Legal Commentary

Last week I promised I would share some of the more provocative comments made by students in my State and Local Government seminar.  Here is one.  As part of our discussion on allocating the right to vote in local elections, I cited some statistics demonstrating that many US citizens lack a basic understanding of our governmental structure. In response, one student argued (quite eloquently) that people should be required to obtain a ?license to vote? by passing a licensing exam designed to ensure that voters have a threshold knowledge of (a) the candidates? positions on a variety of substantive issues and (b) the political office for which the candidate is running.  Though perhaps not a novel idea (see for example, here and here), it was the first time one of my students advocated restricting the right to vote, as opposed to the more common (and politically correct) proposals for increasing civic engagement and voter turnout.   

As you might imagine, a heated classroom debate ensued.  Many students were appalled by the idea and argued that a licensing exam, reminiscent of a poll tax or a literacy exam, is inherently discriminatory. A surprising number of students, however, supported the ?licensing? scheme as a way to prevent ill-informed citizens from voting in a manner that might be contrary to the public good (presumably defined as whatever that student thinks is good). 

Putting aside any discriminatory motives, the main sentiment seemed to be:  Voting is a privilege, not just a right ? you have to earn it.  I am curious whether other profs who teach in related areas have encountered similar debates in their classrooms and how they have responded.