Student Voter Bill Is Both Unconstitutional and OFFENSIVE!

After agreeing with Republicans on virtually everything so far this year, I was actually looking forward to parting ways with my party on a pair of election law issues this week, but it seems that GOP leadership, like me, isn’t inclined to support Greg Sorg’s HH176, an unwarranted assault on college students, and HG 223 which would eliminate one of the best things this state has ever done, same day voter registration.

It seems that Rep. Sorg, whom I personally like a great deal, may be the maverick, not me.

I testified against HB 176 and after sleeping on it for a night, I’m more offended than I was by it yesterday.

Republican leadership agrees that this is certainly unconstitutional, in violation of the equal protection clause for sure, but even if it were constitutional, it would be a terrible idea. 

The bill basically says that when you go away to college, you must vote from in the city or town you were in prior to entering college.  Small government Republicans and Libertarians especially should be incensed at this nanny state approach.  In effect, this bill says that people don’t have the right to decide where they want to live.  What worse incursion into our freedoms could there possibly be.

Oh, I know, defenders of the bill will say that you can live wherever you want; you just have to vote where you were prior to entering college.  To me, that’s a distinction without a difference, and this bill enslaves our young people.

Yes, I was young once.  After graduating from high school in Vergennes, Vermont, I headed off to Plymouth State College.  I wasn’t sure that I wanted to spend the rest of my life in Plymouth, but I knew damn well that I never wanted to go back to Vermont to live.

Had this bill been in effect, I would have been forced to vote in a place I cared nothing about and had no intention of ever returning to.

That’s simply wrong.

As it turned out, I fell in love with Plymouth and lived in that area (Ashland for a while) eight years after I graduated from Plymouth State.  While a student, I had no interest in voting in local Plymouth elections, but I certainly felt entitled to vote there for state and federal elections.

I trust college students are the same today, and Republicans make a big mistake by trying to deny them the right to vote where they want to live.  Probably 95 percent of these students have no interest in taking over the local town by voting in off year elections, at least not until this bill came forward.  Now that you’ve tried to deny them the right to vote, maybe they’ll try to make an example and rush out to vote in town elections this year.  I know that’s what I would have done.

I’m especially offended by Rep. Sorg’s assertion that college students are like “transient inmates with a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce.”

In fact I get angrier every time I reread that sentence.  My college days were the happiest of my life and among the most productive.  I was neither inexperienced nor ignorant.  I was as qualified to vote then (perhaps more so) than I am today, but I certainly was not qualified or interested in going back to Vermont to vote (not that there’s anything wrong with Vermont—there just was something very wrong with it for me).

That gets us to the crux of the argument.  I should be able to decide where I want to live and vote, not government. How any Libertarian could not be outraged by this bill is beyond me! That most young people tend to be more liberal (and Democratic) may well be true, but Republicans should work to change that, to espouse principles of individual freedom, and this bill is a step in exactly the opposite direction.

I’ve always believed there is far less voter fraud than members of my party assert.  One Republican leader told us Thursday that he heard of Durham students boasting how they had voted by absentee ballot back in Massachusetts then registered and voted in Durham.  I suspect that’s the kind of thing some people might boast about but most would certainly never do.

With modern technology, we can “purge” the checklist quite easily today.  When you register to vote, officials in that location inform those of your old voting location who then remove you from the check list.  Of course it’s not a perfect system, but this Sorgian cure is much worse than the malady (which is overstated to begin with).

As to same day voter registration, I love it.  We are a mobile society; people move frequently and have every right to do so.  If we want to increase voter turnout (and I’m certainly not one of those who believe people should be forced to vote), same day registration is the answer.  It’s not what’s causing fraud.  Anyone who wants to break the law and vote in several places the same day doesn’t need same day voter registration to do it.  Such a person should be prosecuted and sent to jail, but the rest of us should not be inconvenienced because a few Republicans believe, contrary to all evidence, that voter fraud is rampant.

Whew!  I’m glad that off my chest and yes, I will be prepared to say it again on the House floor should HB 176 or 223 come out of Election Law with ought to pass recommendations.

WHITHER GAY MARRIAGE?

When pressed by AP reporter Norma Love and others in the media, House Majority leader DJ Bettencourt was perfectly vague regarding leadership's position on gay marriage when he outlined the GOP legislative priorities last week.

Well he should have been.  As DJ noted, any one of 400 Reps has the right to introduce any bill on any subject.  Repeal of gay marriage is not a leadership priority.

"Yes, but will you oppose these bills?"  DJ was asked.

“Repeal of gay marriage is not our priority”, he repeated.

Clear?  Like muddied crystal!

What's a leader to do?  There are at least four factions on gay marriage within the GOP ranks.  A dozen or so of us (yes, me especially) voted for gay marriage and are passionately committed to equality for all. We believe that to the extent marriage is good for society; gay marriage is also good for society.  After all, it creates stability in relationships and will cut down on promiscuity in the gay community, to about the same extent that marriage cuts down on heterosexuals running around on each other.

I could (and probably will) go on and one.  Suffice it to say that while our ranks are small in the Republican Party, we are immutable, and Democrats would never have passed the gay marriage bill without us. We will never be able to prevent Republicans from forming a majority to repeal it, but without giving away any strategy here, we might well be able to cobble together a coalition with Democrats to uphold Governor John Lynch's veto.

Leader Bettencourt may well have had that in mind during his moments of muddying the water, but then, he has three other factions to consider.

I truly believe that DJ is among those who, although they did not vote for gay marriage, don't really want to see it repealed.  I suspect his deputy Shawn Jasper might be in this camp.  Vice Chair of the Labor Committee Will Infantine, a consummate moderate and leader in Manchester, emailed me that he will not vote for repeal.  Without people like DJ, Shawn, and Will, the third Republican faction, the virulently anti-gay marriage folks, will probably not prevail in the long run. 

Election Law Chair David Bates, of Windham, and Manchester's Leo Pepino are certainly in this group.  They may well stand ready to defy leadership should any attempt be made to table the issue.  Many Reps in this group come from the conservative House Republican Alliance which in large part is responsible for Bill O'Brien being Speaker; Bob Mead, who resigned as Rep to become O'Brien's chief of staff, would certainly be in this anti-gay marriage group.  Thus the dilemma for leadership.

However, the waters are muddied even further by a fourth faction, a growing force led by many Republican newbies who want to do away not only with gay marriage but to get government out of the business of marriage altogether.  Peter Bolster has a bill to do this.  Andy Manuse of Derry is certainly in their ranks, and I could name many more names.  To me, this is the most radical idea of all...and while I may be a radical, I don't suspect Republican leadership (and probably not even Democratic leadership) wants to go there.

Thus the brilliant albeit perfectly vague position from leader Bettencourt.

Prediction—A majority of Republicans in the House and Senate will vote to repeal gay marriage but they will fail to override John Lynch's veto.  My sole caveat is that Democrats have proven themselves stupid enough to blow the whole thing, and if they succeed in making this an "us vs. them" issue, Democrats and pro gay marriage supporters will end up driving moderate Republicans into a “circle the wagons” mentality.  In that case, the dozen people me will not be enough to stop repeal.

Sound far-fetched?  I received an email just like week from former Manchester Rep Robert Thompson, who wedded January 2, 2010.  His words in our back and forth were offensive, and while that will never drive me in the anti-gay marriage camp, I suspect he and his ilk are doing more to hurt than to help the gay marriage cause at this point.  My advise to them--shut up!