Granting the right to vote – and introducing a contest
I learned the importance of voting from my paternal grandmother. For her, as it was for many immigrants and first-generation Americans, voting was a solemn responsibility, a duty of her citizenship.
The right to vote is among the most cherished privileges of being a citizen. Many of us considered it a solemn duty — but not everyone. Unfortunately, more than half of those eligible to vote never or seldom use their cherished right.
Currently, there is legislation being reviewed at the State House that would change who is eligible to vote.
Allowing felons to vote
As it stands today, in Massachusetts, anyone who is in jail for a misdemeanor or awaiting trial in jail is allowed to vote, typically by mail. But those who are in jail or prison convicted of a felony are prohibited from voting while they are incarcerated.
It wasn’t always that way. In 2000, voters approved a statewide ballot question making it illegal to vote from prison while serving a felony sentence. Once they have completed their sentence, a former prisoner’s right to vote is reinstated.
Now, some legislators want to change that. A proposal to amend the state constitution to restore the right to vote for incarcerated felons was favorably voted by a legislative committee hoping to put the measure to the 2026 statewide ballot.
State Sen. Liz Miranda, one of the sponsors of the bill, said taking away a felon’s right to vote was “a stain on our commonwealth’s history.”
For me, here’s the best way to decide an issue like this. Think of the most heinous crime imaginable. Should that person be allowed to vote while they’re in prison serving their sentence?
I understand the rationale behind the proposal. But I have no stomach for anyone convicted of a crime against a child, abuse of a woman or a hate crime, not to mention murderers and other serious offenders enjoying the privilege of voting while they are still in prison. Their actions have taken that right away from them until they have completed their sentence.
Allowing immigrants with legal status to vote
For the first 150 years of our country’s history, most states at some point allowed noncitizens with legal status, most often those who owned property, the right to vote in state and local elections. Today, no state allows noncitizens to vote in state elections but at least 13 separate communities across the country in Maryland, Vermont, Illinois and California have given noncitizens the right to vote in some or all local elections.
When New York City authorized more than 800,000 noncitizens with legal status the right to vote in its municipal elections, it gave a boost to other communities seeking to do the same thing. In Massachusetts, Amherst, Brookline, Cambridge, Newton, Somerville, Wayland and more recently Boston have all passed local ordinances to allow noncitizens with legal status the right to vote in local elections.
But unlike New York, in Massachusetts the state Legislature and the governor must approve a home rule petition before those ordinances could be enacted. Now, it appears that there is some movement in the Legislature to do that.
The argument in favor of allowing noncitizens the right to vote in local elections is straightforward. Noncitizens with legal status pay state and local taxes and rely on the same local services as everyone else — trash collection, public parks, police and fire support. Many also have children attending local schools. They are invested in the community.
However, those who oppose extending voting rights to noncitizens counter that the right to vote has nothing to do with who does or doesn’t pay taxes and that voting should be reserved only for actual U.S. citizens. Further, citizenship is open to immigrants who are here legally if they want it.
The Constitution and the laws of the United States give certain rights only to citizens. Highest among these is the right to vote.
While I understand the rationale for allowing noncitizens the right to vote in local elections, it seems to me that doing so diminishes the privilege of voting — the highest right and responsibility of citizenship.
Three of my children’s four grandparents were immigrants who initially could not vote. I remember watching my mother study for her citizenship test. And I especially remember how proud and excited she was when she became a citizen and voted for the first time. While she had lived in America for decades, the day that she cast her first vote was the day that she truly felt that she belonged.
The experience of working toward citizenship and the pride that comes with achieving it, one shared by millions of immigrants over the years, is worthy of protecting.
Allowing noncitizens to vote may even discourage immigrants here legally from pursuing U.S. citizenship. Additionally, it waters down the value of citizenship.
All voting should remain a right reserved only for citizens.
Crumbling streets contest
The ides of March are upon us. The 74th day of the Roman calendar, March 15 corresponds to the day that Julius Caesar was assassinated. In Worcester, it also corresponds to the time of year when city streets begin to erupt with cracks and potholes.
Since the Telegram & Gazette likes to run contests (best pizza, favorite ice cream stand, best breakfast place, coolest school mascot), I thought we should run a contest for the Top 10 most neglected city streets. Send me the street you’d like to nominate and the reason for it. I may run a future column with some of the winners.
Email Raymond V. Mariano at rmariano.telegram@gmail.com.
He served four terms as mayor of Worcester and previously served on the City Council and School Committee. He grew up in Great Brook Valley and holds degrees from Worcester State College and Clark University.
He was most recently executive director of the Worcester Housing Authority. His column appears weekly in the Sunday Telegram. His endorsements do not necessarily reflect the position of the Telegram & Gazette.