Column for May 28, 2009

Should you be required to own property in order to vote in this nation? "Preposterous", you say, "not in America! That is totally against the fabric of our nation's founding!" Believe it or not, this is a long debated subject that goes back over 200 years.

The Founding Fathers had heated debates about whether or not to include requirements such as property (land) ownership in order to be able to cast a vote. Personally, I believe that to be of great benefit and merit to a nation. I believe it would especially benefit us here in North Carolina, in Johnston County, and in little old Selma.

In August of 1787, the Philadelphia Convention was meeting to discuss their first outline of the revised constitution. It was the middle of summer 212 years ago in a building with no air conditioning. The doors and windows were all shut and the drapes drawn closed. Men were hot in their temperature as well as demeanor. And representatives of the several states were debating the merits of various proposals line upon line, precept upon precept.

One of the principal architects of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris (that was his name, not his title) of Pennsylvania argued strongly for land ownership as a requisite for suffrage. Benjamin Franklin argued against the concept, lauding the common man and the responsibilities for the elected to not limit the freedoms of the electors (voters).

Which view is correct? Is it legal to restrict who can vote? In the Constitution, we presently have provisions that one can not be denied the right to vote based upon race, sex, and failure to pay a poll tax for anyone over the age of 18. However, there is no provision that says you must own property. Nor is there the provision that you can not be denied the right to vote if you do not own property.

Here is the wisdom and how it applies to us. Here in Selma, the last statistic I heard was that 61% of the residents are renters. That means that only 39% of the potential voters directly feel the bite of property taxes for the town and county. Why should someone who does actually pay taxes in this town be able to vote for someone who is going to determine the level of taxes the minority of us property owners pay? Is that fair? I say not, since they do not have a reasonable self-interest in how residents are taxed.

I also feel the same way about income taxes. Should anyone who does not actually pay income taxes be able to elect those who will set the income tax rates and determine how tax dollars are spent?

People who receive public tax money for their livelihood are dependent upon the entity from which they receive their stipend. Therefore, if these same people are eligible to vote, they will elect those who will most likely continue to support them financially. This is the insidious plan that has been in place since the 1960's. Enslave people financially and they will vote against the interest of the masses for their own benefit. A suckling pig will not voluntarily diminish its food source.

The term disfranchisement was used even in 1787. The term was not invented in 2000 when some falsely accused George W. Bush of "stealing an election". The term was then used in regards to placing qualifications on the right to vote. The term of "taxation without representation" was a long used battle cry in the young nation and part of the reason for the revolution. Just as bad, however, is "representation without taxation".

That last concept was not lost on some of the states in the 1700's. There were indeed such restrictions or qualifications for people to be able to cast a ballot. Their reason was much the same as mine; that people who pay taxes actually have an interest in how the government that extracts such taxation uses said monies.

I am under no illusion that we will ever see such qualifications for the right to vote in this nation, state, county, or town. I would settle for having all who would cast a ballot considering the good of the whole population rather than their own dependencies. That sort of thinking has gotten us career politicians, higher taxes, insane government spending, massive debt, and corruption. Some of our Founding Fathers had great wisdom...but that wisdom is lost unless we are willing to learn from them.