1983 Rabbi Yitzchak and Zeesy Raskin were appointed as the new Chabad-Lubavitch emissaries to Vermont, to help support and strengthen Jewish awareness throughout the rural state. One of the first actions the newly-minted emissaries took (at the time the Raskins still did not have a home in Burlington and Rabbi Raskin was searching for an apartment for his young family), was to approach Mayor Sanders’ office and request permission to light a large 8-foot menorah on the steps of City Hall as part of the worldwide public mitzvah campaign spearheaded and inspired by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory.

Rabbi Raskin then invited Mayor Sanders to light the menorah.

Sanders gladly accepted their invitation and on December 1, 1983, in front of a crowd of about 35 Jewish students from the University of Vermont, he came out to the steps of City Hall, donned a kippah, flawlessly read the blessings aloud, and lit two candles, corresponding to the second night of Chanukah.

Sanders’ inauguration of the City Hall menorah inspired an annual tradition, and in 1986 Rabbi Raskin sought permission to allow the menorah to be erected in City Hall Park during all eight days of Chanukah. He also asked for permission to replace his aging 8-footer with a new sixteen foot version.

Litigation and Pressure

The Sanders administration welcomed these requests, and granted full permission.

Almost immediately the ACLU complained to the city, claiming that a menorah in a public space violated federal laws of the separation of church and state.

Sanders asked City Attorney Joseph McNeil to review the issue.

On Dec. 5, 1986, McNeil responded to Sanders, attaching a legal opinion written by attorney Art Cernosia stating the city’s position that Chabad was fully in its rights to erect a menorah:

“... Based on the Second Circuit case, it is my opinion that there is no legal bar for the City of Burlington to allow a menorot [sic] to be erected in the City’s park. I would recommend that the City require a prominent disclaimer sign to be posted by the display.”

A memo from City Attorney John McNeil to Mayor Bernie Sanders laid out their legal reasoning behind allowing the Chabad-Lubavitch Menorah to stand in City Hall Park. Credit: 21/30, Bernard Sanders Papers, Special Collections, University of Vermont Library.

The now-taller menorah stood in City Hall Park for the duration of Chanukah.

In 1987 the ACLU and local activists threatened to file suit against the City of Burlington if they again allowed the menorah to be erected on city property. The controversy quickly went from being a Vermont case covered by local papers to a widely-reported national news story. One New York Times story quotes extensively from a news conference held by City Attorney McNeill and Assistant City Attorney John Franco, in which they reiterated the Sanders administration’s opinion that “City Hall Park is a public-forum location where the expression of political and religious viewpoints is not only tolerated but encouraged.”

The Times further quotes McNeil about the growing tussle:

“[McNeil] said a number of city agencies had received calls about the menorah, some in support, some in opposition and “some unfortunate calls suggesting that, because the Governor [Madeleine Kunin] and the Mayor [Sanders] are both Jewish, we might be more inclined to allow a menorah than a creche. “'It is not because the Governor and the Mayor are Jewish that the menorah is in the park,’ Mr. McNeil said.”

Governor Madeleine Kunin actually disagreed with Mayor Sanders about the menorah’s permissibility but despite her disagreement, and the vociferous opposition of many of Sanders’ friends and political supporters, the mayor and his administration were steadfast in their determination to allow the religious expression in the public sphere.

It is difficult to overstate how closely allied the ACLU and Bernie Sanders were on the vast majority of social issues. Yet when activists—with the assistance of the ACLU—finally did file suit against the city in June of 1988, Sanders and his administration chose to vigorously defend their position in court.

Reliable supporters of Bernie Sanders lined up to express their dissatisfaction. Rev. Paul Bortz exhorted Sanders to drop the case and “get out of this.” Wrote Bortz:

“Come on Mayor Sanders, let’s drop the idea of any religious symbol being displayed on any government property. The whole idea is an extraordinary waste waste [sic] of taxpayers money. Or are you billing Lubavitch of Vermont for legal fees? “Let’s get on with other, more vital, issues such as the legal rights of the homeless, and poor and housing and discrimination, areas where the Sanders administration has a good record.”

A 1988 letter from Reverend Paul Bortz condemning Sanders for his efforts in the menorah case. Credit: 21/30, Bernard Sanders Papers, Special Collections, University of Vermont Library.

On Dec. 8, 1988, just before Chanukah, U.S. District Judge Franklin S. Billings Jr. issued a particularly strong ruling in support of the Burlington menorah, a story closely reported by The Times (and distributed around the country by its now-defunct wire service), and many other national outlets.

The ruling was overturned a year later by the Second Court of Appeals, which claimed, in part, that since the menorah stood in the park alone (i.e., without any symbols of other religions, as was the case in Allegheny County v. ACLU, in which the Supreme Court ruled the public display of a menorah was constitutional), it was therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause.

In subsequent years, Chabad’s Raskin placed the menorah in Waterfront Park (also government property, but not directly in front of City Hall, which mollified the Appeals Court’s reasoning that a menorah with City Hall in the background was a de facto endorsement of a particular religion by the municipality). Today, the menorah goes up in the heart of Burlington on a central patch on the campus of the University of Vermont.

But the ongoing publicity of the case served a positive role in Chabad’s efforts to publicize the Chanukah message and bring more public awareness of the holiday and its message of religious freedom.

More First-Hand Info Regarding Bernie Sanders' Stance on the Chabad Menorah:

Richard Sugarman, a professor of philosophy at the University of Vermont who has known Sanders for nearly five decades (the two were roommates for a time in Burlington, and it was Sugarman who encouraged Sanders to successfully run for mayor in 1981. Sanders appointed Sugarman his unpaid “Commissioner of Reality” following that election) recalls their conversations regarding the menorah case:

“When Bernie and I discussed the menorah issue, it was a religious freedom case. We discussed the Rebbe [Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory]’s opinion. It resonated with him. It wasn’t about fighting other holidays; it was about making a religious freedom argument.”

(NOTE: The Rebbe’s 1980 public letter “To all Participants in the Public Lighting of the Menorah in the U.S.A.”)

Speaking about the Sanders administration’s principled position even in the face of strong opposition by its political allies, then-Assistant City Attorney John Franco (who served as a legislative assistant to Sanders after he was elected to Congress in 1991) recalls the Sanders administration position:

“I cannot be emphatic enough in expressing how much Lubavitch was in its rights to put up a menorah. To us it was never even a question; it was clearly a First Amendment case and we were going to fight for their rights to do so. It was never a consideration not to.”