Power grabs and dishonesty occur often in American politics, but two bills introduced earlier this month in the New Hampshire legislature that would have restricted the ability of the state's students to vote in their college localities were especially egregious in these respects. Although both bills were defeated in the House Election Law Committee last week, they nevertheless should serve as a warning to students about the risks posed to their rights by politicians who seek to entrench their own authority at the expense of vulnerable constituencies.
Ostensibly, the bills at issue were meant to protect voting rights by reducing the likelihood of fraud. One stipulated that prior to voting in their college towns, students or their parents would need to establish a permanent residency there. Another proposal would have eliminated Election Day registration, which currently allows New Hampshire students to register to vote and cast their ballots on the same day. Although these measures have been portrayed as ways to prevent individuals from registering in multiple locales, there is no evidence that such malfeasance actually occurs. Furthermore, the former requirement would have placed an undue burden upon students by forcing them to undergo the arduous processes of reregistering their vehicles and applying for new driver's licenses if they hoped to claim permanent residency in New Hampshire.
Instead of cutting down on instances of fraud - which already is considered rare in most American elections - such barriers would have depressed student voting altogether. Unfortunately, that appears to be exactly what the bills' supporters intended. New Hampshire House Speaker William O'Brien, for example, voiced concern not about skewed elections but rather about "foolish" students who "don't have life experience" and "just vote their feelings." Rep. Gregory Sorg, the sponsor of the bill that would have implemented the residency requirement, added that students suffer from "a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce."
Even if these statements were justified, they would not be legitimate reasons to restrict voting among a particular group since there is simply no objective standard by which to determine whether individuals have the "life experience" and intelligence necessary to cast a ballot. O'Brien admitted as much when he narrowed his criticism to those students who "are basically doing what I did when I was a kid and foolish, voting as a liberal." This suggests that in the minds of O'Brien, Sorg and other Republicans in the New Hampshire legislature the primary criterion for political wisdom is not knowledge of policy issues or involvement in campaigns but rather adherence to a favored ideology.
Sorg also asserted, however, that restricting the ability of students to vote in their college towns would protect other residents from having their votes "diluted or entirely canceled by those of a huge, largely monolithic demographic group." This position treats the interests of students as illegitimate simply because they are a majority, a perspective that goes against the fundamental tenets of a democratic system. Moreover, other individuals know when they move to a college town that they are entering a community with a large bloc of student voters. If the triumph of student-favored policies and candidates is viewed as so negative that it outweighs the considerable economic and cultural benefits that students bring to the community, then would-be residents can choose to live in a more palatable location.
In the end, students are subject to the laws of their college localities and their only recourse against potential grievances is through appeals to the leadership that exists within those areas. This means that in accordance with democratic principles, students should have a say in choosing the congressmen who will provide them with constituent services, as well as in electing the city or town council members who will determine policies such as the level of taxation that students will face. Rather than trying to stifle student voters for cravenly self-interested reasons, lawmakers should strive to incorporate their perspectives into new platforms for governance.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
