Limiting the voting rights of college students

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
That person makes up a very disturbing % of college graduates
I'd argue that makes up a high percentage of people. People in their 20s and 30s, and even later, professionals and laborers, all go out, get drunk, party, inhale on occasion, etc. They all still get to vote. Incidentally, the more education someone has the less they are likely to do drugs. In your example above it's more likely to be the local living in the college town but not attending who gets high more often. Should he get to vote?

P.S. I got the AmHist reference...I realize having literacy tests is Pandora's Box, but really, counting votes from someone who likes the POTUS candidate because he looks good? Because he has a nice smile? We want the POTUS to be determined by votes like that?

You take the good with the bad, just like free speech. Of course we'd prefer educated voters, it's why we have mandatory education. But it's why we have a representative democracy, so that even if idiots/under-informed vote, generally the person elected will have had to pass through enough hurdles that he can't be a complete idiot himself. Generally.

And good looking people get treated better in almost all facets of life, not much we can do about that, it's hardwired into us. We are still animals to some degree.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
I'd argue that makes up a high percentage of people. People in their 20s and 30s, and even later, professionals and laborers, all go out, get drunk, party, inhale on occasion, etc. They all still get to vote. Incidentally, the more education someone has the less they are likely to do drugs. In your example above it's more likely to be the local living in the college town but not attending who gets high more often. Should he get to vote?

Sure, but not anywhere to the degree that college kids do. And, even if they did, they'd be living locally (or working remotely, and expected to either return home to vote, or, stunner, file an absentee ballot on time), so there would be no problem there.

As far as the local stoner, if his primary residence for his voter registration is local, then go for it, vote away. Go in smoking a joint, I could care less.

You take the good with the bad, just like free speech. Of course we'd prefer educated voters, it's why we have mandatory education. But it's why we have a representative democracy, so that even if idiots/under-informed vote, generally the person elected will have had to pass through enough hurdles that he can't be a complete idiot himself. Generally.

Then we as a country need to find some way to start getting better people elected, people that have actual Real World experience at something other than professional community organizer, professional politician, etc. It's gotten to the point where we need an Amendment that if the POTUS candidate cannot pass the current CPA exam, then they will not be qualified to run for that office. Smooth talking, nice smiles, friendly chuckles, aren't going to dig us out of the hole we're in.

And good looking people get treated better in almost all facets of life, not much we can do about that, it's hardwired into us. We are still animals to some degree.

Man I'd hope that wouldn't hold true when people are voting for Leadership, but I know it does....god help us...

Chuck
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
When I was in college I registered where I lived when I was in school, not where my parents lived... Are you saying that's fraud?

From the article:

a bill that would allow them to vote in college towns only if they or their parents had established permanent residency in the state.

I really don't see what the problem is, or how anyone is having their rights infringed.

What's the problem of voting where you legally reside? That's what the rest of us are required to do.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
That is to prevent people from cherry picking, a clearly definable problem that required a solution. I'm still waiting to hear what clearly defined problem exists that would make the United States a better place and a more representative democracy by requiring people to vote in a place that they live 1/4 of the year in at most, as opposed to where they live 3/4ths of the time.

Can anyone explain to me how the will of the people is better expressed this way? Anyone?

The article makes clear the college student CAN vote in the locale of their college. They must only register there as a resident. If you can't be bothered to do that, if you have so little in common with that area you don't want to register as a resident there, I don't see any reason why you should want to, or be able to vote there.

The 3/4 to 1/4 ratio couldn't be less persuasive. Unless things have changed radically, when I was in college 99% of the students were blissfully unaware of local, perhaps even state politics. National politics? Yes. Most students return to their 'home' in the Summer (as well as Thankingsgivng, Christmas etc.), many of these will work there too. That's where they should vote, that's where they pay their (state) income taxes.

Not only is this not any type of problem, but if it were it wouldn't be that big. Most students go to an in-state college; no change of residence needed. The Presidential election is only once every 4 years, giving most out-of-state students more than ample time to figure out the absentee ballot process or change their legal residence.

Fern
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Shouldn't be able to vote in a state you don't live in. Do absentee ballots. Not seeing a problem here and it will cut down on voter fraud. And who would disagree with showing proof of citizenship or residency as proof? Or more importantly, for what reason and purpose?

The pro-illegal immigration crowd in the southwest US.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
That ain't the motivation though.

"In a recent speech to a tea party group in the state, House Speaker William O'Brien described college voters as "foolish." "Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he said, in remarks that were videotaped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students, he said, lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings."

This is merely an attempt to disenfranchise a demographic that votes op-party. That's all.

what he and you say are both true.
 

ussfletcher

Platinum Member
Apr 16, 2005
2,569
2
81
This makes me want to stab someone, college kids dont get a say what because we dont have a jobs? Alot of us do work, not only that but going to college is counted as being employed in the unemployment figures..... Its insanity, though im happy to know this will never go anywhere.

No its because most college students are bleeding edge liberal douchebags with no concept of what the world is like, or how it should be.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
You're right. Crossing state line is SO terribly difficult. Sorry for imagining such an impossible thing.

Commuting to school across a state line (or voting district line) is irrelevant to this discussion. You can't register to vote where your school is if you don't live there.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
What is physically stopping someone from registering in 2 different states?

John Doe lives in Lake Charles Lake, Louisiana.
Company sends John to Beaumont, Texas for a 6 month project
John doe gets and apartment, new Texas drivers license and registers to vote in Texas.
Election rolls around, John votes in Texas, then drives 45 minutes to Lake Charles to vote again.

What is stopping him, nothing. Just don't get caught.

Are you being serious? If it were possible to register in multiple places, that would be a huge issue, and it would have nothing to do with college. And it's not, because that's not possible.

Within a state, counties presumably update each other on voter registrations.

When I moved to Hawaii, I had to turn in my Texas driver's license, and they notified Texas that I became a Hawaii resident.
 
Last edited:

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
How short some peoples memories are, college students can be used to sway elections and it wasn't republicans complaining loudest, it all depends whose ox is being gored.
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/12/31/wilson
The Attack on Student Voting Rights
December 31, 2007


The 2008 elections have created some bizarre situations, particularly in Iowa, home of the first votes during the caucuses on January 3. After years of struggles to get more college students to vote and engage in politics, it is strange (and disappointing) to watch Democratic candidates suddenly declaring that students shouldn’t vote.

The debate over student voting was sparked when Barack Obama’s campaign gave out 50,000 fliers on college campuses declaring, "If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood." Since Obama has the strongest support of any candidate among college students, and many out-of-state students in Iowa come from his home state of Illinois, this was no surprise. But the reaction may have startled Obama, who worked in the field of voting rights as a lawyer and a law professor at the University of Chicago.

Hillary Clinton proclaimed, "This is a process for Iowans. This needs to be all about Iowa, and people who live here, people who pay taxes here.” Apparently that doesn’t include the out-of-state students who pay higher tuition in Iowa, not to mention the various taxes on their books, supplies, and pizza, and the income taxes on their salaries.

A Clinton spokeswoman went even further, “We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state people. We don't have literature recruiting out-of-state college students.”

It wasn’t only the Clinton campaign that complained. Chris Dodd’s Iowa director, Julie Andreeff Jensen, said in a statement: “I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign's attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses.... That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa." Even Dodd’s wife claimed about voters, “They really resent it when candidates try to sign up people who are not really from Iowa.”

But encouraging young people to vote is only something to resent if you think students shouldn’t be voting. Actually, pretty much everything about the Iowa campaigning has a manipulative feel to it, including the Clinton campaign’s efforts to oppose the Obama campaign’s recruiting of students. After all, Hillary Clinton polls badly among college students, so she has few votes to lose. Instead, her campaign is skillfully appealing to the most xenophobic prejudice of older Iowa residents: the fear of people from Illinois.

This Illiniphobia is generated from many sources, from Big Ten rivalries to traditional border state snobbery, accentuated by the fear of big, bad Chicago and all its evil, urban influences. And not coincidentally, this fear goes along nicely with Clinton’s race against the junior senator from Illinois, Chicagoan Barack Obama.

Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen wrote a blog post called “The Illinois Caucus” that denounced Obama’s efforts. According to Yepsen, “While it’s legal for college students to register to vote in Iowa to do that, this raises the question of whether it’s fair, or politically smart” since it “risks offending long-time Iowa residents.” Yepsen proclaimed: “We have to respect the integrity of this caucus system.” But part of the integrity of the process is encouraging everyone who lives in Iowa to vote, even if they’re a college student from out of state.

As Rock the Vote tells students, “As a college student, you have the right to vote from the residence that you consider ‘home,’ including your campus residence.” Here’s the law nationwide: Anyone can register to vote where they live. College students typically “live” in two places, their campus address where they spend most of the year, and the home address of their parents. Students can choose where they wish to register. There’s nothing illegal at all so long as you don’t vote twice in the same election. College students from other states are “outsiders” only in the sense of their hometown. There is no fraud here, nor any danger of fraud.

This is a fundamental issue of voting rights that should be core for all people, even if you think the students in Iowa may not vote for your favored candidate. Ever since 18 year olds have been allowed to vote, in some college towns, officials have worked hard to try to stop students from voting, fearing that these students might, if organized, wield enormous influence. After all, no one would dare to express the fear that “too many” African-Americans or Latinos might vote in the election.

Mike Connery of Future Majority called this opposition to voting by college students "advocating voter disenfranchisement." Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, "Barack Obama doesn't believe that we should disenfranchise Iowans who meet all the requirements for caucus participation simply because they're in college... We should be encouraging young people to participate in the political process - not looking for ways to shut them out."

Rock the Vote cites many examples of attempts to attack student voting rights. In 2004 near Prairie View A&M (a historically black university located in a majority white county in Texas), District Attorney Oliver Kitzman publicly declared, “it’s not right for any college student to vote where they do not have permanent residency,” and threatened to prosecute students who tried to register to vote. In 2004, after several students at the College of William & Mary ran for city council in Williamsburg, Virginia, the local register declared four students did not live in town and could not run for office or vote there. In February 2007, a state representative in Maine even proposed a bill to ban students from voting where they go to college.

As a New York Times editorial pointed out, “Political campaigns and elected officials have used a variety of tactics over the years to keep students from voting. There are often too few voting machines, so lines stretch for hours. Sometimes, students are falsely told that they will lose financial aid, health care or even car insurance if they vote while attending school.”

I've seen those long lines. On Election Day in November 2004 at Illinois State University, I witnessed enormous lines of students snaking through the student center, waiting for up to three hours after the polls closed for the opportunity to vote. The president of the university issued a statement praising this tremendous outpouring of student civic interest. I saw something much different: a fundamental injustice that threatened voting rights. After all, in the areas where students mixed with non-students, such as my home, the wait to vote was about 15 minutes. In some places with almost no students, the wait was negligible. Yet the Republican county officials hadn’t planned for a large student vote (which happened to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats).

Long lines to vote aren’t merely a terrible inconvenience; they threaten the ability of many people to vote. For students who have to go to class or go to work, a three-hour wait isn’t always possible. And even the most civic-minded person would have to think twice before standing for hours just to cast a vote. Local governments in college towns are rarely responsive to student needs for the simple reason that students usually don’t vote in local elections, and they like to keep it that way. If you encourage students to vote for president, they might get used to the idea of democracy and start to want local representation, too.

College officials could do a lot more to assure the right of students to vote because they have influence in the community. They must work to ensure that adequate supplies and facilities are available for precincts on and near campus, so that students don’t have to wait in longer lines than everybody else. In Iowa, where the caucus will occur during winter break, Grinnell College students coming to caucus will sleep on a gym floor, while the University of Northern Iowa is planning to keep open some of its dormitories to accommodate students.

Of course, civic engagement must mean much more than mere voting. The understanding of democracy among college students must focus on much more than just the first Tuesday in November. For the next year, all colleges should create a civic engagement program to encourage students to participate not merely in elections but in the broader scope of public activity, such as debating what policies are best for the country, and which candidates are the best to elect to federal, state, and local offices.

But the quest to promote civic engagement by college students must begin with access to the ballot box.

— John K. Wilson
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,936
55,293
136
The article makes clear the college student CAN vote in the locale of their college. They must only register there as a resident. If you can't be bothered to do that, if you have so little in common with that area you don't want to register as a resident there, I don't see any reason why you should want to, or be able to vote there.

The 3/4 to 1/4 ratio couldn't be less persuasive. Unless things have changed radically, when I was in college 99% of the students were blissfully unaware of local, perhaps even state politics. National politics? Yes. Most students return to their 'home' in the Summer (as well as Thankingsgivng, Christmas etc.), many of these will work there too. That's where they should vote, that's where they pay their (state) income taxes.

Not only is this not any type of problem, but if it were it wouldn't be that big. Most students go to an in-state college; no change of residence needed. The Presidential election is only once every 4 years, giving most out-of-state students more than ample time to figure out the absentee ballot process or change their legal residence.

Fern

Wait, my 3/4 1/4 argument couldn't be less persuasive because kids are unaware of politics? You need to think about what you just wrote, because that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. What you think college kids care about could not possibly mean less as to their right to vote or not. It means literally nothing.

Also, states receive more income from sales taxes than they get through income tax, (and much, much more from low income people such as students) why on earth should a student vote in the state they pay fewer taxes in just because they are income taxes? Your idea would have them vote in the place they have LESS financial stake in. And why the hell are you trying to add in a taxation requirement as to where someone votes? Not only does the Constitution forbid denying people the vote due to failure to pay taxes, but what if someone (like many students) didn't pay income tax that year?

In order to vote there students have to register as a resident, that's what registering for voting IS. What the article actually says is to 'establish permanent residency', which is a far different thing, one that usually takes more than a year to accomplish. 'can't be bothered'... riiiiight. I have no idea why you brought up presidential elections being once every 4 years either. Not only should it be obvious to you that only 1 in 4 students has 4 years to establish their residence, but there are actually elections that happen every year in case you haven't noticed.

Even if your argument wasn't crap, it doesn't matter because you're trying to explain why it's not that big a burden and why those damn lazy kids should vote where you want them to. That's not how it works, if you're restricting people's rights, you need to explain why there's a problem that this fixes. Not a single person has been able to do that, and it's not surprising, because there isn't one.

This is clear, unambiguous voter suppression. It's disgusting.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
because most college students keep their drivers license in the state their parents live/they grew up in. Most do not change it to their college state/town.

They should not be able to vote if they don't change their permanent address to that state.
This seems to me to pretty much cover the issue. If you change your legal address, meaning driver's license etc. to the new location, this is where you live regardless of whether or not you are in school. If not, you live in your old district and are merely staying in the school district. Combine that with mandatory jail time for double voting and it's a non-issue.

Primary caucuses are a different matter, as they are (in most states) run by the party and for the party. They usually do not require residency or even citizenship, which in my opinion is why they should be abolished by law. Even though they are not public elections, they certainly materially affect public elections and violate the foundations of our system.
 
Last edited:

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
I doubt anyone here seriously and honestly believes that GOP lesislators in 32 states are attempting to rewrite election laws for any other reason than that the resulting laws would lead to decreased democratic voting and a better electoral turn out for the GOP. Does anyone dispute this?

And I think most people would probably agree that Dem legislators try to make voting as easy as possible for minorities and the youth because those groups tend to vote more heavily democratic. Does anyone dispute this?

So my question is, what if any steps have democratic lawmakers ever taken (in the last 50 years, say) to make it more difficult for a demograhic to vote when that demographic has historically shown it tends to vote republican?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
because most college students keep their drivers license in the state their parents live/they grew up in. Most do not change it to their college state/town.

They should not be able to vote if they don't change their permanent address to that state.
I don't think this particularly true. Most states have laws on how long a car that has out-of-state license plates can be driven within a state, usually a few months, before it needs to be registered in the state it is being driven in. Good luck trying to register the car with an out-of-state drivers license. Or getting car insurance to cover an out-of-state claim.

Also, as I read it, the NH bill just makes mention of "domicile" and defines it not based on address but whether you have intentions of returning to whence you came so even if you changed your address, they could deny you the right to vote in FEDERAL elections because NH isn't your "domicile".
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I doubt anyone here seriously and honestly believes that GOP lesislators in 32 states are attempting to rewrite election laws for any other reason than that the resulting laws would lead to decreased democratic voting and a better electoral turn out for the GOP. Does anyone dispute this?

And I think most people would probably agree that Dem legislators try to make voting as easy as possible for minorities and the youth because those groups tend to vote more heavily democratic. Does anyone dispute this?

So my question is, what if any steps have democratic lawmakers ever taken (in the last 50 years, say) to make it more difficult for a demograhic to vote when that demographic has historically shown it tends to vote republican?
Seriously? You haven't read ANYTHING about the many attempts by southern Democrats to keep blacks from voting in the sixties? (For the math challenged, 50 years ago was 1961.) In more recent times, Democrats in Florida and elsewhere have mounted concerted challenges to prevent military votes from being counted - a pretty Republican demographic.

However Republicans aren't so much concerned with Democrat constituencies voting as in illegal voting - multiple voting, felons voting, illegal aliens voting, etc. If you remember when Ashcroft was defeated, it was a couple of majority black districts that kept voting open hours after the rest of the state (in spite of being told by a court that they could not legally violate state law, which states that only people in line when the polls close may vote) and voted in excess of the total registered voters in the precincts. And right now there are no systems in place to ensure that students don't vote absentee at home (using their driver's licenses) and again at college (using voter registration from campus drives.)
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Seriously? You haven't read ANYTHING about the many attempts by southern Democrats to keep blacks from voting in the sixties? (For the math challenged, 50 years ago was 1961.)

0/1. All those racists became and remain Republicans, and when I said 50 years I meant after the south strategy switch, I should have been more specific.

In more recent times, Democrats in Florida and elsewhere have mounted concerted challenges to prevent military votes from being counted - a pretty Republican demographic.

0/2. Outside of the 2000 contested fla election where challenging absentee (incl military) ballots appeared to be a legal strategy, my question is where have dem legislators acted to pass laws disenfranchising a republican electorate.

However Republicans aren't so much concerned with Democrat constituencies voting as in illegal voting - multiple voting, felons voting, illegal aliens voting, etc.

Nonsense. They "aren't so much concerned" with constituencies? You think the GOP would be making these moves if the result would be decreased GOP turnout?

And right now there are no systems in place to ensure that students don't vote absentee at home (using their driver's licenses) and again at college (using voter registration from campus drives.)

Aside from the fact that it's a felony? You still have to register to vote, you can't just waltz in and vote anywhere.
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
What a bunch of BS political spin. If you don't like the current system then you would need a national system of keeping track of who voted where to keep people from voting more than once. Can you imagine the political ramifications of that?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
0/1. All those racists became and remain Republicans, and when I said 50 years I meant after the south strategy switch, I should have been more specific.

0/2. Outside of the 2000 contested fla election where challenging absentee (incl military) ballots appeared to be a legal strategy, my question is where have dem legislators acted to pass laws disenfranchising a republican electorate.

Nonsense. They "aren't so much concerned" with constituencies? You think the GOP would be making these moves if the result would be decreased GOP turnout?

Aside from the fact that it's a felony? You still have to register to vote, you can't just waltz in and vote anywhere.
I must have missed the part where Robert KKK Byrd, "conscience of the Senate", became a Republican. Or Fritz Hollings, the guy who added the Confederate battle flag to the South Carolina capital flag pole before he criticized Republicans for being too slow in removing it. Many southern Democrats became Republicans, but not a majority. It took Reagan to covert the south to the Republican party. (I know, I was one of the converted.)
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
I must have missed the part where Robert KKK Byrd, "conscience of the Senate", became a Republican. Or Fritz Hollings, the guy who added the Confederate battle flag to the South Carolina capital flag pole before he criticized Republicans for being too slow in removing it. Many southern Democrats became Republicans, but not a majority. It took Reagan to covert the south to the Republican party. (I know, I was one of the converted.)

This is quibbling. After the electoral swap happened, when did dem legislators attempt to disenfranchise republicns? This isn't idle banter. Voter supression is a standard claim dems make against repubs but pubs generally respond that dems enfranchise illegals or something. I'm just wondering if dems ever tried to do what the gop is doing.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Speaking as a college student going to college 2 states away, I've gotten an absentee ballot every election for as long as I've been here. Not that difficult.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,668
13,811
136
Speaking as a college student going to college 2 states away, I've gotten an absentee ballot every election for as long as I've been here. Not that difficult.

I voted by absentee ballot when I was in college, but I really don't see the problem with a student registering where he is domiciled. I had to pay income tax as a resident of the state of Illinois when I was in college but I didn't get to vote there (registered in my home state). But there were plenty of reasons to register in Illinois if I wanted - lots of local issues that would affect me as a student in that area, etc. Gaining permanent residency in other states may not be as straightforward as some seem to suggest, especially if one is a college student (eg: rules in place to prevent people from living in a place one year but not necessarily financially independent and then getting residency to get lower tuition).
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I see a problem with this. Some college students become part of the community that they go to school in. They work there and live there and pay taxes there. This is just a communist propaganda campaign.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Speaking as a college student going to college 2 states away, I've gotten an absentee ballot every election for as long as I've been here. Not that difficult.
As a college student, ever think of voting absentee and locally in the same election?