Hancock is a Historically Disenfranchised Area, and they Deserve an Early Voting Center (Opinion)

Hancock, MD News (11/14/2023) — A town nestled in the heart of rural America, where the echoes of its historic charm resonate against the backdrop of rolling hills and open landscapes. Yet, beneath the tranquility lies a tale of disenfranchisement that mirrors the broader struggles faced by rural communities across the nation. Once again, Hancock is facing even more disenfranchisement due to the actions of the Maryland State Board of Elections.

In 2013, James Huffman highlighted the diminishing influence of small-town Americans in his article, “The Disenfranchisement of Rural America.” His analysis emphasized the erosion of self-governance in rural areas, attributing it to urbanization, economic centralization, and a shift in democratic principles.

Huffman’s argument revolves around the principle of “one person/one vote” and the idea that winners owe allegiance only to those who voted for them. However, beyond the theoretical debate, the tangible impact of this disenfranchisement is palpable in towns like Hancock.

The core issue, as Huffman points out, lies in the changing dynamics of representation, particularly at the state level. Historically, rural communities wielded influence through geographically apportioned state senates, ensuring that diverse voices were heard in legislative decisions. However, a significant turning point came in 1964 with the Reynolds v. Sims decision, mandating reapportionment based on population for lower state legislative chambers.

While the intent was to uphold the principle of equal protection under the law, the unintended consequence was a decline in the political standing of rural communities. As state legislatures became more urban-centric, the values and priorities of small-town America found themselves overshadowed by statewide majorities.

Hancock, with its rich history dating back to the 18th century, is emblematic of the challenges faced by rural America. Once thriving as a hub for trade and commerce during the days of the C&O Canal, the town now grapples with a diminishing ability to control its own destiny. The town’s fate is entwined with decisions made in distant state capitals (I’m looking at you, Maryland State Board of Elections), often disconnected from the unique needs and aspirations of Hancock’s residents.

The 2012 presidential election map, dissected by Huffman, reveals a stark reality: President Obama secured a majority of states and the popular vote but won only 20 percent of the counties. This stark contrast highlights the disconnect between rural communities and the urban-centric national majority.

As discussions persist about the merits of the Electoral College and the principles of democracy, Hancock, MD, stands as a symbol of the broader struggle for representation in rural America. The town’s residents, like many in similar communities, yearn for a return to a system that recognizes the importance of local governance and the preservation of unique community identities.

But the disenfranchisement of Hancock does not stop with politics.

Building upon James Huffman’s insights into the disenfranchisement of rural America in politics, we now explore the underrepresentation of rural individuals in science and research, as outlined in the article “Rural exclusion from science and academia” by Lindsey O’Neal and Arden Perkins. This nuanced perspective sheds light on the challenges faced by those in rural communities, particularly in the pursuit of scientific careers.

The authors emphasize that despite constituting approximately 20% of the U.S. population, rural individuals are notably absent in science, a field that has historically seen significant contributions from rural innovators. Figures like Nobel Peace laureate Norman Borlaug, Alice Evans, William Hinton, and Thomas Brock underscore the potential inherent in rural America. However, data shows that rural representation in the sciences remains disproportionately low.

The educational inequalities prevalent in rural areas serve as a significant driver behind this disparity. O’Neal and Perkins point to three key factors: remoteness limiting access to educational resources, low parental educational attainment, and low socioeconomic status. The lack of access to Advanced Placement courses and the dearth of reliable internet access in rural areas further compound these challenges.

Hancock, MD, mirrors these obstacles, as its residents face geographical remoteness that limits exposure to educational opportunities. The town’s students enroll in college at lower rates than their urban counterparts, a pattern reflected in rural communities nationwide. The notion of “education deserts” becomes particularly pertinent, as many rural areas find themselves far from higher learning institutions, making postsecondary education a costly endeavor for aspiring scientists.

The impact of these disparities becomes evident along the academic journey. Rural students, despite a comparable high school graduation rate, face obstacles in accessing college, with proximity to a college campus often determining their educational trajectory. The authors argue that the lack of reliable internet access, mental health resources, and experienced guidance counselors further hinders the academic success of rural students.

O’Neal and Perkins highlight the role of socioeconomic status (SES) as a central driver in rural educational inequity. Low family income, concentrated poverty in rural counties, and the historical underappreciation of SES as a barrier to academic spaces contribute to the challenges faced by rural students. The intersectionality of race and rurality adds another layer, with rural America increasingly diverse and home to historically marginalized populations.

This educational inequality has profound implications for the science careers of rural individuals. The authors discuss how the early exit of rural students from the academic arena poses a significant challenge, resulting in underrepresentation in graduate and professional programs. The application process, which values prior research experience and institutional prestige, may disadvantage rural students who lack access to research opportunities and support structures.

Hancock, with its own set of challenges in education and access, reflects the broader narrative of rural underrepresentation in science. The authors advocate for a reevaluation of graduate program admittance criteria, considering the unique experiences and qualifications that rural students bring to the table.

As we delve into the impact of excluding rural people from science, research, and academia, we recognize the cost is twofold. Rural individuals are underrepresented at the level of tenure-track faculty, influencing the priorities, ethical considerations, and directions of scientific research. The absence of rural perspectives perpetuates a cultural divide between urban and rural populations.

The disenfranchisement of rural America is not merely a theoretical debate; it is a lived reality for the residents of Hancock. As we reflect on Huffman’s observations from a decade ago, the question remains: Can we strike a balance between the principles of democracy and the imperative of preserving the distinct voices of rural communities like Hancock in our ever-evolving nation?

Finally, let’s not forget that Hancock is still struggling with disenfranchisement even when under local control. It took a massive community movement to get the Washington County Board of Education to keep Hancock Middle-Senior High School open, when Hancock students were facing the possibility of adding an additional half hour to their morning school bus ride by bussing students to Clear Spring.

Md. Code Regs. 33.17.02.02 requires that local election boards consider accessibility to “historically disenfranchised communities” when considering early voting center locations. Hancock, with its rural setting, is very much a historically disenfranchised community, and they deserve an early voting center for equitable access to early voting.

Ken is the President at Managing Editor of Radio Free Hub City.