Justice Stewart’s trenchant phrases came to mind when I read this morning’s Day:
Groton – A discussion by the Town Council on allowing nonresident taxpayers to vote at referendums has inspired talk about possibly revising the town charter.
Groton Town Mayor Heather Bond Somers asked fellow councilors last week for input on the idea of nonresident voting because of phone calls she received during the most recent road $11.2 million road repair referendum.
“We have (people) that are property owners, that maintain their properties, that are paying taxes to the town, and yet they are not allowed to vote in a referendum that affects the town,” Somers said at last week’s council meeting.
Nonresident taxpayers have been barred from voting at town referendums since 2009 based on an opinion from town attorney Michael Carey. It appears a language change during charter revisions in 2008 led to that opinion. A 2000 opinion on the same question, prior to charter changes, elicited the opposite response.
Somers said she wondered how fair the rule was considering there are others, such as Navy personnel, living in town with voting rights who do not pay taxes.
(via theday.com Mobile Edition)
Heather Bond Somers is, of course, a Republican. Isn’t it odd that the party that sees voter fraud behind every black, brown, or poor face is so solicitous of the “rights” of people who don’t even reside in the town in which they want to vote? I had thought that we had all arrived at a consensus that the right to vote is inherent in the person, but to some, it appears, only the propertied, those spacious in the possession of dirt, should vote. It is not immediately clear to me why a person who may live in Florida should have a say in whether our kids get a better school, or we get better roads, but of course I have so little respect for the rights of property. On the other hand, it is immediately clear to me why those Navy folks who don’t pay taxes should have a vote: they live here. Except, of course, when they’re at sea serving their country, protecting the rights of property.
In these days of Citizens United this proposal raises all sorts of interesting questions. Do corporate owners get to vote? If I own four buildings do I get four votes? How about if I put each in a different corporate entity? If my wife and I are co-owners, do we both get to vote? If so, how many co-owners do we allow? Are foreigners, including the dreaded Arab, allowed to vote? If I own property worth $200K do I get twice the vote of someone whose property is only worth $100K? Whatever the answers to these questions might be, we know one thing for sure. These new “voters” will care not a fig for the quality of life in Groton; it will be their money voting, diluting the votes of those who, at least in theory, have a broader perspective on what they are doing and a real stake in the outcome.
I have a personal interest in this debate. I was on the Charter Revision commission that changed the charter to preclude non-residents from voting. In fact, I think I can honestly say that I was the animating force behind the proposal, though in the end, everyone on the commission, including the Republicans (Groton still has some old fashioned rational Republicans-a dying breed among whom Somers cannot be counted), saw the wisdom in what we did. It was certainly not an unintended result.
So, in all humility, I guess I can add this to my short list of life accomplishments. Besides keeping baseball and democracy out of Groton (long stories both, if interested, let me know) I can take credit for disenfranchising the affluent, which certainly runs contrary to the nationwide trend.
Post a Comment