Wow just Wow... Mass Senate Candidate Dan Winslow (R) - proposes court ordered mandatory voting, and said his scheme could raise significant amounts of monies, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars if applied statewide. Full Text of Article and quotes below:
IDEA TO TAX NONVOTERS IS
FLOATED ; 'APATHY' FEE PROPOSED BY EX-WRENTHAM JUDGE
Ned
Bristol, Boston Globe
June
9, 2005
Exercise your right as an
American to vote. Participate in our great democracy. Or else pay an "apathy
tax."
That's the choice that
residents of Norfolk would face if a proposal championed by one prominent
resident is approved.
Daniel B. Winslow, who has been
active in town government and served as chief legal counsel to Governor Mitt
Romney as well as a district court judge, has called for people who don't vote
in the annual town elections to pay higher local fees. The idea is to increase
voter turnout and raise revenues.
"The failure to participate in
civic life at the local level has costs," he said. "Usually, they're hidden
costs. This kind of approach would make those costs
apparent."
Winslow's plan, presented
informally to selectmen in April, has gotten a generally cool
reception.
"I don't see the average
citizen of Norfolk viewing it as a great thing. They might think they're being
forced to vote," said Ramesh Advani, chairman of the Board of
Selectmen.
Advani said selectmen have no
plans to pursue the proposal.
Winslow, 47, now in private
practice, did draw praise from some for bringing attention to what many see as a
decline in civic engagement.
"I think any proposal to
increase voter turnout deserves serious consideration," said Senator Brian A.
Joyce, a Milton Democrat. Joyce himself has filed legislation to provide for a
$25 tax credit for voting in the state's general election and to allow
municipalities to offer a $25 tax break for voting in local
elections.
But some close observers of
state and national voting initiatives see problems with proposals like those
made by Winslow and Joyce.
Harvard Law School professor
Heather K. Gerken, an election law specialist, said that while she's "wildly in
favor of experimentation," Winslow's proposal "has the smell of a poll tax," the
illegal requirement that people pay money in order to
vote.
She said if the proposal were
to become law, "some people might argue it sullies the right to vote. . . . a
judge would give it a close look."
Juan Martinez, executive
director of MassVOTE, a nonprofit organization that works for increased turnout,
said Winslow's plan "brings up a lot of the implications of paying someone to
vote." It's a "slippery slope," he
said.
Eric Holland, a spokesman for
the US Justice Department, said the agency couldn't give a legal opinion on the
Winslow and Joyce proposals, but added, "Federal law makes it a crime to pay for
a vote. The receipt of anything of value, including a tax incentive, could
potentially violate federal law."
Winslow said his proposal is
not to pay a person to vote but to create a "disincentive not to vote." His
proposal is actually the reverse of a poll tax, encouraging people to vote,
rather than trying to bar them, he
said.
The idea of offering a
financial incentive to vote comes as turnout has declined in national, state,
and local elections. This spring's election in Norfolk drew just 15 percent of
registered voters.
Winslow said the state has a
unique opportunity to take action. He cites Article 61 of the Massachusetts
Constitution: "The general court shall have authority to provide for compulsory
voting at elections, but the right of secret ballot shall be preserved." No
other state has such a provision in its constitution, he
said.
Winslow wants the town to
submit a home rule petition to the Legislature and then hold a binding
referendum on his plan. Under the plan, voters would be given a receipt upon
leaving the polls that would entitle them to pay lower fees for such things as
dump stickers and burning permits.
The voting requirement would
apply only to the regular annual town election. It could double or triple
turnout, Winslow said.
"What it could do is validate
existing local officials' actions by putting the approval of not 7 or 10 percent
of the citizens but 50 or 60 percent of the citizens behind their local
government," he said.
He also said it could raise
significant amounts of money, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars if
applied statewide.
Winslow said he had discussed
his idea with a few other municipal officials and the Massachusetts Municipal
Association, but so far has found no
takers.
Geoffrey Beckwith, executive
director of the municipal association, said his organization's policy committee
hadn't reviewed Winslow's idea and had no position on
it.
Winslow said he was confident
his proposal would improve civic life. "Whatever the initial motivation, voting
will engage citizens on a broad scale in their local government. People can't
help but take an interest in the outcome" of an election they participated in,
he said.
Winslow, a third-generation
Norfolk resident, is known for advancing original and sometimes radical ideas.
He won the Pioneer Institute's Better Government Competition in 1998 for a plan
to make the civil justice system more efficient, and he initiated a number of
administrative improvements in the state
courts.
He also made headlines in the
1990s when, as a Wrentham District Court judge, he proposed putting stickers on
vehicles of those convicted of multiple drunken driving offenses to try to shame
them.
"I've had some bad ideas along
the way," Winslow said. But he added, "Ideas are the means by which we move
society forward."
