Justifying discrimination

The right in the US have long favoured restricting the voting franchise and voting practice, to disadvantage those groups more likely to favour redistributive policies. Electoral racism was just a subset of this.

Courts countering the right’s attempts were attacked with claims of judicial activism, political bias or being out of touch.

Following the NZ Supreme Court’s ruling that limiting the voting rights of 16 and 17-year-olds was discriminatory, all these sentiments have played out here.

Rather than attempt to win over these supposed left-wing new voters, National and ACT have drawn on the playbook of the American right. Here, it’s 16-year-olds attacked as free-loaders, lazy, and feebleminded.

However, the argument is no longer whether they should be able to vote, but why this discrimination should remain.

If National and ACT oppose the legislation, they must be made to justify why this discrimination should be permitted to continue.

Vince Dravitzki, Carterton [abridged]