Where I Stand 1957: Hank Greenspun: Voting rights hardly believed water under the bridge

Friday, Aug. 25, 2000 | 9:27 a.m.

Note to readers: This column by Sun founder Hank Greenspun appeared on July 19, 1957

I almost made it.

In the course of a rather full and active life, many honors have come to me, but lest anyone gain the erroneous impression that I am a completely honorable man, I must set the record straight by confessing to one dishonor.

I lost my right to vote.

About seven years ago, I plead guilty to violating the Neutrality Act by running planes and guns to another nation which was engaged in a war for survival. I don't feel too dishonored about the role I played, but with a conviction for a felony, a person's voting status is forfeited until restored by presidential pardon.

Frankly, I wouldn't qualify as a choice subject for presidential clemency, not with my reputation of opposition to powerful senators and even presidents. Politicians hesitate to stick their necks out to assist a controversial character, regardless of how meritorious the cause, because of fear of criticism, so any likelihood of my receiving a presidential pardon is about as plausible as any claim I might make to tracing my ancestry back to the Mayflower.

Fifty percent of the voters in this country have never exercised their right to vote. They have no desire to do so but deny them this right and they will battle passionately, even to the death, for this privilege.

I, too, have been zealous in attempting to have my voting rights restored, not that I would have exercised it, but only because it is denied to me.

For seven long years I have haunted the voting booths, standing by drooling, while the franchised electorate disappeared behind curtains to emerge a few minutes later with a blank look and a marked ballot. It was always -- someday, I, too, will be permitted to enter the magic cubicle where every man is king in a democracy.

For the past three days it began to appear as if my dreams would be fulfilled. The Las Vegas Sun decided a few weeks back to check into the exorbitant rates for water charged homeowners by the Las Vegas Valley Water District. It almost became a crusade as we checked water bills against meters in all parts of the town. We discovered many discrepancies and inequities and the stories we wrote aroused the populace to demand relief from the oppressive rates.

C. Norman Cornwall, a director of the water district, informed me a few days ago that he was about to introduce a resolution at a special meeting yesterday to poll all metered residences to ascertain if they favored suspension of meter billing until all homes in the district were metered. It was Cornwall's idea, as advocated by the Sun, to return to a flat rate system until 90 percent of city users would be in position to pay for water according to consumption.

I told Mr. Cornwall that it was an excellent idea, not only because it was the only fair thing to do but at last, I would get the opportunity to vote on something. Surely it wouldn't be against the law for me to register my ballot as I was a homeowner and a water user. And frankly, I do not hesitate to tell the public how I would have voted ... definitely for suspension of meters and a return to flat rates until the district is 90 percent metered.

I would have exercised my franchise if for no other reason than it would aid my pocketbook, which is as good a reason as I know for voting.

Voting in an unofficial water poll might not be as gratifying as casting a ballot for president of the United States, but I am the type of individual who is easily satisfied for all favors no matter how small.

But even this has now been denied me. The meeting of the water district was held yesterday as scheduled and Norman Cornwall introduced a resolution as he stated he would do, but the fellow was not content to go along with original plans -- he had to go all the way and suspend water meter charges without the formality of a poll of water users.

The ultimate result which we advocated and for which we strove has been accomplished almost too easily. The intermediate step has been eliminated, which in a way is cutting through red tape and vacillation. We should feel gratified in winning so eventful a victory but somehow, the pleasure has gone out of it. I didn't get a chance to vote.

However, if some officious looking citizen should pop out of a revolving door and ask me how I feel about paying flat rates for water, I would immediately answer: I vote for flat rates providing they are the lowest rates feasible to pay the expenses of the water district and pay off the bond issues for which we have obligated ourselves.

I absolutely vote against any rates which would give a surplus to the district because it is more important that people be able to water their lawns and beautify their homes within the limited budgets which most Las Vegans have than have the water district show a profit from its operations.

Meters were sold to us on the premise that it would conserve water. We are now told that water is in plentiful supply. It would be shameful for lawns, shrubbery and trees to die for lack of water because it is being priced out of sight.

I vote for lots of water at real low prices.