|
I believe that the matter of policing, if
you want to put it that way, non-resident
voting is an almost impossible task to per-
form.
I submit to you that permitting people
to vote on the basis of property is no
longer, if it ever was, an American con-
cept.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair recognizes Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair-
man, a brief explanation of this point. As
has been pointed out by way of question
by several other committee members, there
was absolutely no objection from the peo-
ple who are now directly involved in this
matter who now have this same type of
provision within their city charters.
As a matter of fact, the opposite oc-
curred. Where the people have advanced
this right of suffrage to non-resident prop-
erty owners, they came in and vehemently
defended their right to do this. And at
least one other area that does not have
this provision came in and indicated that it
wants to do so in the future and certainly
wants it provided for in the constitution or
at least not prohibited.
We have to take things as we find them,
not as we would hope them to be. We find
today there is dual home ownership and
along with this dual home ownership comes
an interest in two communities, not just
the home community, but also the second
community. The people who spoke on be-
half of this proposal told us about how it
increases not only social interest in a com-
munity but economic. That is, people feel
they are literally participating1 in the gov-
ernment, literally participating in the fu-
ture, and help to structure the government
and roads and schools and everything else
that goes along with it so that they are
very much interested in the community and
conduct themselves accordingly.
As to this business we had the other
night concerning the farm assessment, we
voted along1 with the farm assessment be-
cause we felt that it was g-ood for the
farm, good for the community, good for the
counties. You have to think of this in the
same light. This is something these commu-
nities want and we are not forcing this on
anyone. What we are saying is that those
municipalities who want to take advantage
of the situation can do so. There is nothing
here which says anybody has to take this
on, only that those communities that want
it will take it on.
|
The residents retain control through their
city council. At any time they become dis-
satisfied with the arrangement, they need
only revoke it or they can revoke it by
merely passing an ordinance saying it is
no longer applicable. But in the meantime,
they are enjoying this privilege under the
present Constitution and want it continued.
Also you have heard about the Attorney
General's opinion. I will read the last para-
graph. "It would appear, therefore, that
the extension of voting rights to non-resi-
dent property owners by municipal or spe-
cial taxing district, providing all residents
the right to vote whether or not they own
property, does not violate the equal pro-
tection clause or the one man, one vote
rule. It is our opinion, therefore, that the
right to vote may be extended to non-resi-
dent property owners in municipal elections
and that in so doing there would be no
violation of the fourteenth amendment."
Signed by Francis B. Burch and Edward F.
Land, Jr.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate White to
yield some more time.
DELEGATE WHITE: I yield three min-
utes to Delegate W. W. Gullett.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate Gullett.
DELEGATE GULLETT: The striking
of the last few words here would also af-
fect section 9. I think everybody should be
acquainted with section 9, where the same
words are repeated.
There is a problem there as to whether
this is an extension or not. The problem
of giving this constitutional permanency is
really what worries me. I think by writing
this in we are simply advertising that we
are extending this as a right to a munici-
pality rather than leaving it to those who
have it.
Whether it is actually a problem or not
now is one question and whether or not it
will be a problem in the future is perhaps
a much more serious question. I do not
object to this procedure in resort communi-
ties, but perhaps there is a time when it
will come under control for other types of
new tariffs particularly. I therefore think
these words should be stricken from sec-
tion 2.
Just dealing with the taxable property
owners is not enough. I think it has al-
ready been covered. But what about the
person who pays a $25 taxicab fee or a
|
