Limiting the voting rights of college students

[jonks]

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

You want intent eh? Committee reports, no, but how bout some soundbytes?

New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group. "Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do"...Students lack "life experience," and "they just vote their feelings."

I somehow think the college young republicans would disagree with him.

the sponsor of the measure, state Rep. Gregory Sorg, addressing a packed public hearing room late last month, focused his ire directly at the college set.

Average taxpayers in college towns, he said, are having their votes "diluted or entirely canceled by those of a huge, largely monolithic demographic group . . . composed of people with a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce."

Their "youthful idealism," he added, "is focused on remaking the world, with themselves in charge, of course, rather than with the mundane humdrum of local government."

There's your intent. Disenfranchisement.

 

[Fern]

You want intent eh? Committee reports, no, but how bout some soundbytes?

Yes, I want intent, not soundbites.

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

Is it the above, or is it preventing students from being permanent residents?

Big difference IMO.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I want intent, not soundbites.



Is it the above, or is it preventing students from being permanent residents?

Big difference IMO.

Fern

It's poorly worded. What it should have said was that they could vote in the college town if their parents were domiciled in the college town. Otherwise they would have to vote in whatever other part of the state their parents are from.

It's definitely blocking college kids from voting however.

Also, another interesting (and shady) point of this is that college students are counted in the census as residents of the state they go to school in. This would be a case of the state getting federal funding for these people, and then trying to claim they aren't real residents so they have no say in how those appropriated funds are spent. Seems like NH is trying to have it both ways.

 

[her209]

You want intent eh? Committee reports, no, but how bout some soundbytes?

I somehow think the college young republicans would disagree with him.

There's your intent. Disenfranchisement.

This bill and the other bill are all about disenfranchisement. What is the reasoning doing away with election day voter registration?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0223.html

 

[werepossum]

You want intent eh? Committee reports, no, but how bout some soundbytes?

I somehow think the college young republicans would disagree with him.

There's your intent. Disenfranchisement.

Disenfranchisement would imply that students would be unable to vote at all. By that definition I'm being disenfranchised if I can't vote wherever I happen to be on election day.

It's poorly worded. What it should have said was that they could vote in the college town if their parents were domiciled in the college town. Otherwise they would have to vote in whatever other part of the state their parents are from.

It's definitely blocking college kids from voting however.

Also, another interesting (and shady) point of this is that college students are counted in the census as residents of the state they go to school in. This would be a case of the state getting federal funding for these people, and then trying to claim they aren't real residents so they have no say in how those appropriated funds are spent. Seems like NH is trying to have it both ways.

There you have a point. Everything needs to be consistent, from census representation to taxes to voting rights to tuition rights to driver's licenses. (When I was in college, out of state students had to reside in Tennessee for two years without attending any secondary education before they were eligible for in-state tuition. Illegals and foreign students were eligible for in-state tuition on day one however.)

 

[fskimospy]

Disenfranchisement would imply that students would be unable to vote at all. By that definition I'm being disenfranchised if I can't vote wherever I happen to be on election day.

Surely you would consider yourself disenfranchised if someone told you that you couldn't vote in America anymore, but instead you could vote for president of Zimbabwe. It's an extreme example, but the same idea. I think a reasonable American definition of franchise allows people to vote in the places they live in.

 

[werepossum]

Surely you would consider yourself disenfranchised if someone told you that you couldn't vote in America anymore, but instead you could vote for president of Zimbabwe. It's an extreme example, but the same idea. I think a reasonable American definition of franchise allows people to vote in the places they live in.

It wouldn't be so extreme an example had I come here from Zimbabwe only to attend college, would it?

I really don't care either way, but I think everything - all rights, taxes, and duties - needs to be consistent. Note that this would put an end to out-of-state tuition - as soon as you show up, you're family. It would also probably end good state schools; if anyone attending is automatically a resident, there's no reserving spots or charging less for in-state students. So any good state school would be swamped with new state citizens.

 

[Throckmorton]

It wouldn't be so extreme an example had I come here from Zimbabwe only to attend college, would it?

I really don't care either way, but I think everything - all rights, taxes, and duties - needs to be consistent. Note that this would put an end to out-of-state tuition - as soon as you show up, you're family. It would also probably end good state schools; if anyone attending is automatically a resident, there's no reserving spots or charging less for in-state students. So any good state school would be swamped with new state citizens.

Why would it matter? Schools or state legislatures set their rules for instate tuition.

 

[werepossum]

Why would it matter? Schools or state legislatures set their rules for instate tuition.

State legislatures also set the rules for voting eligibility, within federal guidelines of what one can and cannot do. But it hardly seems fair to say one is a resident for voting but not a resident for tuition, anymore than saying someone is a resident for determining representation but not a resident for voting.

 

[silat1313]

I don't see a problem with this actually. Your vote should only be counted in the state (at the least) that you're permanent residence is at. This is 2011, going on 2012, the mail service is reliable enough that this is not a problem.

If people don't care enough to get their abs. ballot in on time, then, they must have not cared enough to have their vote count.

Chuck

Just wow Chuck. When any legal voter moves he/she can register and vote in their new local. Why shouldnt a student get the same treatment? This is a play at disenfranchising a certain segment of the population. Typical rightwing bs.

 

[Fern]

Just wow Chuck. When any legal voter moves he/she can register and vote in their new local. Why shouldnt a student get the same treatment?
-snip-

That's what remains to be determined.

Is the purpose of the bill(s) to put students on the exact same footing as other poeple (note at least 1 state granted them special voting privileges only to students), or is it preventing students from being treated exactly as other people? Before hitting the panic button, I think we should determine what the proposed bill is attempting to do. If it's the former (treat students the same as everyone else) I've got no problem. If it's the latter, I can't possibly see how it will withstand a court challenge. IMHO, this should be obvious even to many idiots in a state legislature, thus I find it unlikely any such bill will pass.

Fern

 

[cubby1223]

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?

I'll say, the rules should be consistent across the board. Either all are done one way, or all are done the other way.

If the proposal were reversed and said "All college students must register to vote in the district they attend college in, and cannot register to vote in their home town" this exact same thread would still be created and the exact same people would still be bitching up a storm.

 

[cubby1223]

Just wow Chuck. When any legal voter moves he/she can register and vote in their new local. Why shouldnt a student get the same treatment? This is a play at disenfranchising a certain segment of the population. Typical rightwing bs.

You have a serious mental deficiency. Something is wrong with your brain.

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

If the student establishes permanent residency in the state, then he can vote in that state.

Gosh you idiots never cease to amaze me...

 

[cubby1223]

Now that I read the article...

The author of the article is insane!!!!!!

I don't see any of the proposals as an attack against the Democratic Party.

Just a whiny bitch activist with too much time on her hands.

 

[cubby1223]

I mean, seriously, if you guys can't even have faith in a college student's ability to figure out how to submit an absentee ballot...

 

[fskimospy]

Now that I read the article...

The author of the article is insane!!!!!!

I don't see any of the proposals as an attack against the Democratic Party.

Just a whiny bitch activist with too much time on her hands.

Interesting, because the Republican speaker of the house seems to view it as an attack on the Democratic party. (or at least liberal voting)

 

[jonks]

Disenfranchisement would imply that students would be unable to vote at all. By that definition I'm being disenfranchised if I can't vote wherever I happen to be on election day.

One could argue disenfranchisement is when the govt makes it sufficiently difficult for a group to vote such that it presents an undue burden to the voter's rights, akin to abortion restrictions. A poll tax, even of 1 penny would constitute a disenfranchisement effort and be illegal, and that's not exactly a burden. I think making people jump through hoops they currently don't have to is less a burden than a penny tax, yet it would deter more people from voting, and those hoops serve to fix no current problem. Your narrow view of the definition doesn't serve the fundamental right to vote very well.

Your example doesn't fit the situation. Masses of college students don't "happen to be" in their college towns on election day. They live there, for four years usually. They have a vested interest in the community and state. Some of the proposed laws strip them absolutely from voting in-state. Others merely make it more onerous than it currently is, despite absolutely no evidence of "fraud" or whatever else the claimed motivation is. The real motivation has been laid bare in no uncertain terms by the speaker of the state house himself.

For the more black and white type of disenfranchisement, see what the gop is trying to do in Fla, strip ex-felons of voting rights with Gov Christ had championed despite that bloc being generally minority, and thus, democrat.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/republicans_war_on_voting.html

Going back to my question yesterday, it seems that gop is merely out to prevent people demographics that don't swing their way from voting. It's transparent, and it really shouldn't be a partisan issue. Conservatives love to rally around the constitution and talk about freedoms and rights...until someone wants to exercise that freedom in a way they disagree with, then, well, fuck em.

 

[DCal430]

I notice the bill includes a provision to end electiond ay registration. Here in California we haven't had election day registration for decades and it has worked out great.

 

[CitizenKain]

Now that I read the article...

The author of the article is insane!!!!!!

I don't see any of the proposals as an attack against the Democratic Party.

Just a whiny bitch activist with too much time on her hands.

I don't think you read the article, or are simply not smart enough to understand it.

 

[jonks]

I notice the bill includes a provision to end electiond ay registration. Here in California we haven't had election day registration for decades and it has worked out great.

The overwhelming majority of states do not. If that were the sole provision being offered there would not be nearly as big an outcry, though people still might question the intent.

The majority of states that do offer it traditionally vote republican, i.e. same day reg is not a left wing liberal idea.

 

[dawp]

Would a collage student lose the ability to be on their parents insurance if they had to change their address in order to vote?

 

[Drako]

Meh, they should just raise the voting age to 35.

Problem solved.

 

[alphatarget1]

Just do vote by mail. Problem solved.... Right?

 

[her209]

http://campusprogress.org/articles/...tories_occur_in_nh_but_fight_is_not_yet_over/

Both HB 176 and HB 223 voted dead by the NH Election Law Committee.