The article notes the final vote (over the mayor's opposition, but with a veto proof majority) is due on December 9th. A few towns allow this, but this is the first (recent) case of a large city doing so. I'm all for it. The new mayor will look into it.
There is a concern it will "weaken" the power of citizens. Okay. A tenth of the city's population, legally residing here, should have a say on local government. You can debate how long they should be here. But, it is quite okay if they have a voice. As to discouraging citizenship, I doubt that is a major driver, or overwhelms the other positives, including providing them an incentive to be an educated part of the community at large.
Apparently, state law allows it. Meanwhile, SCOTUS took a voting case on a procedural ground today. Not sure why it wasn't part of the Order List.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!