"The Poor Voter on Election Day" (1848)

The proudest now is but my peer,
The highest not more high; 

To-day, of all the weary year, 

A king of men am I. 

To-day, alike are great and small, 

The nameless and the known; 

My palace is the people's hall, 

The ballot-box my throne! 

Who serves to-day upon the list
Beside the served shall stand;
Alike the brown and wrinkled fist,
The gloved and dainty hand! 

The rich is level with the poor, 

The weak is strong to-day; 

And sleekest broadcloth counts no more 

Than homespun frock of gray. 

To-day let pomp and vain pretence 

My stubborn right abide; 

I set a plain man's common sense 

Against the pedant's pride. 

To-day shall simple manhood try
The strength of gold and land 

The wide world has not wealth to buy 

The power in my right hand!

While there’s a grief to seek redress,
Or balance to adjust,
Where weighs our living manhood less
Than Mammon’s vilest dust, --
While there’s a right to need my vote
A wrong to sweep away,
Up! Clouted knee and ragged coat!
A man’s a man to-day! 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of richard@shepardlawoffice.com
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 10:33 AM
To: Michael Dimino; Rick Hasen; election-law
Subject: RE: Voting as Allocation of Power Among Political Equals, Or Voting as an Intelligence Test?

This thread reminds me of the description of voter types offered by James Macgregor Burns in Deadlock of Democracy; Four-Party Politics in America(1963).  There he posited three general but often overlapping voter types: 

 

1.       Party “regulars,” who “supply the political cadres to operate the electoral machinery. … [T]he burden of running the sprawling party apparatus would be impossible without the [regulars],…” Burns, at 209-210.

2.       The “independent” voter, being “somewhat less involved” who “drifts from election to election without a stable political mooring; … he is affected by a television program he happens to see, and argument he overhears, a stray piece of gossip, the candidate’s face, his wife’s hat, or the ride to the polls that some party worker offers him.”  Burns, at 210.

3.     The “mugwump” is “almost always outspoken on some cause he believes in, especially lost causes, …  His indignation is often righteous, his suspicions endemic, his criticism negative, his voice loud, and his manner peevish. … [H]e neglects immediate economic issues and denigrates the practical efforts that politicians, union leaders, and businessmen may be making.  But he should not be underestimated.  For decades he has been seizing on the great moral issues in America …. [He puts] issues and policies far above parties and candidates.” Burns, at 211-212.

 

It seems to me, of the three, the “independent” category is most likely the category that most ex-felons will fall into.  And to be clear, I speak with at least anecdotal authority, as part of my law practice involves criminal defense.

 

The broader question, I suppose, is whether any of these types of voters should have any systemic advantage, and if so, why. 

 

I put myself in the first category, and being one who—along with thousands of others in my own party and in other parties as well—does the “heavy lifting” in world of politics, I find it hard to stomach the idea that at the end of the day others, whom I deem to be fair weather voters or otherwise short-sighted (felony or no felony), should have as much say about the outcome of elections as me.  My own motivation for continued “heavy lifting” is at stake.

 

Richard Shepard, Attorney at Law

Shepard Law Office, Inc.

818 S. Yakima Ave., #200

Tacoma, WA 98405

253-383-2235

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of Michael Dimino
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 8:38 AM
To: Rick Hasen; election-law
Subject: Re: Voting as Allocation of Power Among Political Equals, Or Voting as an Intelligence Test?

 

Goldberg's real concern is that the louts will vote differently from the rest of us enlightened folks -- a concern of questionable constitutional legitimacy in light of Carrington v. Rash.  But I disagree with Rick's statement that this kind of elitism is or should be "completely unacceptable in today's society."  I, for one, am not at all thrilled that people completely ignorant of politics and public affairs cancel out my vote at every election.  I put up with democracy because I can think of no better system, in the sense that alternative systems are more prone to tyranny and abuse than is democracy.  But surely that calculus need not extend to the enfranchisement of every (adult?) person in the country.  If a voting scheme can be tailored to exclude the very worst voters -- and felons are at the top of the list by virtue of their unwillingness to abide by the limitations that society has considered the most serious -- then I shed no tears that my political equal is being denied the franchise.

 

The question then becomes which potential voters to exclude, and leads to the other part of Rick's question.  Yes, merely making voter registration is a crude way of excluding the uninformed.  So is felon disenfranchisement, though it seems to me less so.  But alternative ways of screening out the "unqualified" voters are no longer available.  A fairly administered literacy test or property-holding requirement, for example, would seem to accomplish the objective better than a requirement of filing a voter-registration form, but states cannot do that anymore.

 

It strikes me that arguments similar to Goldberg's have been advanced in serious works of legal and political-science scholarship recently.  I seem to remember Samuel Huntington offering that argument, and it is in the background of the judicial-elections controversy.  Part of the move, for example, to hold elections at different times of the year than the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is to depress the turnout of the voters who do not value judicial independence as much as they should.  (I wrote about this in my piece on judicial elections, 21 Yale Law & Pol'y Rev. 301, 374-76 (2003).)

 

 

 

Michael Richard Dimino, Sr.  

Assistant Professor  

Widener University School of Law  

Office 312  

3800 Vartan Way  

P.O. Box 69381  

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106-9381  

(717) 541-3941  

mrdimino@mail.widener.edu  

 

 

 

---------------------------------------  

Original Email  

From: Rick Hasen  

Sent: Mar 10, 2005 12:18 PM  

To: election-law  

Subject: Voting as Allocation of Power Among Political Equals, Or Voting as an Intelligence Test?  

 

 

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/003084.html

Voting as Allocation of Power Among Political Equals, Or Voting as an Intelligence Test?

Bob Bauer recently remarked that if "FEC Commissioner Brad Smith did not exist, members of the reform community would work hard to invent him." In a similar spirit, I am glad that Jonah Goldberg has written this oped on ex-felon voting for the Los Angeles Times (link via Brian Leiter).

In my draft article on election administration reform, I discuss one of my three reform proposals---to couple universal voter registration conducted by the government with government-issued voter identification (VID). Part of my discussion deals with potential criticisms, and it includes the following:

I see three potential objections to this package deal from the Republican side. First, there is the cost associated with this government program. It will no doubt be expensive for the federal government to create and maintain this massive database and to provide VIDs with photographs and biometric information for every eligible voter. Second, at least some Republicans likely still maintain the notion that it should not be so easy for people to vote. Under this view, registration barriers will segregate out those voters who are likely to be less intelligent or less concerned. Third, the plan has significant federalism costs by taking away registration powers from the 13,000 local electoral jurisdictions and placing that role in the hands of the federal government.

One thoughtful reader of my draft argued that I should give contemporary examples of Republicans who maintain the notion that it should not be so easy to vote, believing that my characterization was unfair. (I do offer a quote from the Texas attorney general in 1971 (who I assume was a Democrat, but I have not checked), who defended his state's onerous voter registraion requirements as follows: “those who overcome the annual hurdle of registering at a time remote to the fall elections will more likely be better informed and have greater capabilities of making an intelligent choice than those who do not care enough to register.”) But would a contemporary thinker make such an argument? Consider Goldberg's statement from the oped:

Should felons be allowed to vote? Maybe. If you believe in federalism, then there's no reason why this shouldn't be left to the states, which is where I'm fine leaving it, along with gay marriage and almost every other issue. But as a matter of principle, I oppose voting by ex-cons because voting should be harder, not easier — for everybody.

Of course, Marion Barry and Hillary Clinton see things differently. The principle behind Clinton's proposed legislation — which would make voting easier for criminals and noncriminals alike — is that the nation's democracy is "enriched" when more people vote.

Who says? If you are having an intelligent conversation with somebody, is it enriched if a mob of uninformed louts, never mind ex-cons and rapists, barges in? People who want to make voting easier are in effect saying that those who previously didn't care or know enough about the country to vote are exactly the kind of voters this country needs now.

My question is, how widespread is sentiment for Goldberg's notion? Should voting be viewed as an intelligence test rather than the means for allocating power among political equals? And even if one wants to exclude "uninformed louts," are felon disenfranchisement rules and onerous registration requirements the best way to do so? There may be good arguments for continued disenfranchisement of felons, but I would hope that this kind of argument is completely unacceptable in today's society.

-- 

Professor Rick Hasen 

Loyola Law School 

919 Albany Street 

Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211 

(213)736-1466 - voice 

(213)380-3769 - fax 

rick.hasen@lls.edu 

http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html 

http://electionlawblog.org

 

-- 
Professor Rick Hasen 
Loyola Law School 
919 Albany Street 
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211 
(213)736-1466 - voice 
(213)380-3769 - fax 
rick.hasen@lls.edu 
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html 
http://electionlawblog.org