[EL] Fwd: “Tea Party congressman suggests only property owners should vote”

[Robert Wechsler]

Good article, Zachary.

It's ironic that, re the conservative valuing of an informed electorate 
(which would exclude the uneducated) that you discuss in the article, if 
one considers /local/ elections, the poor and uneducated, city and 
rural, probably know their neighborhoods and the people who live and run 
for office in them better than suburbanites do and are, therefore, most 
likely /more/ informed local voters than suburban whites. Extended 
voting hours are very important for commuting suburbanites, and I've 
never heard anyone object to them. But should suburbanites be tested 
about local issues (especially non-school issues) before they are 
allowed to vote? It would be very embarrassing.

By the way, I'm a white, educated, non-commuting suburbanite who has, on 
and off, been very involved in local politics, but right now would have 
trouble passing such a test.

Rob Wechsler


On 5/22/2014 1:28 PM, Zachary Roth wrote:
> Hi Robert -- I wrote about that at the link below, fyi -- though less 
> on libertarianism and property rights, and more on straight 
> conservatism and the various ways in which it has supported 
> limitations on voting.
>
> www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-conservative-case-limit-voting 
> <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-conservative-case-limit-voting>
>
> Z
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Robert Wechsler* <catbird at pipeline.com 
> <mailto:catbird at pipeline.com>>
> Date: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:02 AM
> Subject: [EL] “Tea Party congressman suggests only property owners 
> should vote”
> To: "law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" 
> <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>
>
>
> I don't think Yoho's statement is LOL. In fact, the property right to 
> vote still exists, although not exclusively. For example, in my very 
> own town, anyone with $1,000 of property in the town may vote at a 
> town meeting.
>
> And isn't the Takings Clause in the Constitution extremely important 
> to libertarianism? Property rights. Going from a negative right to a 
> positive right is not difficult, at least intellectually. What is most 
> important to be protected may also be considered most important for 
> practicing democracy.
>
> Most libertarians either don't go this far or know what not to say 
> publicly. But beyond partisan tactics, isn't this attitude toward 
> voting responsible for the strong push to block the voting rights of 
> those without property, even without ID?
>
> Rob Wechsler
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu 
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140522/3355082c/attachment.html>