Prevent the Veto of Youth Voter Registration Reform in Rhode Island
June 26th, 2007
Paul
Paul Fidalgo was Communications Director at FairVote.
Chances are you never even heard about it, but the Rhode Island state legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Edwin R. Pacheco that allows 16 and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote, making them automatically eligible once they turn 18. The bill was passed without fanfare at the last minute before the legislative session ended, but pass it did, and now it is up to Governor Donald Carcieri to sign it into law.
But we have been down this road once before. This time last year, Gov. Carcieri was given the chance to sign this very bill when it passed the legislature, but he instead opted to exercise his veto. Fortunately, the state legislature has found the wisdom to offer the bill a second time, and now everyone is watching.
This bill, if enacted, will prevent a lot of bureaucratic headaches by spreading new registrations out over time, rather than dealing with a glut of new voters’ registrations immediately before a deadline. Most importantly, however, it will be a message to the young people of Rhode Island from their government that it understands that the policies of the state directly effect their lives, and that it welcomes their voices in how those decisions are made.
There’s no time to lose! This bill will likely be decided upon by the end of the week, and is in danger of being vetoed at any moment now. Click over to the Rhode Island’s Future blog to see how you can send a message to Gov. Carcieri. Tell him how much it means to you and the young people of Rhode Island. Tell him how much it will ease the burden on government officials in processing registrations. Tell him states like Florida are already moving ahead with advance registration. Tell him you think it’s the right thing to do.
Other posts by Paul
- Nomination by Attrition - October 25th, 2007
- Cary Voters Sing the Praises of IRV - October 25th, 2007
- FairVote Announces Upgrade Democracy Video Contest Finalists! - October 23rd, 2007
- The Senate Loses its Cool: The Undemocratic Ways States Fill Senate Vacancies - October 12th, 2007
- Of Campaigns and Crosswords: Pluralities as Poor Political Reflections - October 4th, 2007
- The Primaries' Premature Nomination Problem - September 28th, 2007
- Barry Bonds, Blast-offs and Ballots: What the Fate of a Baseball Teaches Us about Voting - September 20th, 2007
- The President of Everyone? Crucial Issues Suffer when Most Voters Don't Matter - September 13th, 2007
- Upgrade Democracy Video Contest News Update - September 11th, 2007
- The First Shall Be Last: The Dangerous Decline in Primary Turnout - September 7th, 2007
June 26th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I’d like to ask a question about New Hampshire.
Does anyone know what key event or series of events led to New Hampshire allowing its citizens to vote on so many of its spending bills directly? Was there some kind of huge tax that led to many getting voted out the next year? Was there some kind of wasteful spending? Or is it the fact that since there are over 400 reps in the NH house, (1 rep=3000 roughly, better than many municipalities), and that likely the rep feels very loyal to the opinions of their constitutients? Or has New Hampshire law always been like this, or is it the fact that their house represenatives earn very little annual salary that they don’t want to waste their time governing? The state motto has also made me wonder.
Anyone with thoughts? If we crack the New Hampshire formula, would it work with the United States as a whole if we used that model on the country?