Vote-by-mail allows registered N.J. voters to vote in advance by a mail-in ballot, but charges 44 cents for postage. (AP Photo)
by Brian Block
Earlier this year, New Jersey passed the vote-by-mail law, which instituted a process in which registered voters could vote in advance through use of a mail-in ballot. We, as students, must applaud the state legislature for making the process of voting more inclusive, and more accessible to every citizen.
However, in its noble pursuit of alleviating the burden of leaving school and driving home to vote on Election Day, the state mistakenly included within the law a provision which I believe to be unconstitutional.
A single line in this law reads, “At the discretion of the county clerk, the outer envelope may be a postage paid return envelope.” Essentially, when a voter is mailed a ballot, he or she is responsible for purchasing 44 cents postage in order to send his or her vote back to be counted.
In my opinion, this stipulation in the vote-by-mail law violates the 24th Amendment to the Constitution which says, “ The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” The postage fee amounts to nothing short of a poll tax, which if not “paid,” results in a person being unable to cast his or her vote through the mail.
There is one argument against this reasoning — a person is allowed to physically hand their ballot to the county clerk in which he or she lives. I strongly believe this argument is without merit.
The purpose of vote-by-mail is to make it easier for registered voters in any situation, whether a college student is attending a distant school, an average working man or woman who cannot make it to the polls on Election Day, or the people who need every cent that they have, to be able to cast a vote.
Since many of us are New Jersey citizens who live hours away from the College, we would like to utilize the vote-by-mail system so that we do not have to drive home to vote (again satisfying the purpose of law). To do so, we must pay a poll tax of 44 cents.
While there are no federal elections this year, which would have to occur in order for the 24th Amendment to be applicable, there will be as soon as next November.
Yet, I believe that we can all agree that in any state or national election, nobody’s right to vote should be denied or hindered by an expense, however small.
The rights and interests of every College voter registered in New Jersey are at stake. How many car-less freshman will be, or even should be, making a trip to the Robbin’s Pharmacy satellite post office to purchase a stamp in order to be able to vote?
Therefore, I call on the legislature to amend the vote-by-mail law to require that county clerks pre-pay the postage required on ballot return envelopes. This will, at minimal expense, create a more equitable system of voting that will not needlessly disenfranchise citizens.
Loading ...
Voting has always cost money, whether it be gas to go to voting stations, a fee for public transportation, or now a stamp to mail in your ballot (unless your town gives out gift certificates to gas stations or free rides on buses on election day).
This new system is not unconstitutional. You can still go drive to a voting station just as you always have if you wanted to. Voting by mail may cost 44 cents, but then again, while voting is a right, voting by mail is a privilege. Privileges can cost money without being unconstitutional.
I think you need a history lesson because you clearly don’t understand what a poll tax is.
I think you’re splitting hairs. Should I be reimbursed for the gas that I use to drive to my polling location? Or the bus fair? Or if we take the argument further ad absurdem, for the loss of income for missing work? As someone said above, this is a convenience and is not placing financial constraints on particular groups of people in order to prevent them from voting. Everyone can still vote in person for “free.”
Thanks for the comments.
1.) I am extremely aware of the history of poll taxes and their use to disenfranchise minorities, especially in the South, but thanks for the obvious.
2.) Voting by mail is a convenient way to vote, however, it is taking the place of the absentee ballot (no longer available). I am arguing that because voting by mail has been ruled constitutional, and because it is a substite for going to a polling place, the act of voting is being directly “taxed.” Also, if a homeless man wansts to vote by mail, which is lawful, is that not placing a financial constraint? How about military personel? Should they drive to their local polling place? To what Matt said, voting by mail IS NOT a privilege, it is a lawful way to vote and takes the place of going to the poll. You have the RIGHT to vote by mail. Matt, the entire idea of voting by mail is to allow more people to be able to vote when they otherwise might not be able to. Why would a college student in California fly home to vote? Does this not negate the entire purpose of the bill? Further, to vote by mail, a person much engage in another activity, the buying of a stamp, in order to be eligible to vote. Essentially, a person cannot recieve a ballot and then vote without paying. Using a car to get to a poll is by choice, the poor and homeless do not use these and use the FREE method of walking to the poll which is always close enough by. You all have to think a bit more analytically and critically, I’m sorry to say.
Word, Brian.
“You all have to think a bit more analytically and critically, I’m sorry to say.”
WOOOOW, get over yourself.
It’s not a tax if it’s not absolutely required to vote. As it has been stated several times to you, the cost of the stamp can be avoided by delivering the application and the ballot in person. NOBODY is being forced to use a stamp. You’re also willfully ignoring the great efforts many groups and organizations undergo to make sure that EVERYONE can vote, either at their polling station or by mail. Can’t afford a stamp? Can’t leave your home? Someone will come to your home and deliver the ballot for you. Again, the only way you can call this a tax would be if it were a prerequisite for voting.
As Mike stated, if you’re suggesting that the cost of a stamp is a ‘poll tax’ on the voter, should we also be reimbursed for all the ‘costs’ incurred by voting? Driving to my polling location may cost me a few cents in gas. According to your logic, I should be reimbursed because this falls under your loose definition of a ‘poll tax,’ etc. etc.
Yet another vehicle for voter fraud. AOCRN and the like will gladly pay for the postage
OOps – Obviously I meant ACORN
Yes, I liked that. So was my friend. He said he is going to check it out soon. We will return before you can say anything. Bob Perry, Work New York, 65 Chambers Street, New York, NY 10007