Land of the Freeholder: How Property Rights Make Local Voting Rights

Abstract

A large body of research documents the dominance of homeowners in local politics. There has been little scholarship, however, on the role that voting institutions have played in empowering homeowners from this country’s inception; indeed, most accounts describe property qualifications for voting and officeholding as largely fading from view by the mid-1800s. Combining a novel analysis of state constitutions and constitutional conventions with data on state statutes, this article explores the emergence of property qualifications for voting, with a particular emphasis on their role in local politics. We find that, counter most historical narratives, property requirements persisted well into the 20th century, with almost 90 percent of property requirements restricting voting and officeholding at the local level. Most centered on local bond referenda, school districts, and land use—suggesting that homeowner citizens were granted particular political control over local taxation and public services. These requirements were largely clustered in the American South and West—emerging alongside Jim Crow laws and mass availability of federal public lands—and were not eliminated until the Supreme Court took action. This article illuminates the important role that voting institutions played in linking homeownership with American democratic citizenship, especially at the local level. Thanks to Sarah Anzia, Molly Brady, Mirya Holman, Spencer Piston, Jessica Trounstine, and Vanessa Williamson for helpful advice and feedback. We also greatly appreciate data from Molly Brady, Will Marble, and Clayton Nall. All errors are our own. Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Boston University. kleinst@bu.edu. Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Boston University. mbpalmer@bu.edu. “Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.” — James Madison, Federalist 10 “. . . if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country.” — President George W. Bush, June 17, 20041 Homeowners dominate contemporary local politics. They participate at far higher rates (McCabe 2016; Einstein, Glick and Palmer 2019; Yoder 2020), are electorally powerful (Trounstine 2008; Mullin 2009), and comprise virtually all elected officials—even in cities with large majorities of renters (Einstein, Ornstein and Palmer 2021). Their disproportionate influence comes with stark consequences for American local governments: land use and housing policies that favor the interests of homeowners have spurred high housing costs, sprawling and environmentally destructive land use, racial and economic segregation, and unequal access to high-quality public goods (Mullin 2009; Glaeser 2011; Hsieh and Moretti 2015; McCabe 2016; Trounstine 2018; Einstein, Glick and Palmer 2019). Much of the research that explores the political power of homeowners starts in the 1900s and explores their role in political machines (Trounstine 2008), land use politics (Burns 1994; Fischel 2001; Mullin 2009; Oliver, Ha and Callen 2012; Trounstine 2018; Einstein, Glick and Palmer 2019), and the distribution of public resources (Burns 1994; Trounstine 2018). But, there has been little exploration into how voting institutions may have explicitly empowered homeowners, drawing an inextricable link between property ownership and democratic citizenship. Indeed, local voting rights for the most part have not been systematically studied. As at other levels of government, there are a myriad of ways that local governments have restricted the franchise, including limiting voting to property owners, holding elections off-cycle, imposing strict residency requirements, and creating tiny precincts in order to create barriers to registration (Mullin 2009; Trounstine 2008; Anzia 2014). Only off-cycle elections, however, have been documented and analyzed systematically at the local level (Berry and Gerson 2010; Anzia 2014; Kogan, Lavertu and Peskowitz 2018; Dynes, Hartney and Hayes 2021). https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html