Limiting the voting rights of college students

[irishScott]

As a college student, ever think of voting absentee and locally in the same election?

My vote wouldn't be counted as I'm registered in my home state. Also I'm pretty sure it's a federal crime.

 

[Wreckem]

It should be pretty simple.

If the law doesn't recognize you as a citizen of a state, you shouldn't be allowed to vote in that state.

To be a citizen of a state you have to make attempts to establish residency.

Hell, most students I know(those that actually vote) do absentee even though they live in the same state they go to school in.

 

[Wreckem]

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".

College students are not required to get a new license if they go to college in a different state, nor do they have to register their vehicle in the state. College students are exempted from such laws. Those laws only apply to people establishing a residency in the new state.

 

[jonks]

It should be pretty simple.

If the law doesn't recognize you as a citizen of a state, you shouldn't be allowed to vote in that state.

So what does it say to you that most states don't have this requirement, an oversight or by design?

 

[fskimospy]

It should be pretty simple.

If the law doesn't recognize you as a citizen of a state, you shouldn't be allowed to vote in that state.

To be a citizen of a state you have to make attempts to establish residency.

Hell, most students I know(those that actually vote) do absentee even though they live in the same state they go to school in.

The 14th Amendment clearly states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

You have to do absolutely nothing to be a citizen of a state other than live there, so I'm glad to see that we all agree that people should be able to vote in whatever state they currently live in.

 

[jonks]

Nice on point paper, the second section.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_student_voting/

States have established varying standards and tests for determining a person’s intent with respect to voting residence. In New York, for example, the standard is whether the place is the “center of the individual’s life now, the locus of primary concern.” If this standard were fairly and uniformly applied by election officials, most college students seeking to vote as residents of their colleges would be permitted to do so because most students live principally in their college communities. They eat, sleep and carry out the daily activities of their lives in those communities; they are often deeply involved in part-time employment and community activities within the college community; and they are far more affected by the acts and omissions of local officials in their college community than they are by the acts of local officials in some distant parental community.

 

[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.

Being there 3/4, or whatever is irrelevent.

And what you think they care about is equally meaningless.

The whole thing boils down to a matter of convenience for a fraction of the student population (those who are out-of-state). It's hardly a serious inconvenience either.

The rest of have to vote where are legal residence are, so should they.

Also, states receive more income from sales taxes than they get through income tax..

Sales taxes are irrelevent, even tourist etc pay those. That doesn't mean they vote either.

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.

No it doesn't. Just go get a new driver's license (you'll be registered to vote there at that time).

I've changed state residence, along with voting place several times. You're mis-representing the process to change it, it can be done in the first week (or even a day). It doesn't take a year.

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.

We all vote where our residences are. No one rights are being restricted because they have to follow the same rules we all do.

The level of spin here by many on the Left is ridiculous. Chris Matthews described it last night as taking away the right of students to vote. You just have to vote where you are a resident, like everybody else.

Fern

 

[jonks]

You just have to vote where you are a resident, like everybody else.

So you have no problem then with states that define residence as where you primarily live, which for college students is at the college they attend?

 

[fskimospy]

Being there 3/4, or whatever is irrelevent.

And what you think they care is equally meaningless.

What I think about what they care IS meaningless, that's my whole point. Glad to see you agree what a terrible line of reasoning it was. It's very odd that you think the amount of time per year someone spends in an area is meaningless, when it is the primary method of determining residency.

The whole boils to a matter of conveneience for fraction of the student population (those who are out-of-state). It's hardly a serious inconvenience either.

Sales taxes are irrelevent, even tourist etc pay those. That doesn't mean they vote either.

The rest of have to vote where are legal residence are, so should they.
And your state of legal residence in terms of voting is determined by where you're registered to vote. I'm not sure what the issue is. This bill is attempting to alter that requirement to prevent college students from registering to vote in the state they currently reside in.

Sales taxes are also in fact irrelevant, once again I'm glad you agree that where you pay taxes is irrelevant. My point in mentioning sales taxes was that you had some bizarre idea that people should vote where they pay income taxes. Presumably you thought this was a good idea because people should vote in the states that they contribute tax money to. Noting that these students actually pay MORE in taxes to the states where they go to college should show you what a silly idea basing voting on income tax would be.

No it doesn't. Just go get a new driver's license (you'll be registered to vote there at that time).

I've changed state residence, along with voting place several times. You're mis-representing the process to change it, it can be done in the first week (or even a day). It doesn't take a year.

I most certainly am not misrepresenting the process necessary to establish permanent residence, you just don't know what you're talking about. Some states are requiring a state ID to vote (which is what you're referring to), while others (like New Hampshire in the article mentioned) are attempting to push a requirement for 'permanent residency'. These are two VERY different things. Under the CURRENT law, yes students could change their license and register to vote the same day, under the PROPOSED law mentioned in the article, they would need to establish permanent residency. While requirements for this vary by state, one that is nearly universal is having spent at least a year in the state, so in fact it frequently does take a year.

You appear to be supporting the law as it currently exists, not the voter suppression that they are trying to implement.

We all vote where our residences are. No one rights are being restricted because they have to follow the same rules we all do.

Fern

Yes, we should all vote where our residences are. Their residence is in the town they currently live in, not a house across the country that their parents do.

 

[werepossum]

College students are not required to get a new license if they go to college in a different state, nor do they have to register their vehicle in the state. College students are exempted from such laws. Those laws only apply to people establishing a residency in the new state.

And establishing residency is what qualifies one to vote. This also applies within the same state. Get a girlfriend and start hanging out at her place in a different district of the same city, that doesn't give you the right to vote in that district. For that you have to change your voter registration to declare her address your new address. This also has implications beyond voting, as many states have state income taxes that apply to income its residents earn out of state. If for instance a Tennessee resident goes to college in Georgia but coops back in Tennessee, changing legal residence to Georgia would require paying Georgia income tax on the money earned in Tennessee.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
While requirements for this vary by state, one that is nearly universal is having spent at least a year in the state, so in fact it frequently does take a year.

The one year rule is where they legally force you to change residency to that area. It is used in cases where people 'live' there but claim a different residence; this is for income tax purposes. You are confusing things

I have done studies for international accounting on all 50 states (and the District's) residency rules.

I have never seen a state that requires you to live there for at least a year before you can claim residency there.

Here's a list of states and their voter residency requirements:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781452.html

As you can see, about half states have no period of duration for residency; technically you can register the 1st day you arrive there. The longest period for any state of required residency before registering to vote is a mere 30 days.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Yes, we should all vote where our residences are. Their residence is in the town they currently live in, not a house across the country that their parents do.

No, it isn't.

That's just your opinion. It certainly isn't borne out by law. There are any number of reasons why people have temporary abodes/homes away from their residence. Many people do not want or intend to move their residence to the temporary location, whether they are there for a temp job assignment or classes.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

No, it isn't.

That's just your opinion. It certainly isn't borne out by law. There are any number of reasons why people have temporary abodes/homes away from their residence. Many people do not want or intend to move there residence to the temporary location, whether they are there for a temp job assignment or classes.

Fern

Incorrect yet again. You are attempting to conflate permanent residence with residence, when they are not even remotely the same thing.

 

[fskimospy]

The one year rule is where they legally force you to change residency to that area. It is used in cases where people 'live' there but claim a different residence; this is for income tax purposes. You are confusing things

I have done studies for international accounting on all 50 states (and the District's) residency rules.

I have never seen a state that requires you to live there for at least a year before you can claim residency there.

Here's a list of states and their voter residency requirements:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781452.html

As you can see, about half states have no period of duration for residency; technically you can register the 1st day you arrive there. The longest period for any state of required residency before registering to vote is a mere 30 days.

Fern

This is under current law. They are trying to change current law. I do not understand what is so difficult to grasp about this. You are confusing what is considered residency for tax purposes with what is considered residency for other purposes. They are frequently very different things. EDIT: This is for obvious reasons. They make the residency requirements very lax in order to tax you because that involves you giving them money. They make it considerably harder when you get things, because it requires the state to do something for you

There are large amounts of programs in each state, medical programs, residency for education purposes, etc. that all have different requirements for what is considered residency in the state. California is a great example, in order to establish residency for the purposes of education you need to have been there more than a year. Overall there are a whole bunch of things you need to do to establish a state as your permanent residence, and that status is something that must be applied for. (ironically, until now one of them was registering to vote in that state. Whoops!)

 

[Fern]

Incorrect yet again. You are attempting to conflate permanent residence with residence, when they are not even remotely the same thing.

Hahaha. No, that is what you're doing.

There are:
1. Temp residence (temp job assignment, classes, vacation homes etc), no voting rights and restricted tax filing requirements

2. Permanent Residence (intent and/or 'bright-line' tests). Voting rights and full tax requirements.

3. Domicile (intent). Mostly affects estate tax.

Again, from the list I provided above, 30 days of (permanent) residence is the most required in any state before eligibility to vote - this means 30 days after arrival in new state.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Hahaha. No, that is what you're doing.

There are:
1. Temp residence (temp job assignment, classes, vacation homes etc), no voting rights and restricted tax filing requirements

2. Permanent Residence (intent and/or 'bright-line' tests). Voting rights and full tax requirements.

3. Domicile (intent). Mostly affects estate tax.

Again, from the list I provided above, 30 days of (permanent) residence is the most required in any state before eligibility to vote - this means 30 days after arrival in new state.

Fern

For the last time, THAT IS THE PART OF THE LAW THEY ARE TRYING TO CHANGE.

Once again, you are confusing tax law for...well... basically everything else that happens in the state. For example in terms of police searches your 'residence' is whatever place you are currently living. It doesn't matter if it's a vacation home or not. For college tuition purposes you can have a permanent residence for tax purposes, but it's not considered permanent enough for tuition purposes. Same goes for medical benefits, etc. Residency means different things for different aspects of state business.

This is really, really obvious.

 

[Fern]

This is under current law. They are trying to change current law. I do not understand what is so difficult to grasp about this. You are confusing what is considered residency for tax purposes with what is considered residency for other purposes. They are frequently very different things. EDIT: This is for obvious reasons. They make the residency requirements very lax in order to tax you because that involves you giving them money. They make it considerably harder when you get things, because it requires the state to do something for you

There are large amounts of programs in each state, medical programs, residency for education purposes, etc. that all have different requirements for what is considered residency in the state. California is a great example, in order to establish residency for the purposes of education you need to have been there more than a year. Overall there are a whole bunch of things you need to do to establish a state as your permanent residence, and that status is something that must be applied for. (ironically, until now one of them was registering to vote in that state. Whoops!)

All the article mentions is "permanent residency".

Again, when you arrive in a new with the intention to be a permanent resident, you are. There is no waiting period; you become a permanent resident upon your first day.

However, if you arrive there with out the intent to be a permanent residence, you cliam that you are not until forced into it by physical presence and/or other tests (depending upon the state).

Students fall into that area where they may or may not be permanent residents. Their physical presence in a state (assuming they leave for summer etc.) is often insufficient to compel them to be treated as "permanent residents". OTOH, there is nothing presently preventing them from declaring themselves "permanent residents".

Now, if you're saying these proposed bills will change those rules on how one becomes a "permanent resident', please link them. All I see is a requirement that you be a "permanent resident" before voting. This will close a loophole where people can be a permanent residence (with voting rights) in one state, and a (non-permanent residence) registered voter in another.

Fern

 

[CaptnKirk]

GOP wants to selectivly eliminate the votes of those that they don't agree with.
Voter control, plain and simple.

If you are going to college in any state, you are living in that state, and may choose to remain
there after you graduate - providing you like the area, and get a job, or an offer for work there.

 

[her209]

For the last time, THAT IS THE PART OF THE LAW THEY ARE TRYING TO CHANGE.

The bill is trying to redefine "domicile" such that out-of-state students can no longer vote in NH in elections.

Here is what it is now.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxiii/654/654-mrg.htm

654:1 Voter; Office Holder. –
I. Every inhabitant of the state, having a single established domicile for voting purposes, being a citizen of the United States, of the age provided for in Article 11 of Part First of the Constitution of New Hampshire, shall have a right at any meeting or election, to vote in the town, ward, or unincorporated place in which he or she is domiciled. An inhabitant's domicile for voting purposes is that one place where a person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government. A person has the right to change domicile at any time, however a mere intention to change domicile in the future does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile before the person actually moves. A person's claim of domicile for voting purposes shall not be conclusive of the person's residence for any other legal purpose.
I-a. A student of any institution of learning may lawfully claim domicile for voting purposes in the New Hampshire town or city in which he or she lives while attending such institution of learning if such student's claim of domicile otherwise meets the requirements of RSA 654:1, I.
II. Any elected or appointed official for whom one of the qualifications for his or her position is eligibility to be a voter in the area represented or served shall be considered to have resigned if the official moves his or her domicile so that he or she can no longer qualify to be a voter in the area represented or served. Any vacancy so created shall be filled as prescribed by law.

To:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0176.html

654:2-b Voters Attending Institutions of Learning.

I. The domicile for voting purposes of a person attending an institution of learning shall be the state, or the town, city, ward, or unincorporated place in New Hampshire, in which such person had his or her domicile immediately prior to matriculation, even though such person may no longer reside in said state, town, city, ward, or unincorporated place, and even though his or her intent to return thereto is uncertain. The domicile for voting purposes of a person attending an institution of learning shall not be the place where the institution is located unless the person was domiciled in that place prior to matriculation.

II. A person attending an institution of learning whose domicile is in a town, city, ward, or unincorporated place in New Hampshire shall be eligible to vote in any meeting and in any election in said town, city, ward, or unincorporated place, and may exercise that right by absentee ballot provided that:

(a) The person complies with all other applicable requirements and qualifications of the state of New Hampshire, including, but not limited to, the requirements that he or she take the steps necessary (i) to have his or her name placed on the voter checklist no later than 10 days before an election; and (ii) to ensure that his or her ballot is received by the town or city clerk from whom it was sent by not later than 5:00 p.m. on election day;

(b) The person is neither registered nor eligible to vote in any other state, political subdivision of a state, or territory or possession of the United States; and

(c) The person is not a citizen of another state.

 

[jonks]

Yes, we should all vote where our residences are. Their residence is in the town they currently live in, not a house across the country that their parents do.

No, it isn't.

That's just your opinion. It certainly isn't borne out by law.

It most certainly is borne out by NH law, in clearer terms I could not articulate.

http://www.sos.nh.gov/College Student Voting.pdf

II. College Student Voting
New Hampshire election law provides college students with a special privilege
when determining where they register to vote. A college student in New Hampshire
may choose as his/her voting domicile, either the domicile he/she held before entering
college or the domicile he/she has established while attending college. New
Hampshire law provides the following definition of domicile:

An inhabitant's domicile for voting purposes is that one place where a
person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence
and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for
domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in
democratic self-government. A person has the right to change domicile
at any time, however a mere intention to change domicile in the future
does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile before the person
actually moves. A person’s claim of domicile for voting purposes shall
not be conclusive of the person’s residence for any other purpose.

Under no circumstances may college students retain two voting domiciles.
Like any other citizen, college students have only one voting domicile and may only
cast one vote in any election. A student of any institution may lawfully claim
domicile for voting purposes in the New Hampshire town or city in which he or she
lives while attending such institution of learning if such student’s claim of domicile
otherwise meets the requirements of the paragraph above.

 

[jonks]

The bill is trying to redefine "domicile" such that students can no longer vote in NH in elections.

I find this newfangled attempt to redefine a long standing american institution dispicable. Traditional domicile law has helped maintain a stable voting electorate for centuries. You can't just up and redefine a word, and alter existing norms. Think of the children.

Friends, join me in defense of traditional domicile!

 

[Fern]

It most certainly is borne out by NH law, in clearer terms I could not articulate.

http://www.sos.nh.gov/College%20Student Voting.pdf

II. College Student Voting
New Hampshire election law provides college students with a special privilege
when determining where they register to vote. A college student in New Hampshire
may choose as his/her voting domicile, either the domicile he/she held before entering
college or the domicile he/she has established while attending college. New
Hampshire law provides the following definition of domicile:

An inhabitant's domicile for voting purposes is that one place where a
person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence
and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for
domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in
democratic self-government. A person has the right to change domicile
at any time, however a mere intention to change domicile in the future
does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile before the person
actually moves. A person’s claim of domicile for voting purposes shall
not be conclusive of the person’s residence for any other purpose.

Under no circumstances may college students retain two voting domiciles.
Like any other citizen, college students have only one voting domicile and may only
cast one vote in any election. A student of any institution may lawfully claim
domicile for voting purposes in the New Hampshire town or city in which he or she
lives while attending such institution of learning if such student’s claim of domicile
otherwise meets the requirements of the paragraph above.

You're adding a new point - NH grants a "special priviledge" to college students. Why should they have that? The rest of don't get it.

And you're proving my previously made point. See my post above and notice "intent"

Intent is refernced in NH's special rule.

an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for
domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in
democratic self-government

Even so, removing the special rule doesn't change the normal rule I refer to above.

Eski seems to be claiming the normal rule will be changed. I see no mention/evidence of that.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

All the article mentions is "permanent residency".

Again, when you arrive in a new with the intention to be a permanent resident, you are. There is no waiting period; you become a permanent resident upon your first day.

However, if you arrive there with out the intent to be a permanent residence, you cliam that you are not until forced into it by physical presence and/or other tests (depending upon the state).

Students fall into that area where they may or may not be permanent residents. Their physical presence in a state (assuming they leave for summer etc.) is often insufficient to compel them to be treated as "permanent residents". OTOH, there is nothing presently preventing them from declaring themselves "permanent residents".

Now, if you're saying these proposed bills will change those rules on how one becomes a "permanent resident', please link them. All I see is a requirement that you be a "permanent resident" before voting. This will close a loophole where people can be a permanent residence (with voting rights) in one state, and a (non-permanent residence) registered voter in another.

Fern

There is no loophole whatsoever, you can only have voting rights in one place at a time. Period.

You're still trying to shoehorn this into a tax frame, and I have no idea why. If you go there with the intent of being a permanent resident, you might be FOR TAX PURPOSES, BUT NOT FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Declaring themselves 'permanent residents' might mean that they start getting taxed right now, but that in no way means they are permanent residents for a host of other state functions. You can declare yourself whatever you want, it won't matter one bit. (except you might start getting billed)

Here's the text of the bill that's relevant to what we're talking about:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0176.html

I. The domicile for voting purposes of a person attending an institution of learning shall be the state, or the town, city, ward, or unincorporated place in New Hampshire, in which such person had his or her domicile immediately prior to matriculation, even though such person may no longer reside in said state, town, city, ward, or unincorporated place, and even though his or her intent to return thereto is uncertain. The domicile for voting purposes of a person attending an institution of learning shall not be the place where the institution is located unless the person was domiciled in that place prior to matriculation.

ie: unless you lived there before you went to school, you aren't allowed to vote.

EDIT: Also interesting is that this change is likely unconstitutional. It's just a district court ruling, but Newburger v. Peterson says that states cannot bar people from voting just because they don't intend to stay somewhere long term.

 

[fskimospy]

Ahhh, Her beat me to it.

This is turning into a dogpile, hahaha.

 

[Fern]

The bill is trying to redefine "domicile" such that out-of-state students can no longer vote in NH in elections.

Possibly. And thanks for linking an actual bill.

However, note the following:

654:1 Voter; Office Holder.

snipped sections I & II

III. No person who prior to matriculation at any institution of learning in this state, and no person employed in the service of the United States who prior to being stationed in this state, had been domiciled in another place shall lose or change that domicile by reason of his or her presence in this state, but shall be presumed to have departed from such other place for a temporary purpose with the intention of returning.

This main part of the law (it appears to remain in the current bill), states there is no "presumtion" of a change in domicile for military and students. The presumption is that the move is temporary. I.e., temp resident as opposed to premanent resident. There's nothing here (so far) inconsistent with established laws on domicile (other than the previously mentioned special rule for students) as long as they don't put an extra burden on people.

Since, there is a presumption that students have not moved permanently, they must overcome that presumption (rebuttable presumption). Typically this includes getting a DL etc. I.e., the normal stuff.

Howver, this new'additional section added by the new bill is potentially in conflict with above;

654:2-b Voters Attending Institutions of Learning.

I. The domicile for voting purposes of a person attending an institution of learning shall be the state, or the town, city, ward, or unincorporated place in New Hampshire, in which such person had his or her domicile immediately prior to matriculation, even though such person may no longer reside in said state, town, city, ward, or unincorporated place, and even though his or her intent to return thereto is uncertain. The domicile for voting purposes of a person attending an institution of learning shall not be the place where the institution is located unless the person was domiciled in that place prior to matriculation.

This seems to state affirmatively that students cannot change their (voting) domicile. This conflicts with the main provision above (unless you read the above as a non-rebuttable presumption).

IDK how to resolve the conflict in the statute. Either you can change your domicile, merely that you're not presumed to have do so. Or, you cannot change your domicile.

I doubt it's the latter. However, if it were you'd have a valid complaint. If they intend the latter interpretation, I don't see it holding up in court. There's nothing necessarily wrong with a presumption of not changing. There is definately something wrong with a special rule forbidding the changing of domicile for students.

The latter interpretation also means the remarks in the article are incorrect. It's not they are requiring that students must be permanent to vote (as the quotes say), instead it would be that they are preventing students from becoming premanent residents.

I can't find any committee reports to clarify the intent etc.

Fern