Tilting the Scales

It seems that a federal judge in Port Chester, New York, felt that the lack of Latino representation in village trustees warranted providing each Hispanic in the village with six votes: Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election. That's right, not just one, not even just two, but six votes each. This, according to Judge Stephen Robinson, will put the village more in line with the Voting Rights Act. In other words, in order to ensure that the village elected Latino representation sufficient to account for the fact that half of the village is Latino, a federal judge provided that half of the population with six times the number of votes. In what level of hell does this make any sense to anyone?

Of course, for those who think it does make sense, perhaps you'd like to institute similar lunacy for other underrepresented members of society. After all, more than half the voting public is female, yet female representation is significantly less than that of male representation. Of course, until at least ten percent of all elected officials are openly gay, we should provide the gay community with as many votes as it takes to get their fair share of elected representation.

This is yet another example of social engineering twisting the intentions of a fair and open voting system by attempting to manipulate the outcome. Instead of inspiring greater participation by the Latino contingent of Port Chester's voting public, we'll artificially create an environment where the outcome is “fair”. Rather than seeking more Latinos to run for office, we'll simply ensure that every Latino who does is given a downhill path toward selection.

And what of the non-Latinos in Port Chester? When all the trustees are now Latino (assuming, of course, that at least six run for the positions), where will the voting rights of non-Latinos be? Will the next step be to have this federal judge, or other “impartial” third party, make all the selections for this post? Stranger things have happened. At the very least, I think I know from where our current President's next Supreme Court nominee will be coming.

The Cost of Citizenship

Primaries will be held in North Carolina tomorrow to select the nominees for November's mid-term elections. As is usually the case, these primaries will likely involve limited participation by the voting public. Similarly common is the populist mantra which reappears around these events insisting that those who fail to vote have no right to complain about the situation.

It is with this last point that I take issue. While there is no doubt that people who fail to vote are less justified in vocalizing their displeasure with the outcome, their right to complain is in no way impacted by their lack of participation. While we as citizens have prescribed rights protected by the constitution, there are no limits to those rights based on our willingness, or lack thereof, to vote.

Of course, many might think I'm overreacting based on idle chatter. Perhaps I am, but I see ample instances of populist rhetoric growing teeth. This issue in particular has had a history of debate, such as is currently occurring in Colorado among other places. What we tend to forget is that rights are not requirements. While we might tire of non-voters complaints, their right to vote, much like their right to free speech, implicitly includes their right not to vote.