The Dartmouth College Republicans and the Dartmouth College Democrats have teamed up to fight a New Hampshire bill that seeks to disenfranchise students who attend college outside of their hometown. The bill, sponsored by Gregory Sorg (R-Grafton) specifically prohibits students attending "institutions of higher learning" from acquiring domicile for voting purposes in their college community unless they lived there prior to matriculating.
The new speaker of the House, William O'Brien (R-Mont Vernon) made public comments supporting the bill. He explained that he does not think the constitution allows for anyone to have "instantaneous" residence in the state or a particular community. He continued, "That's what kids do. They don't have life experience and they just vote their feelings. And they've taken away the town's ability to govern themselves. It's not fair."
Thus, for example, a student who moves from Manchester (or another state) to Durham to attend the University of New Hampshire will not have the option of voting as a resident of Durham, regardless of the student's intentions about where he or she might live in the future. The student's only option would be to return to Manchester (or the home state) to vote, or to vote there by absentee ballot. The student could live (and work) in the community, pay local taxes, support local businesses, and become involved in any number of ways, but never be allowed a voice in community concerns. To ban college students (who usually live in their college communities for four years or more) from voting is simply ridiculous.
This is not the first time student voters have come under attack. The issue, however, was resolved by the federal courts more than 30 years ago. In 1979, the Supreme Court upheld without comment a Texas district court holding that students must receive the same presumption of residency as other citizens.
In other words, it is unconstitutional to deny someone the right to vote based solely on his or her status as a student.
What's more, as early as 1972, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire ruled that a student (or anyone) can claim residency for voting purposes even if he or she intends to leave in the future. In that case, after a student at Dartmouth College told elections officials he intended to leave Hanover when he finished school, they denied his voter registration because New Hampshire's traditional test for residency required an intention to stay in the community permanently or indefinitely. Recognizing that, "[i]n this day of widespread planning for change of scene and occupation," the state could not justify a permanent residency requirement, the U.S. District Court held New Hampshire's test unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
So why, in 2011, would New Hampshire legislators find it pressing to restrict the voting rights of students, ignoring established constitutional principles in the process? Well, for one, it's a partisan thing. House Speaker William O'Brien recently remarked to residents that college students are "basically doing what I did when I was a kid and foolish, and voting as a liberal." Fortunately, it doesn't take an ideological rival to see the injustice in this approach; as Dartmouth College Republicans President recently noted, "Whether every college student is liberal or every college student is conservative, every vote gets to count, and you can't change that."
College students can be as much a part of the community in which they live as any other resident. In addition, they bring business to the community, pay taxes, and are subject to its rules and regulations. Students may or may not have ideas about where they would like to live after graduating from college, but if they currently consider their college town their home, students have a right to have their voice heard along with every other resident.
For more information about student voting, please visit the Fair Elections Legal Network.
I disagree with the court ruling that says students may vote in the town the school is in. Case in point Hanover NH and Dartmouth. The town has a population of about 11,000 and the schools students number about 5800. The students could so drastically affect bond issues that they could saddle the town with heavy long term debt, and then wash their hands of it 4 years later upon graduation.
Having students vote in their home towns is not disenfranchising them.
“The bill, sponsored by Gregory Sorg (R-Grafton) specifically prohibits students attending ‘institutions of higher learning’ from acquiring domicile for voting purposes in their college community unless they lived there prior to matriculating.”
To matriculate: “to enroll as a member of a body and especially of a college or university”, so therefore “lived there prior to matriculating” must mean “lived there before enrolling” in college.
Had that been the law in TX when I went to grad school, I would have been disenfranchised. I got accepted to the school and enrolled before I had a permanent TX address. I did get a TX driver’s license and had only two addresses in Austin for the two years, but it would be ridiculous for you to say that me voting for two whole years back in small town CA made any sense. Why should I, a TX resident, think voting for CA senators and CA school board members was any kind of voting equivalency? And isn’t that just as unfair to the population of that district that my vote should count in that district when I am way not a resident there and knew I never planned to be?
It’s a bad bill which I pray will not become law. When the college democrats and college republicans agree on something, you have to figure there’s a good reason why.
The statistics as to who unregistered were reported to me by a friend who promised to do the same thing for me after I refused to change registration. I said I wanted to vote in the congressional primary in May, he said I could be registered in Williamsburg in April and registered in my home town in May. Said he promised that to a lot of people. And from what I've determined when asking several people about, they were registered in Williamsburg, but moved their registration over the summer.
The article said that the proposed new law would REMOVE their EXISTING right to vote and that the measure was being pushed BECAUSE they tend to vote liberal.
So, that summary would be in your words, if you got it right:
Students tend to be liberal, therefore they should be DISENFRANCHISED from the vote. Got it. Wow!
I suppose if I take 2 year job overseas, (or in another State for that matter) I should be able to vote in the local elections while I 'reside' in town, work, pay taxes, etc. etc.? Regardless of the citizenship question, the issue is one of being connected in some meaningful way to the city or town that you are going to effect with your vote.
Look at Rahm Emanuel. He should no more have a right to vote in local D.C. politics even though he lived there, worked there, paid taxes there etc. etc. but had every right to vote in Chicago politics and now, after being away for two years, run for Mayor. College students who have the bill sent to Mommy and Daddy in another State should not be able to affect politics in their temporary living quarters.
It's unfortunate that the sponsor brought politics into it ('they will vote liberal') but that is not the issue.
At least the College Republicans are smart enough to understand the Constition. That give me hope for the future.
You may be thinking that, well, it's a person's right to vote however they see fit. But it is not. There is no constitutionally protected right to vote in a federal election. The 15th, 17th and 19th amendments were ratified as barriers against voting discrimination, i.e., they are protections against preventing someone from voting based on a certain criteria such as race or gender. This is why Jesse Jackson Jr. has introduced legislation in the past to make voting a constitutionally protected and guaranteed right. We have waiting periods for firearms purchases, we have restrictions (though limited) on first amendment rights, we pretty much have to prove and provide qualifications for everything from driving to receiving home loans (which are privileges, not rights, granted), but nothing to preface a vote.
If that seems harsh to you, so be it. I stand by my assertion.
And here's what you're not comprehending, this simply isn't the case. And thanks for missing the complete point of my post.