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

Thu May 22 12:29:06 PDT 2014

I didn’t say they weren’t interested in the issue of the right to vote. I said they’re less interested in it than the power of the vote. Also, FWIW, there’s not all that much overlap between the Libertarian Party and libertarians (well, there’s about 100% overlap in one direction, but not the other).

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: Richard Winger [mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:27 PM
To: Sean Parnell; 'Robert Wechsler'; 'Zachary Roth'; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: “Tea Party congressman suggests only property owners should vote”

That is not an accurate observation.  The Libertarian Party has been a champion of extending the right of choice to vote, for the last 40 years.  The party has strengthened voting rights by lobbying and lawsuits in the majority of states during the last 35 years.  I could name all the instances if you wish.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> 415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

  _____  

From: Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
To: 'Robert Wechsler' <catbird at pipeline.com>; 'Zachary Roth' <zacharyr46 at gmail.com>; law-election at uci.edu 
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: “Tea Party congressman suggests only property owners should vote”

Probably worth noting that, at least judging by most of the libertarians and conservatives I encounter, there is far, far more interest in limiting the power of the vote than limiting the right/convenience to vote. 

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374  <resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype_logo.png> 571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Wechsler
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:17 PM
To: Zachary Roth; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: “Tea Party congressman suggests only property owners should vote”

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

Z

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Wechsler <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" <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
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

Call using Skype

Send SMS

Learn more

You'll need Skype CreditNo Skype credit required

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140522/b2947992/attachment.html>