To the Editor:

Probably the most valuable rights of citizens in a democracy are the rights to vote and to be elected to public office. Every restriction on those rights must therefore be strictly scrutinized and should only be allowed if absolutely necessary.

The more surprising it is that Wareham’s last Special Town Meeting, without much deliberation, nonchalantly approved by a clear 2/3 majority (121-50) of an assembly that barely mustered the 150 required votes to vote on its financial agenda an article that is supposed to bring about a restriction. It initiates a change of the Town Charter requiring that every citizen who wants to run for an elected town office must have been a registered Wareham voter for at least one year prior to the election.

The only reason for this curtailing of an essential citizen’s right given by the proponents was that one needs to be a registered voter for one year to be familiar with the town and its issues. As far as people who have been residing in town for a long time without having registered to vote, the main proponent said, “shame on them for having so little interest in the town.”

Who would be affected if that article found its way into the Town Charter? First, it is people who recently moved to Wareham. On first sight it seems fair to say that they should wait for a year until they know the town before they run for elected office. But that is a little short-sighted. Who says that they do not know the town just by reason of not having been a registered voter for one year? What about people who have conducted a business or have worked for a long time in town before moving their residence to Wareham? What about people moving here from one of our neighboring towns who have known Wareham for a long time? For them the argument of the proponents does not fit; they would be curtailed in their right to run for elected office due to a bogus reason.

The next group that would be affected is citizens that have been living in Wareham, but have not yet registered to vote. The proponent presented the extreme example of somebody living in town for 25 years without registering to vote. He seemed to insinuate that the restriction of that citizen’s right to run for elected office would be something of a punishment for having had so little interest in the town so far. Well, then we could tell everybody who does not register vote that they do not deserve to vote at all.

A democracy thrives if as many citizens as possible participate in elections, as mere voters or as candidates. We should be happy about anybody who gets his or her act together, even if they have been passive for a long time. And do we know why they did not register to vote? Maybe they had a good reason or excuse? Maybe they just thought that politics is only something for a small insider group and he or she, as an outsider, would have no chance to participate? Well, considering the vote of last Town Meeting, this view would have some merit, wouldn’t it? But the 25-year resident is not the typical example for someone would be hit by the new rule. Even people who, maybe for a very understandable reason, failed to register for a couple of years would be punished.

The next group whose right to run for elected office in Wareham would be curtailed is new citizens. They will have lived in Wareham for a considerable time before their naturalization. During their naturalization interview, one of the typical questions asked in the civics test might have been: “What is one of the most important rights that only citizens have?” The correct answer would have been: “The right to vote and to be elected to public office.” Well, those new citizens, who sometimes come from countries whose citizens do not enjoy these most basic democratic rights, might be disappointed to hear that Wareham, unlike the county and unlike the vast majority of all towns in the Commonwealth, makes them wait another year before they can enjoy this right.

The final group that would be affected is young voters. Everyone knows that the voting age is 18, and everybody assumes that that is also the age at which you can be elected to public office. However, the new rule would raise the age limit for being allowed to be elected to public office in Wareham effectively to 19 years, that is, if the young adult immediately registers to vote. Mostly these young voters will have lived in Wareham for their entire lives. So the argument that they first need to get familiar with the town again does not hold water.

It is also quite peculiar that a meeting of old people (That is what our Town Meeting is; the great majority of attendants is 50 years and older, including myself, and only very few are younger than 30) starts the disenfranchisement of these young people without spending much thought on it.

Now, let’s be realistic; there won’t be many 18-year-olds running immediately for elected office. However, why then categorically disallow it? Every 18-year-old voter who dares to run for elected office must be extraordinarily interested in town politics and should, therefore, have the chance to throw his or her hat in. If that person is too immature or does not seem to have the required knowledge or chutzpah for the office, then the voters can reject them. Leave it to the voters to decide, but do not exclude talented young people categorically from elected office.

It also smells somewhat like age discrimination. Look at it from another angle! Imagine that a new rule would be introduced to further the deliberative quality of Town Meetings that required everybody to take a hearing and vision test to participate in Town Meetings to make sure everybody fully understands what is being debated and thus guarantees the basis for informed voting. In theory, this seems a quite reasonable rule. It is necessary that everybody understands what is going on in Town Meeting. This rule would even better further its purported purpose than the discussed article would further its purpose. However, there would most certainly be an outcry and a complaint about “age discrimination,” if such a rule would were proposed. And probably ironically by the same people who spent almost no thought about possible age discrimination on the other side of the scale.

These are some thoughts about the desirability of the change of the Town Charter envisioned by the article that was approved by the Wareham Town Meeting. Now the Attorney General has to examine whether the change would be legal.

There are some clauses in the Constitution that her office will have to look at. The most important examination will probably be whether the equality clause is violated. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court views that clause quite broadly. Based on that clause it invalidated, for instance, the prohibition of gay marriage. A restriction on voting rights should face high scrutiny, too. At least there needs to be rational basis for such a restriction. However, as I have already shown above, the main, and seemingly only, reason for the proposed change, that voters running for elected office should be acquainted with the town, does not apply to most groups affected by the change.

Even if the Attorney General goes along with the proposed change of the Charter, when voters will be asked to approve it in a ballot question, they should squarely reject it. Restrictions of voting rights are always suspect, and the proponents need to present more cogent reasons then they did at the Town Meeting.

Manfred H. Wiegandt

Sawyer Street