Party like it is 1799: Delaware rethug introduces bill to restrict voting to property owners

[jackson_dem]

-snip-

Rep. Deborah Hudson, R-Fairthorne, feels DeMaio's pain -- and so do many of Hudson's constituents.

So last week, Hudson introduced House Bill 358, a one-line bill that would restrict voting in school-tax referendums to those who actually pay the tax. Only citizens who live in the district and own property there would be allowed to vote in referendums, though renters and other nonproperty owners living in the district still could vote in school board elections.

But by Thursday, Hudson learned that there was a problem with her bill: the Constitution.

-snip-

"I've always had people complaining to me when they go to vote in the referendum, and they're standing in line with 18-year-olds who are on break from their class, and they're voting to raise taxes -- and the homeowners are upset," Hudson said.

http://delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080414/NEWS02/804140348&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

[Ilsa]

1. Hudson, you moran, the renters pay the tax also, it's just imbedded.

in their rent. These people make me ill. How the hell do they make it this far?

Thank you for the post, jackson!

[Voice for Peace]

20. They should party like it's 1773 instead.

A much more fun kind of party.

[dysfunctional press]

22. not always...rents are market-driven, taxes aren't.

if taxes on a building go up, the landlord can't always raise the rents to match it- it depends on what the demand/rent amounts are like in the area.

[dflprincess]

35. Minnesota has a formula so that renters may qualify for a refund of

a portion of property taxes paid - very similar to the Homestead Credit the state has for homeowners. According to the form I received from my landlord, 19% of the rent I paid went to property tax - I'm guessing that, if the building's property tax goes up, the percentage of my rent that goes to it would increase if the rent doesn't.

[dysfunctional press]

36. in cases where the taxes go up, but the rent doesn't,-

it's disingenuous to say that the property taxes are passed on to the renter.

my wife and i used to own a two-flat in chicago- we lived on the first floor, and rented out the second floor unit. when we first started renting it out, we didn't base the rent on our expenses- we based it on what we thought the area market would allow. we also added 'perks' to make it a better deal-we installed a dishwaher and garbage disposal in the kitchen, provided free directv satellite tv w/all premium movie channels & a 32-inch television, free dsl broadband connection, free use of private washer & dryer in basemant laundry...and when our taxes increased, the rent didn't.

[dflprincess]

37. I have received rent increases where property taxes were listed

as one of the reasons for the increase. They aren't listed as a reason every year - and my rent has not been raised every year for any reason (though I've been in my apartment so long I get a bit of a break from the landlord). I'm sure there are some years the landlords eat the increases and others where they have to pass them along if they want to at least break even and/or be able to keep their buildings' maintence up.

[jwirr]

2. A new definition of Ownership Society.

[jackson_dem]

17. !

:spray:

[MrModerate]

3. One of the unanticipated side effects of democracy . . .

Is that wackos can get elected. Isn't that what makes our Great Leaders uncomfortable about democracy in places like Iran and Egypt?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. Of course...

Not one cent of rents goes to taxes and rents never, ever get a healthy hike(often in excess of the tax hike and the financial needs it creates...) when the taxes go up. :sarcasm:

Is there some surgery you must have, when you are a repuke and get elected to office? Surgery that removes cognitive functions and basic civics principles?

Interestingly, I had a similar discussion with a local Dem councilwoman(and Real Estate Agent, with all of the distasteful urges that job implies) who started the same crabbing about renters not paying property and school taxes.

I gently slapped her down in about 12 femtoseconds. Never broke a sweat. I wish these people would occasionally make an effort to get their heads out of their asses.

[BlueIris]

5. There's going to be a lot of this shite in other legislatures, I predict. nt

[gratuitous]

6. The Constitution? What dat?

Not surprising that a Republican legislator wouldn't be familiar with such a quaint, old document, seeing as how it's been so thoroughly discredited by her party.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. where are you given the right to vote?

no offense...but this would not be unconstitutional. you may not discriminate on certain things like race or sex...but other things...you most certainly can. that makes this that much more dangerous...

sP

[gratuitous]

10. The 14th Amendment

From the story:

{I}n 1969 the high court threw out a Louisiana statute that limited the right to vote in local revenue bond elections to those who paid property taxes.

Because people who pay no property taxes -- mainly renters -- also have a stake in the success of the school system, laws abridging their right to vote in referendums usually run afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But reading the comments after the story shows me that this dunderhead in the Delaware lege isn't alone by any means, and apparently is truly representative of a significant segment of the Delaware electorate. One of the commenters actually says that it's not Hudson's fault she doesn't know every law on the books. :eyes:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. the 14th amendment doesn't cover this

or the 15th would not have been necessary...nor the 19th. unfortunately the state can infringe the right to vote based on any criteria it deems fit...it is an ongoing problem and would likely have to be attacked by another amendment.

sP

[gratuitous]

13. No, the state can't withhold the right to vote from citizens otherwise qualified to vote

Read Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969) http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/701/case.html:

Assuming, arguendo, that a State might, in some circumstances, constitutionally limit the franchise to qualified voters who are also "specially interested" in the election, whether the statute allegedly so limiting the franchise denies equal protection of the laws to those otherwise qualified voters who are excluded depends on "whether all those excluded are, in fact, substantially less interested or affected than those the statute includes." Id. at 395 U. S. 632.

Even voters who don't directly pay property taxes have a substantial interest in the funding and running of the schools. While Cipriano dealt with utilities, the Court's reasoning applies equally to the public school system in Delaware:

Of course, the operation of the utility systems -- gas, water, and electric -- affects virtually every resident of the city, nonproperty owners as well as property owners. All users pay utility bills, and the rates may be affected substantially by the amount of revenue bonds outstanding. Certainly property owners are not alone in feeling the impact of bad utility service or high rates, or in reaping the benefits of good service and low rates.

The revenue bonds are to be paid only from the operations of the utilities; they are not financed in any way by property tax revenue. Property owners, like nonproperty owners, use the utilities and pay the rates; however, the impact of the revenue bond issue on them is unconnected to their status as property taxpayers. Indeed, the benefits and burdens of the bond issue fall indiscriminately on property owner and nonproperty owner alike.

Substitute "school" for "utility" and the analysis holds: Property owners and nonproperty owners are both affected by the operation of the schools. Property owners and nonproperty owners both avail themselves of the school system, and the benefits and burdens of the school system fall indiscriminately on property owner and nonproperty owner alike.

Restricting voting on school tax referenda to property owners only is unconstitutional under Cipriano (which has been on the books for nearly 39 years) because it violates the Equal Protection guarantee of the Constitution.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. then why the 15th and 19th amendments?

those situations should have certainly been covered...this is coming...and we can sit back and watch what the Supremes say about it...

sP

[gratuitous]

28. Sigh

The 15th Amendment was necessary because an argument was being put forth that former slaves weren't citizens (or perhaps even human). The 19th Amendment was necessary as a direct refutation to the same argument as it was applied to women. Neither situation, except incidentally, had anything to do with the attempt to restrict voting rights in Cipriano. You clearly didn't bother to read the opinion.

You can lead a poster to water, but you can't make him or her think.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

39. right...believe Cipriano helps here... n/t

[jackson_dem]

16. There are freepers everywhere but Delaware is a reliably blue state

Democrats have controlled the governor's mansion for the past 16 years and, barring a miracle for the rethugs, we will win again this year. Both our senators are Democrats and our House rep is a "moderate" rethug who will likely be replaced by a Democrat when he retires in a few years. All of our statewide elected officials are Democrats (gov, lt. gov., treasuer, AG, insurance commissioner) except for the auditor. The only caveat is Delaware Democrats are more conservative than the ones you find in places like nearby New Jersey, but more progressive than Pennsylvania Democrats.

[The Straight Story]

7. So only us smokers should be allowed to vote on raising taxes on smoking?

I like that idea :)

[RedCappedBandit]

8. liek omg. how dare dem 18 year olds vote!!

:eyes:

[Brigid]

12. Didn't Alexander Hamilton try this crap?

I should think it's unconstitutional.

[Moloch]

14. Wow...

That is incredibly regressive.. even for republicans.

[corporatemedia]

15. Why not add white and male as long as we're returning to a past century? n/t

[Cerridwen]

19. I think they should introduce a bill that a state candidate running for office must

know the Constitution, US and their state Constitution, before qualifying for the candidacy.

Gee, ya think Hudson would have passed? /sarcasm

[Jeff_The_Man]

21. I agree

ughh!

[Marr]

23. Aww, her asshole constituents don't approve of people unlike themselves having a vote.

How very sad for them!

[bluestateguy]

24. Many conservatives favor property qualifications for voting

They just don't admit it, except for in a rare moment of candor and anonymity on talk radio.

[jackson_dem]

26. Yup. If they could they would take us back to 1810 and only allow white male prop. owners to vote

[bullwinkle428]

29. Yes - I've seen this sentiment expressed more than once

by Freeper-types on other boards I've visited...

[El Pinko]

25. What a fucking jerk.

Absolutely disgusting. Leave it to a republican to fail to understand why only the (relatively) wealthy being able to vote on anything is a BIG FUCKING PROBLEM.

[drmeow]

27. One thing I like about where I live

the locals understand the need for and value of property taxes. The majority of us do not want the city council to repeal a portion of the property tax (which amounts to about $30/year for a $180K house), especially while the economy is in such a turmoil and the city is facing a revenue shortfall (there are already protections in place for people on fixed incomes whose houses have skyrocketed in volume). In the last city council election the candidate who campaigned pretty much exclusively on getting rid of the property tax was soundly defeated.

[madinmaryland]

30. Sheesh!! Why don't they just use some of the revenue from all their tolls!!1!!

:hide:

[jackson_dem]

32. As a Delawarean I say...

...................................................................... :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :thumbsup:

[RB TexLa]

31. Just the opposite here, we have a guy who got elected saying he's going to introduce

a bill requiring you to have children in the public schools to vote on school taxes and bonds. Won't go anywhere but I'm sure he'll introduce it.

[jackson_dem]

33. Where are you from? That is another nutty proposal!

[Seeking Serenity]

38. I think the rationale behind that is to keep the childless,

couples who are childess by design or childless single people or older people whose children are grown, from being able to defeat tax proposals designed to improve schools on the idea that, since they have no children in school, they shouldn't have to pay more of their money to something in which they have no direct interest.

Still a nutty idea, I agree.

[EstimatedProphet]

34. Finally they admit their agenda!

When this country was founded, it was the position of the rich property owners that the vote should only be allowed to rich property owners. they lost, became Republicans, and have been trying to win that point ever since. Repubs don't want a democracy, they want an aritocracy, with themselves as the aristocrats.