On Voting Rights and Requisites

by Gina L. Diorio

An editorial in yesterday's New York Times highlights a heightened concern over the effects of nationwide foreclosures on the ability of many Americans to vote in this year’s election – the reason being that voter registration centers on voter addresses.

“More than a million people have lost their homes in the past two years,” the Times notes, “And because voter registration is based on people’s residences, they [sic] could face politically motivated challenges at the polls.” (‘Political motivated’ because many locales affected by foreclosure are low-income and minority areas, which usually favor Democrats.) Political motivations aside, however, this concern raises an interesting topic and one (unfortunately) often forgotten in American civic life: the relationship between voting rights and property ownership.

Let the record stand clearly that what follows is not an endorsement of reinstating property ownership as a requisite for voting rights. Nor is it any more an argument for stripping of voting rights those affected by foreclosure than it is an assertion that women should cede their suffrage.

At the same time, a reason exists that states once required various degrees of land ownership or measurable monetary holdings in order for a person to vote, and we as Americans would do well to reflect on that reason and on what it should mean for civic involvement today.

The 1776 constitution of the State of Maryland restricted voting rights to

[a]ll freemen, above twenty-one years of age, having a freehold of fifty acres of land, in the county in which they offer to vote, and residing therein – and all freemen, having property in this State above the value of thirty pounds current money, and having resided in the county, in which they offer to vote, one whole year next preceding the election….

In New York, which adopted its constitution in 1777, the core parameters were similar:

[t]hat every male inhabitant of full age, who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of this State for six months immediately preceding the day of election, shall, at such election, be entitled to vote for representatives of the said county in assembly; if, during the time aforesaid, he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds, within the said county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to this State.

Pennsylvania was a bit more lax in its 1776 constitutional voting rights, extending suffrage both to

[e]very freemen [sic] of the full age of twenty-one Years having resided in the state for the space of one whole Year next before the day of election for representatives, and paid public taxes during that time … [and also to] sons of freeholders of the age of twenty-one years … although they have not paid taxes.

Next door, New Jersey’s constitution held

[t]hat all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote….

Interestingly, in New Jersey, the concept of having a stake in land as a requisite for civic involvement lives on in vocabulary if not in practical requirements as the state’s counties to this day remain governed by boards of chosen freeholders.

While these ownership requirements may seem odious and inequitable by today’s standards, in early America, they were hardly foreign. In Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, distributed by the U.S. State Department, Constitutional historian Melvin Urofsky writes that policies of placing property restrictions on voting rested on two assumptions:

First, men who owned property, especially land, had a “stake” in preserving society and the government in order to protect their wealth. Second, only men of property had the “independence” to decide important political matters and to choose the members of the assembly who would debate and decide these matters.

In essence, those with property had a vested interest in protecting it, and those not dependent on others would best be able wisely to elect individuals to public office.

Much has changed over the years. But interestingly, the principles – ownership and independence – that undergirded the land ownership requirement of yesterday remain vital today.

Ownership – Land and home ownership are good – great even – and, indeed, foundational to our nation. But beyond these, we as Americans must have a sense of ownership in our neighborhoods, towns, counties, state, and country. We must recognize that our freedoms are not someone else’s to ensure but rather ours to protect and defend, and we must accept that the responsibilities of citizenship are not for our neighbor to carry out but for us to fulfill.

Independence – The more individuals rely on the government to provide their income, ensure their health, fund their education, and protect their retirement, the more they become not independent citizens but wards of the state. And the more this happens, the more clouded is their judgment in the voting booth. In other words, a person relying on the government for his livelihood will be far less interested in electing wise leaders and far more concerned with voting into office those who will continue to be his caretakers. He will be less inclined to care about the property rights – or tax burden – of his neighbor and more likely to care only that he get what he deems to be his “fair share.”

Indeed, without ownership and independence, we quickly transition from a thriving society to an entitlement society. And an entitlement society is an enslaved society.

Far more dangerous than foreclosures in threatening the integrity of our voting rights is a society that forgets the critical importance of independence and ownership. Landholding as a requirement for suffrage may be a thing of the past, but even so, the principle remains as vital as ever in civic life today.

##

Gina Diorio, M.A. is a full-time freelance writer. Please visit her website at www.LibertyWritingSolutions.com.