Poll: Voter ID? (1 Viewer)

[Todd Andrews]

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with them not being residents of the state. Wild hunch.

Someone who lives in a state for 2/3 - 3/4 of the year isnt a resident? Many states allow people to register to vote who are domiciled in a state, like college students. And the Supreme Court has said students can vote in either their home state or their college state, at their choice.

What do you think this is about, Ivan?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with them not being residents of the state. Wild hunch.

That may be part of the equation. The fact that they may be more prone to vote Dem plays into this as well, and I'm fairly confident in that assertion.

Are you seriously suggesting that states should throw out residency requirements in the special case of college students, specifically because of their voting patterns? If so, you're the one who's trying to game the system now.

The decisions reached in both Dunn v. Blumstein - 405 U.S. 330 (1972) and Williams v. Salerno, 792 F.2d 323, 328 (2d Cir 1986) clearly demonstrate you have a constitutional right to register and vote in the place you truly consider to be “home”. This works for students as well as voters that have multiple residences.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with them not being residents of the state. Wild hunch.

That may be part of the equation. The fact that they may be more prone to vote Dem plays into this as well, and I'm fairly confident in that assertion.

Are you seriously suggesting that states should throw out residency requirements in the special case of college students, specifically because of their voting patterns? If so, you're the one who's trying to game the system now.

You are quite naive about this issue and the motivations of legislators, arent you? Here is what a bunch of New Hampshire GOP legislators said about their onerous anti-college student voting legislation:

A bill being debated in the New Hampshire legislature would prohibit college students from voting in their college town – unless they or their parents were permanent residents there. According to a Washington Post report, the bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Gregory Sorg, said in a speech that year-round residents in small towns 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.”

Rep. Sorg’s views are shared by the state’s Speaker of the House, Rep. William O’Brien, who called young voters “foolish” and said students lacked “life experience” and “just vote their feelings.”

 

[Koya]

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with them not being residents of the state. Wild hunch.

That may be part of the equation. The fact that they may be more prone to vote Dem plays into this as well, and I'm fairly confident in that assertion.

Are you seriously suggesting that states should throw out residency requirements in the special case of college students, specifically because of their voting patterns? If so, you're the one who's trying to game the system now.

I'm not suggesting that at all. Just suggesting an added motivation for pursuing the policy

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's the reality that voter ID is being used as an excuse to purposefully deny specific segments of the population the ability to vote.

Ok, at a minimum we all agree that people must be registered to vote to actually vote, right?

What is a conceivable situation where a registered voter goes to vote and they are not allowed to?

Are there any states that actually don't give people the affidavit/signature/"check name, address in book" option?

My understanding is that the state wide efforts in some republican run states have put forth laws (some of which have already been struck down) that did and would prevent some people from voting. You hear a lot about old lady's who never had an ID coupled with a convoluted and difficult process that appears to be designed in a manner TO be difficult, and how those folks couldn't vote.

You then add to that efforts to limit the ability to register by having certain time horizons, less resources in urban areas where there would be more dem voters, shortening / eliminating time for voting in advance (not sure how this works to be honest)... I'm sure others are more up to speed on the specifics, but we are talking about a coordinated campaign that some republican officials in certain states have flat out admitted was a campaign to lessen the dem vote - not actually combat fraud.

About the old lady thing - here I've actually helped elderly vote, they sign an affidavit like BFS points out. Now that's absentee / early voting but my guess is that would apply at the poll too.

I'm not sure why the GOP is trying to disenfranchise the elderly when they tend to be more conservative and are chronic voters that can be relied upon.

The other stuff you are talking about - which I get, like in Cleveland in 2008 supposedly - is really a whole other issue, voter ID doesn't affect hours and that kind of thing. I get the motive argument, but again a voter ID law doesn't affect those things.

It sounds to me like everyone's getting all charged up about this issue by the parties, and there's no there there.

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

Are they? I believe you if you say they are but I confess I am just curious what is at the heart of this "debate" and don't understand what is at the heart of it.

Couple thoughts on your question, which I am guessing is about students going to school somewhere away from their hometown:

• Students are often not citizens of the cities and towns and counties/parishes where they are voting; they have no business saying who should be judge or mayor or what have you. If their "home" is back home where they come from, that's where they should be voting. If they actually live where their college is they can go vote there like everyone else there.
• If they're in college then presumably they can absentee vote like everyone else.

One thing that stands out is so much of this is nationally driven when most elections are local. If you live in a city with Democratic or liberal values or policies do you really want the affluent GOP suburban parish/county next door affecting your elections? Doubt it. That's one extremely important reason to have voter registration.

 

[The Commish]

That brings up another question....why even have the "registration" process in the first place? When I "registered" I wrote down my name, address...no one verified if I was the person I wrote down on the paper....I'm seriously leaning now towards just letting people vote willy nilly....it would save the states millions.

Well I think everyone agrees we don't want people voting twice. Right?

But I honestly don't know how registration rolls are created. I guess you turn 18, you have an address in x precinct, that's where they send you to vote. I think the key is "one man one vote", not "one man two votes" nor "one man no vote."

Right. But folks aren't worried about it happening now. I find it hard to believe they believe it's because of the process that's in place today. The reasons behind why voter ID isn't necessary should hold true for why presenting a utility bill isn't necessary right?

I think that's what I'm getting at. Right on that last point too.

I think people do care. I think even liberals/progressives/Democrats who stamp their feet about voter ID laws don't really believe that people who aren't registered should get to vote. Do they?

I think one of the worst things that has happened is "provisional" ballots. Either you're a registered voter or you're not. People who don't show up on the list, right there right then at the voting booth, shouldn't get to vote.

One major goal of our voting process should be to avoid disputes. We seem to be going in the opposite direction now.

Regardless of whether people are incorrectly included or excluded from voting we should prioritize certainty in our elections. Failing to create any standard whatsoever just about almost automatically guarantees civil discord. You know, third world stuff.

It's an interesting question for sure. I'd be interested to know myself. If the answer is yes, it seems like a completely arbitrary line to draw given the "process" for "registration" in a lot of places.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with them not being residents of the state. Wild hunch.

Someone who lives in a state for 2/3 - 3/4 of the year isnt a resident?

I think it's completely reasonable for a state to consider college students "transitory" people who don't have the same long-term interest in the state, city, county, etc. as people who actually live there. If a state wants to allow college students to vote in its elections, that's fine, but excluding them is completely fine too. They can always still vote in their state of residence.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with them not being residents of the state. Wild hunch.

That may be part of the equation. The fact that they may be more prone to vote Dem plays into this as well, and I'm fairly confident in that assertion.

Are you seriously suggesting that states should throw out residency requirements in the special case of college students, specifically because of their voting patterns? If so, you're the one who's trying to game the system now.

I'm not suggesting that at all. Just suggesting an added motivation for pursuing the policy

At least you're honest about it. I really do think though that if we were making this decision behind a veil of ignorance, we would all agree that state residency requirements are at least a reasonable policy option.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with them not being residents of the state. Wild hunch.

That may be part of the equation. The fact that they may be more prone to vote Dem plays into this as well, and I'm fairly confident in that assertion.

Are you seriously suggesting that states should throw out residency requirements in the special case of college students, specifically because of their voting patterns? If so, you're the one who's trying to game the system now.

You are quite naive about this issue and the motivations of legislators, arent you? Here is what a bunch of New Hampshire GOP legislators said about their onerous anti-college student voting legislation:

A bill being debated in the New Hampshire legislature would prohibit college students from voting in their college town – unless they or their parents were permanent residents there. According to a Washington Post report, the bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Gregory Sorg, said in a speech that year-round residents in small towns 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.”

Rep. Sorg’s views are shared by the state’s Speaker of the House, Rep. William O’Brien, who called young voters “foolish” and said students lacked “life experience” and “just vote their feelings.”

I agree with Sorg, or at least I strongly sympathize with him. That seems like a perfectly fine reason to define college students as non-residents.

College students show up in a college town, live there on an on-again-off-again basis for four years, and then leave. It seems kind of unfair to "real" residents who live and work in the community and who have a long-term stake in its health to have their votes overwhelmed by people whose geographical ties lie elsewhere. Nothing nefarious or evil about that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with them not being residents of the state. Wild hunch.

That may be part of the equation. The fact that they may be more prone to vote Dem plays into this as well, and I'm fairly confident in that assertion.

Are you seriously suggesting that states should throw out residency requirements in the special case of college students, specifically because of their voting patterns? If so, you're the one who's trying to game the system now.

The decisions reached in both Dunn v. Blumstein - 405 U.S. 330 (1972) and Williams v. Salerno, 792 F.2d 323, 328 (2d Cir 1986) clearly demonstrate you have a constitutional right to register and vote in the place you truly consider to be “home”. This works for students as well as voters that have multiple residences.

Weird. I just assumed this would be a state-by-state issue, but upon googling it I see that you're right. Students apparently do currently have the right to register in the state of their school even though they're not full-time residents. SCOTUS really dropped the ball on this one.

 

[Todd Andrews]

It's the reality that voter ID is being used as an excuse to purposefully deny specific segments of the population the ability to vote.

Ok, at a minimum we all agree that people must be registered to vote to actually vote, right?

What is a conceivable situation where a registered voter goes to vote and they are not allowed to?

Are there any states that actually don't give people the affidavit/signature/"check name, address in book" option?

My understanding is that the state wide efforts in some republican run states have put forth laws (some of which have already been struck down) that did and would prevent some people from voting. You hear a lot about old lady's who never had an ID coupled with a convoluted and difficult process that appears to be designed in a manner TO be difficult, and how those folks couldn't vote.

You then add to that efforts to limit the ability to register by having certain time horizons, less resources in urban areas where there would be more dem voters, shortening / eliminating time for voting in advance (not sure how this works to be honest)... I'm sure others are more up to speed on the specifics, but we are talking about a coordinated campaign that some republican officials in certain states have flat out admitted was a campaign to lessen the dem vote - not actually combat fraud.

About the old lady thing - here I've actually helped elderly vote, they sign an affidavit like BFS points out. Now that's absentee / early voting but my guess is that would apply at the poll too.

I'm not sure why the GOP is trying to disenfranchise the elderly when they tend to be more conservative and are chronic voters that can be relied upon.

The other stuff you are talking about - which I get, like in Cleveland in 2008 supposedly - is really a whole other issue, voter ID doesn't affect hours and that kind of thing. I get the motive argument, but again a voter ID law doesn't affect those things.

It sounds to me like everyone's getting all charged up about this issue by the parties, and there's no there there.

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

Are they? I believe you if you say they are but I confess I am just curious what is at the heart of this "debate" and don't understand what is at the heart of it.

One thing that stands out is so much of this is nationally driven when most elections are local. If you live in a city with Democratic or liberal values or policies do you really want the affluent GOP suburban parish/county next door affecting your elections? Doubt it. That's one extremely important reason to have voter registration.

Couple thoughts on your question, which I am guessing is about students going to school somewhere away from their hometown:

• Students are not citizens of the cities and towns and counties/parishes where they are voting; they have no business saying who should be judge or mayor or what have you. If their "home" is back home where they come from, that's where they should be voting. If they actually live where their college is they can go vote there like everyone else there.
• If they're in college then presumably they can absentee vote like everyone else.

Yes, Republicans are. All over the country. In general, Republicans are for restricting the rights of Americans to vote. All over the country, they are shortening time periods to vote and increasing the difficulty to vote.

There are no "citizens" of cities of towns. There are residents of states and there are people domiciled in states who may be formally residents in other states, which is a category of people who reside in multiple states. And has been pointed out multiple times, the Supreme court has already ruled that college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with them not being residents of the state. Wild hunch.

That may be part of the equation. The fact that they may be more prone to vote Dem plays into this as well, and I'm fairly confident in that assertion.

Are you seriously suggesting that states should throw out residency requirements in the special case of college students, specifically because of their voting patterns? If so, you're the one who's trying to game the system now.

You are quite naive about this issue and the motivations of legislators, arent you? Here is what a bunch of New Hampshire GOP legislators said about their onerous anti-college student voting legislation:

A bill being debated in the New Hampshire legislature would prohibit college students from voting in their college town – unless they or their parents were permanent residents there. According to a Washington Post report, the bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Gregory Sorg, said in a speech that year-round residents in small towns 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.”

Rep. Sorg’s views are shared by the state’s Speaker of the House, Rep. William O’Brien, who called young voters “foolish” and said students lacked “life experience” and “just vote their feelings.”

I agree with Sorg, or at least I strongly sympathize with him. That seems like a perfectly fine reason to define college students as non-residents.

College students show up in a college town, live there on an on-again-off-again basis for four years, and then leave. It seems kind of unfair to "real" residents who live and work in the community and who have a long-term stake in its health to have their votes overwhelmed by people whose geographical ties lie elsewhere. Nothing nefarious or evil about that.

Right, because people who for four years live somewhere 3/4 of the year, pay tuition, rent, sales taxes, and have jobs shouldnt be allowed to vote, because they arent "real" residents and have a "dearth of experience" (read: young and liberal). I guess maybe if they lived there 6/7 of the year for 7 years it would make more sense to allow them to vote.

Do you even take yourself seriously?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with them not being residents of the state. Wild hunch.

That may be part of the equation. The fact that they may be more prone to vote Dem plays into this as well, and I'm fairly confident in that assertion.

Are you seriously suggesting that states should throw out residency requirements in the special case of college students, specifically because of their voting patterns? If so, you're the one who's trying to game the system now.

You are quite naive about this issue and the motivations of legislators, arent you? Here is what a bunch of New Hampshire GOP legislators said about their onerous anti-college student voting legislation:

A bill being debated in the New Hampshire legislature would prohibit college students from voting in their college town – unless they or their parents were permanent residents there. According to a Washington Post report, the bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Gregory Sorg, said in a speech that year-round residents in small towns 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.”

Rep. Sorg’s views are shared by the state’s Speaker of the House, Rep. William O’Brien, who called young voters “foolish” and said students lacked “life experience” and “just vote their feelings.”

I agree with Sorg, or at least I strongly sympathize with him. That seems like a perfectly fine reason to define college students as non-residents.

College students show up in a college town, live there on an on-again-off-again basis for four years, and then leave. It seems kind of unfair to "real" residents who live and work in the community and who have a long-term stake in its health to have their votes overwhelmed by people whose geographical ties lie elsewhere. Nothing nefarious or evil about that.

Right, because people who for four years live somewhere 3/4 of the year, pay tuition, rent, sales taxes, and have jobs shouldnt be allowed to vote, because they arent "real" residents and have a "dearth of experience" (read: young and liberal). I guess maybe if they lived there 6/7 of the year for 7 years it would make more sense to allow them to vote.

Do you even take yourself seriously?

Do you? I certainly hope not because no one else does. You're a Commie hack and everyone knows it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's the reality that voter ID is being used as an excuse to purposefully deny specific segments of the population the ability to vote.

Ok, at a minimum we all agree that people must be registered to vote to actually vote, right?

What is a conceivable situation where a registered voter goes to vote and they are not allowed to?

Are there any states that actually don't give people the affidavit/signature/"check name, address in book" option?

My understanding is that the state wide efforts in some republican run states have put forth laws (some of which have already been struck down) that did and would prevent some people from voting. You hear a lot about old lady's who never had an ID coupled with a convoluted and difficult process that appears to be designed in a manner TO be difficult, and how those folks couldn't vote.

You then add to that efforts to limit the ability to register by having certain time horizons, less resources in urban areas where there would be more dem voters, shortening / eliminating time for voting in advance (not sure how this works to be honest)... I'm sure others are more up to speed on the specifics, but we are talking about a coordinated campaign that some republican officials in certain states have flat out admitted was a campaign to lessen the dem vote - not actually combat fraud.

About the old lady thing - here I've actually helped elderly vote, they sign an affidavit like BFS points out. Now that's absentee / early voting but my guess is that would apply at the poll too.

I'm not sure why the GOP is trying to disenfranchise the elderly when they tend to be more conservative and are chronic voters that can be relied upon.

The other stuff you are talking about - which I get, like in Cleveland in 2008 supposedly - is really a whole other issue, voter ID doesn't affect hours and that kind of thing. I get the motive argument, but again a voter ID law doesn't affect those things.

It sounds to me like everyone's getting all charged up about this issue by the parties, and there's no there there.

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

Are they? I believe you if you say they are but I confess I am just curious what is at the heart of this "debate" and don't understand what is at the heart of it.

One thing that stands out is so much of this is nationally driven when most elections are local. If you live in a city with Democratic or liberal values or policies do you really want the affluent GOP suburban parish/county next door affecting your elections? Doubt it. That's one extremely important reason to have voter registration.

Couple thoughts on your question, which I am guessing is about students going to school somewhere away from their hometown:

• Students are not citizens of the cities and towns and counties/parishes where they are voting; they have no business saying who should be judge or mayor or what have you. If their "home" is back home where they come from, that's where they should be voting. If they actually live where their college is they can go vote there like everyone else there.
• If they're in college then presumably they can absentee vote like everyone else.

Yes, Republicans are. All over the country. In general, Republicans are for restricting the rights of Americans to vote. All over the country, they are shortening time periods to vote and increasing the difficulty to vote.

There are no "citizens" of cities of towns. There are residents of states and there are people domiciled in states who may be formally residents in other states, which is a category of people who reside in multiple states. And has been pointed out multiple times, the Supreme court has already ruled that college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state.

Todd, think about what you're saying:

college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state

No one is being disenfranchised there. If a student from Westchester County NY is attending Annenberg in NH, he can either vote in NY or NH. You agree with that, right?

The Annenberg link you posted says this too:

For all the ire heard from the bills’ opponents, these proposals would not take away young people’s voting rights outright. They would just have to travel home to vote – or get an absentee ballot – and make sure they were registered well in advance of an election. (Which isn’t unusual – many states do not have Election Day registration, and instead set a registration deadline, usually about a month before each election.)

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-state-lawmakers-restrict-your-26th-amendment-right

Do you have any problem with this?

If a student wants to vote in college town, they can register there. I don't have a problem with that. I think the idea is that people shouldn't be able to vote twice (once at "home", once at school). - I think this complaint is really happening in small towns that feel like people who have no stake in the town itself end up voting .... and then leaving. That's a problem in NH which is filled with small college towns. Here in NO, frankly the college population improves the general voter base, so I don't have a problem with it, but if I lived in a small college town I might feel differently if every time the people tried to get together to do something those meddling kids who will just leave after they graduate get ramped up about some cause vote up/down some issue that permanent residents really oppose or want.

As a student I always voted via absentee and I always wanted to vote about things affecting my hometown, NO.

I will also point out that you keep talking about students being from out of state. It applies to people in state too. In general, I don't want people from some other parish, city or town voting for my mayor, I don't want people from some other district or ward voting for my councilman. Wouldn't you agree with that? Do you?

{Btw, if you listen to a classic Steely Dan song chances are they are talking about their experiences at Annenberg).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Right, because people who for four years live somewhere 3/4 of the year, pay tuition, rent, sales taxes, and have jobs shouldnt be allowed to vote, because they arent "real" residents and have a "dearth of experience" (read: young and liberal). I guess maybe if they lived there 6/7 of the year for 7 years it would make more sense to allow them to vote.

I agree. Well, technically I'm agnostic. I don't personally care if a particular district chooses to consider college students "residents" for the purposes of voting or not. There are good arguments for either approach. I'm not sure which course I would prefer my own community to take. But I certainly don't think it's crazy or evil to give more weight to people who live in a district full time.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

 

[Lutherman2112]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

I like the term "domicile" from New Hampshire. From an editorial:

...

First, some definitions. Under New Hampshire’s law and constitution, people who have a “domicile” in New Hampshire and are otherwise qualified to vote may vote here. A domicile for voting purposes is “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.”

...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

 

[Todd Andrews]

It's the reality that voter ID is being used as an excuse to purposefully deny specific segments of the population the ability to vote.

Ok, at a minimum we all agree that people must be registered to vote to actually vote, right?

What is a conceivable situation where a registered voter goes to vote and they are not allowed to?

Are there any states that actually don't give people the affidavit/signature/"check name, address in book" option?

My understanding is that the state wide efforts in some republican run states have put forth laws (some of which have already been struck down) that did and would prevent some people from voting. You hear a lot about old lady's who never had an ID coupled with a convoluted and difficult process that appears to be designed in a manner TO be difficult, and how those folks couldn't vote.

You then add to that efforts to limit the ability to register by having certain time horizons, less resources in urban areas where there would be more dem voters, shortening / eliminating time for voting in advance (not sure how this works to be honest)... I'm sure others are more up to speed on the specifics, but we are talking about a coordinated campaign that some republican officials in certain states have flat out admitted was a campaign to lessen the dem vote - not actually combat fraud.

About the old lady thing - here I've actually helped elderly vote, they sign an affidavit like BFS points out. Now that's absentee / early voting but my guess is that would apply at the poll too.

I'm not sure why the GOP is trying to disenfranchise the elderly when they tend to be more conservative and are chronic voters that can be relied upon.

The other stuff you are talking about - which I get, like in Cleveland in 2008 supposedly - is really a whole other issue, voter ID doesn't affect hours and that kind of thing. I get the motive argument, but again a voter ID law doesn't affect those things.

It sounds to me like everyone's getting all charged up about this issue by the parties, and there's no there there.

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

Are they? I believe you if you say they are but I confess I am just curious what is at the heart of this "debate" and don't understand what is at the heart of it.

One thing that stands out is so much of this is nationally driven when most elections are local. If you live in a city with Democratic or liberal values or policies do you really want the affluent GOP suburban parish/county next door affecting your elections? Doubt it. That's one extremely important reason to have voter registration.

Couple thoughts on your question, which I am guessing is about students going to school somewhere away from their hometown:

• Students are not citizens of the cities and towns and counties/parishes where they are voting; they have no business saying who should be judge or mayor or what have you. If their "home" is back home where they come from, that's where they should be voting. If they actually live where their college is they can go vote there like everyone else there.
• If they're in college then presumably they can absentee vote like everyone else.

Yes, Republicans are. All over the country. In general, Republicans are for restricting the rights of Americans to vote. All over the country, they are shortening time periods to vote and increasing the difficulty to vote.

There are no "citizens" of cities of towns. There are residents of states and there are people domiciled in states who may be formally residents in other states, which is a category of people who reside in multiple states. And has been pointed out multiple times, the Supreme court has already ruled that college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state.

Todd, think about what you're saying:

college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state

No one is being disenfranchised there. If a student from Westchester County NY is attending Annenberg in NH, he can either vote in NY or NH. You agree with that, right?

The Annenberg link you posted says this too:

For all the ire heard from the bills’ opponents, these proposals would not take away young people’s voting rights outright. They would just have to travel home to vote – or get an absentee ballot – and make sure they were registered well in advance of an election. (Which isn’t unusual – many states do not have Election Day registration, and instead set a registration deadline, usually about a month before each election.)

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-state-lawmakers-restrict-your-26th-amendment-right

Do you have any problem with this?

If a student wants to vote in college town, they can register there. I don't have a problem with that. I think the idea is that people shouldn't be able to vote twice (once at "home", once at school). - I think this complaint is really happening in small towns that feel like people who have no stake in the town itself end up voting .... and then leaving. That's a problem in NH which is filled with small college towns. Here in NO, frankly the college population improves the general voter base, so I don't have a problem with it, but if I lived in a small college town I might feel differently if every time the people tried to get together to do something those meddling kids who will just leave after they graduate get ramped up about some cause vote up/down some issue that permanent residents really oppose or want.

As a student I always voted via absentee and I always wanted to vote about things affecting my hometown, NO.

I will also point out that you keep talking about students being from out of state. It applies to people in state too. In general, I don't want people from some other parish, city or town voting for my mayor, I don't want people from some other district or ward voting for my councilman. Wouldn't you agree with that? Do you?

{Btw, if you listen to a classic Steely Dan song chances are they are talking about their experiences at Annenberg).

So why are Republicans trying to make it so that out of state college students cant vote where they go to school? You keep avoiding that question.

 

[Todd Andrews]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

The standards for financial aid/in state tuition and voting have nothing to do with another.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

The standards for financial aid/in state tuition and voting have nothing to do with another.

Maybe not. The point is that we determine who's a "resident" based on criteria other than where a person happens to be located at any particular moment in time. Most of us understand that there's a reasonable explanation for why we don't treat out-of-state students as residents for tuition purposes. Likewise, there are good reasons for not treating out-of-state students as residents for voting purposes. In other words, the definition of "resident" that MT provided is only one possibility, and you only have to look at higher ed pricing to see how SCOTUS could have ruled other than it did.

 

[Lutherman2112]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

The standards for financial aid/in state tuition and voting have nothing to do with another.

Maybe not. The point is that we determine who's a "resident" based on criteria other than where a person happens to be located at any particular moment in time. Most of us understand that there's a reasonable explanation for why we don't treat out-of-state students as residents for tuition purposes. Likewise, there are good reasons for not treating out-of-state students as residents for voting purposes. In other words, the definition of "resident" that MT provided is only one possibility, and you only have to look at higher ed pricing to see how SCOTUS could have ruled other than it did.

Maybe not? You're being nuttier than a squirrel turd.

Here are a couple of studies demonstrating how states benefit from out of state students.

Resident and Nonresident Tuition and Enrollment at Flagship State Universities

In-State versus Out-of State Students: The Divergence of Interest between Public Universities and State Governments

 

[MaxThreshold]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

The standards for financial aid/in state tuition and voting have nothing to do with another.

This is ridiculous. The progressives want to pretty much define anyone who steps foot in another state/county/city a "resident" of that state/county/city.

Why not just include people from other countries to? You're trying to game the system in your favor so why not?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

The standards for financial aid/in state tuition and voting have nothing to do with another.

Maybe not. The point is that we determine who's a "resident" based on criteria other than where a person happens to be located at any particular moment in time. Most of us understand that there's a reasonable explanation for why we don't treat out-of-state students as residents for tuition purposes. Likewise, there are good reasons for not treating out-of-state students as residents for voting purposes. In other words, the definition of "resident" that MT provided is only one possibility, and you only have to look at higher ed pricing to see how SCOTUS could have ruled other than it did.

Maybe not? You're being nuttier than a squirrel turd.

Here are a couple of studies demonstrating how states benefit from out of state students.

Resident and Nonresident Tuition and Enrollment at Flagship State Universities

In-State versus Out-of State Students: The Divergence of Interest between Public Universities and State Governments

Of course states benefit from out-of-state students. They benefit from tourists too. But tourists don't get to vote in the district that they're vacationing in.

 

[Lutherman2112]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

The standards for financial aid/in state tuition and voting have nothing to do with another.

This is ridiculous. The progressives want to pretty much define anyone who steps foot in another state/county/city a "resident" of that state/county/city.

Why not just include people from other countries to? You're trying to game the system in your favor so why not?

Regardless of your beliefs, case law is on the side of students. You can #####, whine, and moan all you want, but it's just a waste of your time.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Regardless of your beliefs, case law is on the side of students. You can #####, whine, and moan all you want, but it's just a waste of your time.

Debating things is sort of what we do around here.

 

[MaxThreshold]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

The standards for financial aid/in state tuition and voting have nothing to do with another.

This is ridiculous. The progressives want to pretty much define anyone who steps foot in another state/county/city a "resident" of that state/county/city.

Why not just include people from other countries to? You're trying to game the system in your favor so why not?

Regardless of your beliefs, case law is on the side of students. You can #####, whine, and moan all you want, but it's just a waste of your time.

Maybe it is for now. That's fine. Hopefully these things will change in the future to let states decide who their "residents" really are.

As Ivan said, we do debate things around here so I don't know what your beef is.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Regardless of your beliefs, case law is on the side of students. You can #####, whine, and moan all you want, but it's just a waste of your time.

Debating things is sort of what we do around here.

I realize that, but the following is not a debate point, it is a political opinion based in false belief with a bit of hyperbole tossed in for good measure:

This is ridiculous. The progressives want to pretty much define anyone who steps foot in another state/county/city a "resident" of that state/county/city.

Why not just include people from other countries to? You're trying to game the system in your favor so why not?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Regardless of your beliefs, case law is on the side of students. You can #####, whine, and moan all you want, but it's just a waste of your time.

Debating things is sort of what we do around here.

I realize that, but the following is not a debate point, it is a political opinion based in false belief with a bit of hyperbole tossed in for good measure:

This is ridiculous. The progressives want to pretty much define anyone who steps foot in another state/county/city a "resident" of that state/county/city.

Why not just include people from other countries to? You're trying to game the system in your favor so why not?

No, not really. You don't think you progressives are trying to game the system like you accuse conservatives of doing? Really?

 

[Lutherman2112]

This is from the National Secretaries of State, and while old (2008), please note how states include the phrase "for the purpose of voting". The focus on college students and residency fails to include those that travel for work, those with multiple residences, and those that may work overseas.

The important thing to remember, is the person's intent.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Regardless of your beliefs, case law is on the side of students. You can #####, whine, and moan all you want, but it's just a waste of your time.

Debating things is sort of what we do around here.

I realize that, but the following is not a debate point, it is a political opinion based in false belief with a bit of hyperbole tossed in for good measure:

This is ridiculous. The progressives want to pretty much define anyone who steps foot in another state/county/city a "resident" of that state/county/city.

Why not just include people from other countries to? You're trying to game the system in your favor so why not?

No, not really. You don't think you progressives are trying to game the system like you accuse conservatives of doing? Really?

Hmmmmmm, let me think. One group is trying to make it harder for people to vote, while another is trying to make it easier for everyone to vote.

That's a tough one.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

About the old lady thing - here I've actually helped elderly vote, they sign an affidavit like BFS points out. Now that's absentee / early voting but my guess is that would apply at the poll too.

I'm not sure why the GOP is trying to disenfranchise the elderly when they tend to be more conservative and are chronic voters that can be relied upon.

The other stuff you are talking about - which I get, like in Cleveland in 2008 supposedly - is really a whole other issue, voter ID doesn't affect hours and that kind of thing. I get the motive argument, but again a voter ID law doesn't affect those things.

It sounds to me like everyone's getting all charged up about this issue by the parties, and there's no there there.

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

Are they? I believe you if you say they are but I confess I am just curious what is at the heart of this "debate" and don't understand what is at the heart of it.

One thing that stands out is so much of this is nationally driven when most elections are local. If you live in a city with Democratic or liberal values or policies do you really want the affluent GOP suburban parish/county next door affecting your elections? Doubt it. That's one extremely important reason to have voter registration.

Couple thoughts on your question, which I am guessing is about students going to school somewhere away from their hometown:

• Students are not citizens of the cities and towns and counties/parishes where they are voting; they have no business saying who should be judge or mayor or what have you. If their "home" is back home where they come from, that's where they should be voting. If they actually live where their college is they can go vote there like everyone else there.
• If they're in college then presumably they can absentee vote like everyone else.

Yes, Republicans are. All over the country. In general, Republicans are for restricting the rights of Americans to vote. All over the country, they are shortening time periods to vote and increasing the difficulty to vote.

There are no "citizens" of cities of towns. There are residents of states and there are people domiciled in states who may be formally residents in other states, which is a category of people who reside in multiple states. And has been pointed out multiple times, the Supreme court has already ruled that college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state.

Todd, think about what you're saying:

college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state

No one is being disenfranchised there. If a student from Westchester County NY is attending Annenberg in NH, he can either vote in NY or NH. You agree with that, right?

The Annenberg link you posted says this too:

For all the ire heard from the bills’ opponents, these proposals would not take away young people’s voting rights outright. They would just have to travel home to vote – or get an absentee ballot – and make sure they were registered well in advance of an election. (Which isn’t unusual – many states do not have Election Day registration, and instead set a registration deadline, usually about a month before each election.)

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-state-lawmakers-restrict-your-26th-amendment-right

Do you have any problem with this?

If a student wants to vote in college town, they can register there. I don't have a problem with that. I think the idea is that people shouldn't be able to vote twice (once at "home", once at school). - I think this complaint is really happening in small towns that feel like people who have no stake in the town itself end up voting .... and then leaving. That's a problem in NH which is filled with small college towns. Here in NO, frankly the college population improves the general voter base, so I don't have a problem with it, but if I lived in a small college town I might feel differently if every time the people tried to get together to do something those meddling kids who will just leave after they graduate get ramped up about some cause vote up/down some issue that permanent residents really oppose or want.

As a student I always voted via absentee and I always wanted to vote about things affecting my hometown, NO.

I will also point out that you keep talking about students being from out of state. It applies to people in state too. In general, I don't want people from some other parish, city or town voting for my mayor, I don't want people from some other district or ward voting for my councilman. Wouldn't you agree with that? Do you?

{Btw, if you listen to a classic Steely Dan song chances are they are talking about their experiences at Annenberg).

So why are Republicans trying to make it so that out of state college students cant vote where they go to school? You keep avoiding that question.

Actually I thought I hit it head on and asked if you agreed with my comments. You avoided that question about whether you want suburban and rich-district Republicans voting in your district's council races and the like.

However, one possible reason why it's goppers in NH at least is that in almost every single state, including places like CA, Republicans prevail in rural areas where many small college towns are.

I wouldn't be in support of such a measure here (like I said in NO, local colleges actually help the electorate's profile IMO, but again we're a big city), but then I do think it's wrong to say the students are being "disenfranchised" in those situations where such a law would apply since they can vote where they are living at home supported as dependents by their parents.

However, this seems like the worst possible example of the issue. Since students can still vote somewhere no matter what, this really doesn't measure up to ballot access, ie things like poll hours, early voting and election day voting, and seems to be a whole other thing from what we've been discussing, whether or how people can be kept from voting altogether, rightly or wrongly. Again, no one is preventing these students from voting nationally, this only concerns their ability to vote on local issues, where national liberal/conservative wedge issues break down.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

About New Hampshire:

February 15, 2014 2:00 AM
Feb. 13 — To the Editor:

To those who assert that there is no voter fraud in New Hampshire — are you sure? You really believe that not even one person came to New Hampshire to vote here illegally. Really? Well, let me tell you about several "impossibilities" you may have missed because you were trusting the Democrat mantra about Republican voter suppression.

One of them is Mr. Lorin Schneider, who was recently indicted by the attorney general for voting in Manchester in 2012 while being a resident of Carver, Mass. Not one fraudulent vote, huh?

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20131122/NEWS03/131129711&template=mobileart

Do you know about Mr. Gilbert Parker? He was a student at Dartmouth who is now criminally charged with four counts of rape. Mr. Parker is from London, England (You got it, that makes him a British citizen). He is also a registered voter in Hanover and used his dorm address (Bildner Hall) as his official domicile.

Parker's case is a great illustration to those who maintain that students should be allowed to vote even if they are not legal residents of the state. Does that also include students who are not even American citizens?

http://www.nhinsider.com/ed-naile/2014/1/28/congratulations-hanover-voters.html

And then there is Adam Kumpu of Milford. He wanted to make sure his vote really counted so he voted twice; once in person and a second time with an absentee ballot. He was also indicted by the attorney general and fined $1,000 dollars.

http://milford-nh.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/milford-man-pays-1k-penalty-for-voting-twice-in-2012-election

These are only three examples. Nevertheless, they are three votes that were stolen from me and perhaps two other veterans who may have returned home without an arm or a leg after serving their country.

The secretary of state is also following up on thousands of letters that were returned "undeliverable" from people who used affidavits for same-day registration on the 2012 elections. (Nope, not a single case of voter fraud in the state, not one ...).

It is self-deceptive to keep denying that integrity is missing from our voting process when there is evidence that speaks to the contrary. Constantly repeating Democratic talking points won't change that reality.

Not a single case of voter fraud, huh? I agree, not one case, but thousands.

HAVERHILL, N.H. — A county treasurer who lost her bid for a fourth term last week to a 20-year-old Dartmouth College student from Montana blames her failed candidacy on "brainwashed college kids."

Republican Carol Elliott said students just voted for the Democratic ticket, which included Dartmouth junior Vanessa Sievers. Sievers won by nearly 600 votes out of 42,000 cast after targeting voters at Dartmouth and Plymouth State University through a $42 ad on the Web site Facebook.

The part-time treasurer’s job pays $6,408 annually and oversees the investments and payroll of the county, which is home to about 85,000 people.

Part of the political context here is that politicians feel threatened by the influence that college students can have on local elections, says Linda Fowler, a government professor at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. In 2008, a Dartmouth student from Montana ran for treasurer of Grafton County and beat out a Republican incumbent. She went on to do a terrible job, Professor Fowler says.

www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20140215-OPINION-402150332

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/nh-county-treasurer-unsea_n_143559.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0914/College-students-New-Hampshire-is-trying-to-stop-us-from-voting

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/13hampshire.html

http://www.wcax.com/story/12355667/nh-county-wants-student-treasurer-to-resign

http://thelittlegreenblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/its-about-that-time.html

Apparently, eventually Sievers was so bad at her job that she refused to quit her on-campus job, she missed three months of meetings and would only communicate with county officials by email. The county called for her to resign.

Anyone want to make a case why the state sec. of state should be chasing down and criminally prosecuting people after the fact (probably pretty randomly and ineffectively) rather than ensuring that people are properly registered in advance?

Conversely, anyone want to make an argument why any of the three people above did nothing wrong and shouldn't be prosecuted?

 

[Todd Andrews]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

The standards for financial aid/in state tuition and voting have nothing to do with another.

This is ridiculous. The progressives want to pretty much define anyone who steps foot in another state/county/city a "resident" of that state/county/city.

Why not just include people from other countries to? You're trying to game the system in your favor so why not?

Please keep your KooKWorld 'facts' out of this debate.

 

[Todd Andrews]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

The standards for financial aid/in state tuition and voting have nothing to do with another.

Maybe not. The point is that we determine who's a "resident" based on criteria other than where a person happens to be located at any particular moment in time. Most of us understand that there's a reasonable explanation for why we don't treat out-of-state students as residents for tuition purposes. Likewise, there are good reasons for not treating out-of-state students as residents for voting purposes. In other words, the definition of "resident" that MT provided is only one possibility, and you only have to look at higher ed pricing to see how SCOTUS could have ruled other than it did.

Maybe not? You're being nuttier than a squirrel turd.

Here are a couple of studies demonstrating how states benefit from out of state students.

Resident and Nonresident Tuition and Enrollment at Flagship State Universities

In-State versus Out-of State Students: The Divergence of Interest between Public Universities and State Governments

Of course states benefit from out-of-state students. They benefit from tourists too. But tourists don't get to vote in the district that they're vacationing in.

Do most tourists live for the majority of the year in the state, pay rent and lots of sales tax, etc.?

Please work on your really bad analogies to try to make your really bad points about why disenfranchising Americans is a good thing.

 

[MaxThreshold]

You're a resident of a state if you live there and you have no definite plans to move somewhere else. (Or if you formerly met those conditions and have not yet become a resident of some other state.)

Some college students meet that definition locally if they have no definite plans to move elsewhere after graduation, and some don't. As a practical matter, we're not going to cross-examine people about their future plans when they register to vote. Therefore, if you go off to South Bend to attend Notre Dame, you can be deemed a resident of Illinois if you want.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could have reasonably ruled otherwise.

Pretty much every public university in the US disagrees with the Supreme Court on this one. Try telling the University of Illinois that you're really an Illinois resident because you feel most at home in that state even though you just arrived from Indiana. They'll find that argument less than compelling for the pricing purposes.

The standards for financial aid/in state tuition and voting have nothing to do with another.

Maybe not. The point is that we determine who's a "resident" based on criteria other than where a person happens to be located at any particular moment in time. Most of us understand that there's a reasonable explanation for why we don't treat out-of-state students as residents for tuition purposes. Likewise, there are good reasons for not treating out-of-state students as residents for voting purposes. In other words, the definition of "resident" that MT provided is only one possibility, and you only have to look at higher ed pricing to see how SCOTUS could have ruled other than it did.

Maybe not? You're being nuttier than a squirrel turd.

Here are a couple of studies demonstrating how states benefit from out of state students.

Resident and Nonresident Tuition and Enrollment at Flagship State Universities

In-State versus Out-of State Students: The Divergence of Interest between Public Universities and State Governments

Of course states benefit from out-of-state students. They benefit from tourists too. But tourists don't get to vote in the district that they're vacationing in.

Do most tourists live for the majority of the year in the state, pay rent and lots of sales tax, etc.?

Please work on your really bad analogies to try to make your really bad points about why disenfranchising Americans is a good thing.

"disenfranchising" again?

Sure, whatever you say crazy. That word is so overused by extreme progressives like yourself it has lost all meaning.

 

[Todd Andrews]

About the old lady thing - here I've actually helped elderly vote, they sign an affidavit like BFS points out. Now that's absentee / early voting but my guess is that would apply at the poll too.

I'm not sure why the GOP is trying to disenfranchise the elderly when they tend to be more conservative and are chronic voters that can be relied upon.

The other stuff you are talking about - which I get, like in Cleveland in 2008 supposedly - is really a whole other issue, voter ID doesn't affect hours and that kind of thing. I get the motive argument, but again a voter ID law doesn't affect those things.

It sounds to me like everyone's getting all charged up about this issue by the parties, and there's no there there.

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

Are they? I believe you if you say they are but I confess I am just curious what is at the heart of this "debate" and don't understand what is at the heart of it.

One thing that stands out is so much of this is nationally driven when most elections are local. If you live in a city with Democratic or liberal values or policies do you really want the affluent GOP suburban parish/county next door affecting your elections? Doubt it. That's one extremely important reason to have voter registration.

Couple thoughts on your question, which I am guessing is about students going to school somewhere away from their hometown:

• Students are not citizens of the cities and towns and counties/parishes where they are voting; they have no business saying who should be judge or mayor or what have you. If their "home" is back home where they come from, that's where they should be voting. If they actually live where their college is they can go vote there like everyone else there.
• If they're in college then presumably they can absentee vote like everyone else.

Yes, Republicans are. All over the country. In general, Republicans are for restricting the rights of Americans to vote. All over the country, they are shortening time periods to vote and increasing the difficulty to vote.

There are no "citizens" of cities of towns. There are residents of states and there are people domiciled in states who may be formally residents in other states, which is a category of people who reside in multiple states. And has been pointed out multiple times, the Supreme court has already ruled that college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state.

Todd, think about what you're saying:

college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state

No one is being disenfranchised there. If a student from Westchester County NY is attending Annenberg in NH, he can either vote in NY or NH. You agree with that, right?

The Annenberg link you posted says this too:

For all the ire heard from the bills’ opponents, these proposals would not take away young people’s voting rights outright. They would just have to travel home to vote – or get an absentee ballot – and make sure they were registered well in advance of an election. (Which isn’t unusual – many states do not have Election Day registration, and instead set a registration deadline, usually about a month before each election.)

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-state-lawmakers-restrict-your-26th-amendment-right

Do you have any problem with this?

If a student wants to vote in college town, they can register there. I don't have a problem with that. I think the idea is that people shouldn't be able to vote twice (once at "home", once at school). - I think this complaint is really happening in small towns that feel like people who have no stake in the town itself end up voting .... and then leaving. That's a problem in NH which is filled with small college towns. Here in NO, frankly the college population improves the general voter base, so I don't have a problem with it, but if I lived in a small college town I might feel differently if every time the people tried to get together to do something those meddling kids who will just leave after they graduate get ramped up about some cause vote up/down some issue that permanent residents really oppose or want.

As a student I always voted via absentee and I always wanted to vote about things affecting my hometown, NO.

I will also point out that you keep talking about students being from out of state. It applies to people in state too. In general, I don't want people from some other parish, city or town voting for my mayor, I don't want people from some other district or ward voting for my councilman. Wouldn't you agree with that? Do you?

{Btw, if you listen to a classic Steely Dan song chances are they are talking about their experiences at Annenberg).

So why are Republicans trying to make it so that out of state college students cant vote where they go to school? You keep avoiding that question.

Actually I thought I hit it head on and asked if you agreed with my comments. You avoided that question about whether you want suburban and rich-district Republicans voting in your district's council races and the like.

However, one possible reason why it's goppers in NH at least is that in almost every single state, including places like CA, Republicans prevail in rural areas where many small college towns are.

I wouldn't be in support of such a measure here (like I said in NO, local colleges actually help the electorate's profile IMO, but again we're a big city), but then I do think it's wrong to say the students are being "disenfranchised" in those situations where such a law would apply since they can vote where they are living at home supported as dependents by their parents.

However, this seems like the worst possible example of the issue. Since students can still vote somewhere no matter what, this really doesn't measure up to ballot access, ie things like poll hours, early voting and election day voting, and seems to be a whole other thing from what we've been discussing, whether or how people can be kept from voting altogether, rightly or wrongly. Again, no one is preventing these students from voting nationally, this only concerns their ability to vote on local issues, where national liberal/conservative wedge issues break down.

You understand that the GOP goal isnt to make it actually impossible for college students to vote, because that would be unconstitutional, right? Their goal is to make it very difficult for people to vote who they dont want voting.

You dont think it imposes a ridiculous onerous burden to mandate an absentee ballot voting requirement on massive numbers of college students requiring that they have to absentee vote where they dont live the majority of the year and are prohibited from voting where they live for years and pay rent, tuition, and taxes? Your local versus national distinction is meaningless for this debate and you admit that where you live it helps the electorate to have the out of state college people vote (by the way, I started voting in New Orleans as an 18 year old freshman in college from out of state and continued for 10 years until I moved away because I wanted to vote where I lived). You really need to think about this a little more.

Edit to add: the whole local issues thing is nonsense--you should drop it and just thank me for helping keep David Duke from being Louisiana governor.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

"disenfranchising" again?

Sure, whatever you say crazy. That word is so overused by extreme progressives like yourself it has lost all meaning.

dis·en·fran·chise

ˌdisenˈfranCHīz/

verb

• deprive (someone) of the right to vote.deprived of power; marginalized.
• deprive (someone) of a right or privilege.

Looks like it means the same thing today as what I thought it meant. I guess you are trying to say that placing hurdles in front voters doesn't actually deprive them of anything. So hurdles like poll taxes or literacy test were not disenfranchising anyone?

Or, maybe this is like discrimination. Unless the discrimination is really bad like genocide or slavery or Jim Crow then we shouldn't use the proper word for the activity.

Either way it a ludicrous position.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Of course states benefit from out-of-state students. They benefit from tourists too. But tourists don't get to vote in the district that they're vacationing in.

Do most tourists live for the majority of the year in the state, pay rent and lots of sales tax, etc.?

Please work on your really bad analogies to try to make your really bad points about why disenfranchising Americans is a good thing.

You're missing the point. Everybody agrees that people who live permanently and full-time in a particular district ought to be able to vote in that district, and everybody agrees that tourists shouldn't. For the purposes of this discussion, are college students more like full-time residents or are they more like tourists?

IMO, anybody who thinks that the answer to that question is obvious and that people who disagree are doing so for evil purposes just isn't being honest with himself.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

"disenfranchising" again?

Sure, whatever you say crazy. That word is so overused by extreme progressives like yourself it has lost all meaning.

dis·en·fran·chise

ˌdisenˈfranCHīz/

verb

• deprive (someone) of the right to vote.deprived of power; marginalized.
• deprive (someone) of a right or privilege.

Looks like it means the same thing today as what I thought it meant. I guess you are trying to say that placing hurdles in front voters doesn't actually deprive them of anything. So hurdles like poll taxes or literacy test were not disenfranchising anyone?

Or, maybe this is like discrimination. Unless the discrimination is really bad like genocide or slavery or Jim Crow then we shouldn't use the proper word for the activity.

Either way it a ludicrous position.

I have to drive eight miles to my designated polling place every election day. Am I being disenfranchised?

The use of that term is kind of silly in the voter ID discussion, but it's especially bad in the context of our little side-issue of how to handle college students. Nobody on either side is saying that college students should be disenfranchised. The issue is whether they should vote in their home district or the district that contains their dorm. Disenfranchisement isn't even on the table. When somebody brings it up, it makes me suspect that they either (literally) don't know what they're talking about or that they have to resort to rhetorical sleight of hand in lieu of reason.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Of course states benefit from out-of-state students. They benefit from tourists too. But tourists don't get to vote in the district that they're vacationing in.

Do most tourists live for the majority of the year in the state, pay rent and lots of sales tax, etc.?

Please work on your really bad analogies to try to make your really bad points about why disenfranchising Americans is a good thing.

You're missing the point. Everybody agrees that people who live permanently and full-time in a particular district ought to be able to vote in that district, and everybody agrees that tourists shouldn't. For the purposes of this discussion, are college students more like full-time residents or are they more like tourists?

IMO, anybody who thinks that the answer to that question is obvious and that people who disagree are doing so for evil purposes just isn't being honest with himself.

So where should "snow birds" vote?

The answer is obvious! Those that are motivated enough to vote should be able to vote in the state/locality where they reside at least part of the year that matters most to them.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Of course states benefit from out-of-state students. They benefit from tourists too. But tourists don't get to vote in the district that they're vacationing in.

Do most tourists live for the majority of the year in the state, pay rent and lots of sales tax, etc.?

Please work on your really bad analogies to try to make your really bad points about why disenfranchising Americans is a good thing.

You're missing the point. Everybody agrees that people who live permanently and full-time in a particular district ought to be able to vote in that district, and everybody agrees that tourists shouldn't. For the purposes of this discussion, are college students more like full-time residents or are they more like tourists?

IMO, anybody who thinks that the answer to that question is obvious and that people who disagree are doing so for evil purposes just isn't being honest with himself.

So where should "snow birds" vote?

The answer is obvious! Those that are motivated enough to vote should be able to vote in the state/locality where they reside at least part of the year that matters most to them.

Yeah, I don't think that's obvious at all. Not saying you're wrong, just that if the Florida legislature declared that from now on only people who lived in Florida for six months or more out of the year would be allowed to vote in Florida elections, I'd defer to their judgment and not feel bad about doing so.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

"disenfranchising" again?

Sure, whatever you say crazy. That word is so overused by extreme progressives like yourself it has lost all meaning.

dis·en·fran·chise

ˌdisenˈfranCHīz/

verb

• deprive (someone) of the right to vote.deprived of power; marginalized.
• deprive (someone) of a right or privilege.

Looks like it means the same thing today as what I thought it meant. I guess you are trying to say that placing hurdles in front voters doesn't actually deprive them of anything. So hurdles like poll taxes or literacy test were not disenfranchising anyone?

Or, maybe this is like discrimination. Unless the discrimination is really bad like genocide or slavery or Jim Crow then we shouldn't use the proper word for the activity.

Either way it a ludicrous position.

I have to drive eight miles to my designated polling place every election day. Am I being disenfranchised?

The use of that term is kind of silly in the voter ID discussion, but it's especially bad in the context of our little side-issue of how to handle college students. Nobody on either side is saying that college students should be disenfranchised. The issue is whether they should vote in their home district or the district that contains their dorm. Disenfranchisement isn't even on the table. When somebody brings it up, it makes me suspect that they either (literally) don't know what they're talking about or that they have to resort to rhetorical sleight of hand in lieu of reason.

Oh . Wishing to marginalize college students in college towns is precisely what the side issue is about. Wishing to deprive those without IDs of what little power they get from voting is exactly what you have flat out asserted should be the case.

Oh, and yes if transportation to a polling place 8 miles away was not available to you then it would qualify. Somehow I doubt that is the case for you, but complaining about groups providing transportation to polling places is exactly what "reasonable" right wingers do all the time!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Oh . Wishing to marginalize college students in college towns is precisely what the side issue is about. Wishing to deprive those without IDs of what little power they get from voting is exactly what you have flat out asserted should be the case.

Neither of those is disenfranchisement. The fact that I'm not allowed to vote in Florida elections (I live in South Dakota) is not disenfranchisement in any meaningful sense of the word, and the same would apply to college students if we decided to have them voting in their home districts.

You're right that I'm happy if ID requirements clean up the electorate a little by screening out the unemployable, the illiterate, wards of the state, etc. But I just see that as a nudge. They can still (regrettably IMO) vote if they leap the worlds smallest hurdle by dropping by the DMV once every 5-6 years.

 

[The Commish]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).

I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

About the old lady thing - here I've actually helped elderly vote, they sign an affidavit like BFS points out. Now that's absentee / early voting but my guess is that would apply at the poll too.

I'm not sure why the GOP is trying to disenfranchise the elderly when they tend to be more conservative and are chronic voters that can be relied upon.

The other stuff you are talking about - which I get, like in Cleveland in 2008 supposedly - is really a whole other issue, voter ID doesn't affect hours and that kind of thing. I get the motive argument, but again a voter ID law doesn't affect those things.

It sounds to me like everyone's getting all charged up about this issue by the parties, and there's no there there.

Why are Republicans against college students being able to vote where they to college if they are from out of state?

Are they? I believe you if you say they are but I confess I am just curious what is at the heart of this "debate" and don't understand what is at the heart of it.

One thing that stands out is so much of this is nationally driven when most elections are local. If you live in a city with Democratic or liberal values or policies do you really want the affluent GOP suburban parish/county next door affecting your elections? Doubt it. That's one extremely important reason to have voter registration.

Couple thoughts on your question, which I am guessing is about students going to school somewhere away from their hometown:

• Students are not citizens of the cities and towns and counties/parishes where they are voting; they have no business saying who should be judge or mayor or what have you. If their "home" is back home where they come from, that's where they should be voting. If they actually live where their college is they can go vote there like everyone else there.
• If they're in college then presumably they can absentee vote like everyone else.

Yes, Republicans are. All over the country. In general, Republicans are for restricting the rights of Americans to vote. All over the country, they are shortening time periods to vote and increasing the difficulty to vote.

There are no "citizens" of cities of towns. There are residents of states and there are people domiciled in states who may be formally residents in other states, which is a category of people who reside in multiple states. And has been pointed out multiple times, the Supreme court has already ruled that college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state.

Todd, think about what you're saying:

college students can vote either in the state they came from or the state where they go to college if they are not the same state

No one is being disenfranchised there. If a student from Westchester County NY is attending Annenberg in NH, he can either vote in NY or NH. You agree with that, right?

The Annenberg link you posted says this too:

For all the ire heard from the bills’ opponents, these proposals would not take away young people’s voting rights outright. They would just have to travel home to vote – or get an absentee ballot – and make sure they were registered well in advance of an election. (Which isn’t unusual – many states do not have Election Day registration, and instead set a registration deadline, usually about a month before each election.)

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-state-lawmakers-restrict-your-26th-amendment-right

Do you have any problem with this?

If a student wants to vote in college town, they can register there. I don't have a problem with that. I think the idea is that people shouldn't be able to vote twice (once at "home", once at school). - I think this complaint is really happening in small towns that feel like people who have no stake in the town itself end up voting .... and then leaving. That's a problem in NH which is filled with small college towns. Here in NO, frankly the college population improves the general voter base, so I don't have a problem with it, but if I lived in a small college town I might feel differently if every time the people tried to get together to do something those meddling kids who will just leave after they graduate get ramped up about some cause vote up/down some issue that permanent residents really oppose or want.

As a student I always voted via absentee and I always wanted to vote about things affecting my hometown, NO.

I will also point out that you keep talking about students being from out of state. It applies to people in state too. In general, I don't want people from some other parish, city or town voting for my mayor, I don't want people from some other district or ward voting for my councilman. Wouldn't you agree with that? Do you?

{Btw, if you listen to a classic Steely Dan song chances are they are talking about their experiences at Annenberg).

So why are Republicans trying to make it so that out of state college students cant vote where they go to school? You keep avoiding that question.

Actually I thought I hit it head on and asked if you agreed with my comments. You avoided that question about whether you want suburban and rich-district Republicans voting in your district's council races and the like.

However, one possible reason why it's goppers in NH at least is that in almost every single state, including places like CA, Republicans prevail in rural areas where many small college towns are.

I wouldn't be in support of such a measure here (like I said in NO, local colleges actually help the electorate's profile IMO, but again we're a big city), but then I do think it's wrong to say the students are being "disenfranchised" in those situations where such a law would apply since they can vote where they are living at home supported as dependents by their parents.

However, this seems like the worst possible example of the issue. Since students can still vote somewhere no matter what, this really doesn't measure up to ballot access, ie things like poll hours, early voting and election day voting, and seems to be a whole other thing from what we've been discussing, whether or how people can be kept from voting altogether, rightly or wrongly. Again, no one is preventing these students from voting nationally, this only concerns their ability to vote on local issues, where national liberal/conservative wedge issues break down.

You understand that the GOP goal isnt to make it actually impossible for college students to vote, because that would be unconstitutional, right? Their goal is to make it very difficult for people to vote who they dont want voting.

You dont think it imposes a ridiculous onerous burden to mandate an absentee ballot voting requirement on massive numbers of college students requiring that they have to absentee vote where they dont live the majority of the year and are prohibited from voting where they live for years and pay rent, tuition, and taxes? Your local versus national distinction is meaningless for this debate and you admit that where you live it helps the electorate to have the out of state college people vote (by the way, I started voting in New Orleans as an 18 year old freshman in college from out of state and continued for 10 years until I moved away because I wanted to vote where I lived). You really need to think about this a little more.

Edit to add: the whole local issues thing is nonsense--you should drop it and just thank me for helping keep David Duke from being Louisiana governor.

Look as I said, if you look at small college towns like Hanover in Grafton County NH and what happened with Sievers I could see people of all stripes saying hey maybe these meddling kids don't really belong in local elections. I also see your point about how students would and do deserve a right to vote on local issues that might impact them. Maybe the WI & NC examples are better, I don't know I just looked at NH.

About Duke, I seriously thank you for your efforts but you are now avoiding the question: would you want people who voted for a Duke in a neighboring Parish or district coming in to vote for your mayor or councilman? I wouldn't. That's the point of registration.

All politics is local. However, there is the Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" example (Limbaugh was hoisted on his own petard when he called on his minions to go vote for Obama in 2008 Demo primaries). I never understood why in some places there are party primaries where people outside the party can go vote for that party's nominee. On the one hand I can see why people not registered as Demo or Repub should be able to vote for more than just the final nominees; on the other I don't think people with no interest in the party should be able to go in and dilute the votes of actual party members.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I never understood why in some places there are party primaries where people outside the party can go vote for that party's nominee. On the one hand I can see why people not registered as Demo or Repub should be able to vote for more than just the final nominees; on the other I don't think people with no interest in the party should be able to go in and dilute the votes of actual party members.

One theory behind it is that the party will get a more electable nominee by having an open primary. I don't know if there is any evidence to back that theory up.

 

[The Commish]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).

I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

For those situations make it where they spend 50% (or more) of their time Or, to avoid all those dumb hoops, register in the state where you're going to school and take a utility bill with you....most schools make you pay your own phone or cable bill. This really isn't that complicated.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why does this college student "problem" (in the most loose definition of all time) any more complicated than "if you pay in state tuition and are registered to vote in that state" vs "if you pay out of state tuition and are registered in your home state"?? Again...politics run amuck. It's really not that complicated if you remove politics from the equation.

Private colleges don't have in-state and out-of-state tuition, so your rule wouldn't work for a large portion of college students (even at public schools some kids have scholarships so they don't pay tuition at all).

I agree the college thing is tricky, and in truth figuring out where a college student should vote would need to be an individualized inquiry, but that doesn't seem practical or what we would really want. What makes the most sense to me is to let college students vote either at home or at school (but not both). The students themselves can decide whether they are more attached to their hometown or their college town.

For those situations make it where they spend 50% (or more) of their time Or, to avoid all those dumb hoops, register in the state where you're going to school and take a utility bill with you....most schools make you pay your own phone or cable bill. This really isn't that complicated.

I thought people were arguing that college students shouldn't be allowed to register where they go to school? Maybe I'm confused. The complication isn't about logistics, it's about who should be eligible to vote in a particular election.