Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
There are many different rationales being offered in support of New Hampshire House Bill 176. The bill currently being touted by state House Speaker William O’Brien and Representative Gregory Sorg redefines voting domiciles for college students and some members of the military, effectively disenfranchising them in the state. For all of the lines of reasoning associated with the bill, surprisingly few hold up to scrutiny.
On one hand, Speaker O’Brien has refuted the claim that the bill is directed against any particular group, promoting it as a means to combat voter fraud. On the other hand, a speech given by the representative paints an entirely different picture of his intentions.
In that speech delivered to Tea Party members in Rochester, NH, O’Brien made his ulterior motive exceedingly clear: the disenchantment of young, college aged voters because of a “foolish” tendency to “just vote their feelings" by supporting the left in large majority.
Speaker O’Brien’s position is disappointing. It is a shame that he is trying to legitimize an obvious political attack on a largely left-voting demographic by disguising it as a preventative measure against unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud- claims that have been refuted by multiple studies.
While O’Brien’s sabotage of the youth vote would most certainly help the Republican Party, it not only paints a disturbing picture of state Republicans as conniving and desperate, but moreover acts as a deterrent to thousands of well educated, intelligent students becoming informed and active voters.
In response to O’Brien’s contention that young voters undermine the voting power of tax-paying citizens in local elections, I would refer him to a statement made by the president of the University of New Hampshire College Republicans, who told a school newspaper that "there is usually very little interest in voting in the state-wide elections” and that “ there is hardly any involvement in the local elections."
On a pragmatic note, it seems reasonable to assume that a potential 10-year prison sentence and $10,000 fine for an easily traceable violation of federal law act as deterrent enough to keep college participating in voter fraud, especially if they are as naive and incompetent as William O’Brien would have one believe or as apathetic towards local elections as I know the majority to be.
Moreover, House Bill 176 is also debatably unconstitutional, as detailed in testimony released by the NYU Law School Brennan Center for Justice. The bill may also be in discord with Newburger v. Peterson, a 1972 New Hampshire court case ruling that said a student’s voter status cannot be dependent on his or her intent to stay in the state. In the same case the court also rejected the need for a student to vote in their hometown or by absentee, a plan explicitly advocated by Representative Sorg, sponsor of the bill, who according to an article from The Dartmouth, “said he had not read the Newberger v. Peterson case and did not ‘care’ for it.”
House Bill 176 strikes me as a cheap ploy by members of the New Hampshire Republican Party to combat the largely Democratic base of student voters. These politicians have found opposition in students at a number of New Hampshire colleges and universities from Democrats and Republicans alike who are angered at what is seen by many as an attempt to undermine the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the 14th Amendment of the constitution. These politicians would do well to pursue other means by which to influence the youth vote rather than following an avenue that could lead to political ignorance and disinterest in some of the state’s most intelligent and proactive citizens.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
If it targets transient college students and military folks, it would seem to me that whatever votes you gain by denying college kids, you'd lose (and probably then some, 'cause college aged kids don't vote real regular like) by denying the military folks.
Ought to be a wash, R vs D wise, anyway.
They're not being disenfranchised, they're being asked to vote absentee from their state of actual residence.
If they truly are transients in the state (IE, they're there for a while, and then gone again after a finite period of time), I don't see what the big deal is. It has been my experience that it is much easier to vote absentee than to try and be removed from the rolls at home and register to vote in your temporary location.
I'm not sure why college students from NJ or IA or IL should have any say in who gets to be the senator from WA or MO, seeing as how those kids will be going to back to NJ or IA or IL again in fairly short order.
The military folks, it makes less sense for, but not much less.
Jul '10
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
This has been a big issue here recently with UVA students getting Perriello elected in 08 (the law was changed right before the election cycle) in what had been a solidly Republican district. There have also been widespread complaints in Lynchburg about Liberty University attempting to dominate local elections.
How is it defensible to allow people to vote in an election who are not residents? They don't live here full-time, don't pay local property taxes, don't serve jury duty...they don't take on any of the responsibilities of being a citizen of the community, but they want the privilege of voting as one? Whether it's military personnel, students, or any other transients, if you want to vote, you can always vote absentee in your home district (ironic that we even call it home district pointing out they don't live here) regardless of court opinion. Or you can become a resident, take on the responsibilities of being one, and be welcomed to vote. Seeing a parking lot full of out-of-state license plates when I go to vote makes me question how much I and other residents are being represented.
Jul '10
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
Whiskey Sam:
How is it defensible to allow people to vote in an election who are not residents? They don't live here full-time, don't pay local property taxes, don't serve jury duty...they don't take on any of the responsibilities of being a citizen of the community, but they want the privilege of voting as one?
I have a hard time with this issue. You're right, but while a given student doesn't stay to deal with the fallout from his votes (6 & 7 year professional loan sponges aside) there will be a student population in college towns for most of the year. Given age-based suffrage, it does make a kind of sense for "student interests" to be represented at the polls in those locales.
Adam Schwartzman, Intern:
House Bill 176 strikes me as a cheap ploy by members of the New Hampshire Republican Party to combat the largely Democratic base of student voters.
I'd bet that's mostly fair. Good post Adam, but spare me the "most intelligent and proactive citizens" cheerleading. In return, I'll spare you St. Patty's Day anecdotes.
Jul '10
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
Palaeologus, if students want their interests to be represented, there is nothing stopping them from declaring residency and taking on the responsibilities of residency. That's assuming their interests aren't already represented by faculty and administration members who are full-time residents. I just don't buy the argument they should get the rewards of citizenship in a community without the responsibilities simply because they spent a few months there. It's quite unsettling to know there are several thousand students potentially voting in your precinct that can negate entire neighborhoods' votes even if they would typically be aligned to how you would vote.
Jul '10
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
I don't disagree. Like I said, this is a tough call. I get plenty worked up about students voting en masse for unicorn-filled Disneyland policies that affect my livelihood and my kids' environment.
However, those same circumstances generally apply when college students vote from their parents' basements. It's reasonable to note that those parents (and their neighbors) reap what they sow. But isn't that also true for college town residents & businesses?
Two points:
1) I'd be happy if no one claimed as a dependent was allowed to vote. But the courts wouldn't.
2) Collegiate faculty and administrators don't (on balance) represent students' interests. I'm sure they think they do. If they actually did, wouldn't they require students to learn stuff?
Jul '10
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
This cuts to the crux of what it means to be a community and a citizen thereof. I can go to city council meetings, I can talk to my neighbors, fellow church members, little league parents, people I do business with. I can have discussion and debate with them. College students and transient workers I can't. They tend to be outside the community or a community unto themselves. I don't have an issue with students voting if they are actually part of the community. There is something fundamentally wrong, though, with enfranchising someone who is paying their taxes elsewhere.
To your second point, I was thinking more of faculty/admin aligning with students' interests in things like zoning issues for the school where the community says no to the school so the school tries to drum up enough support from students to override the community.
Requiring students to learn stuff is so 19th century. Now we just want them to feel good about themselves and bask in their know-nothingness.
Aug '10
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
Dude, I know you are just an intern and all, but if you are going to give me a link "refuted by multiple studies" then I kind of expect it to take me to the multiple studies that substantiate "unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud."
If you are going to tweak my nose about the unjustness descending upon your unicorn ranch then please address little things from the recent Presidential election. Quoting Michelle Malkin, "An entire houseful of young, non-Ohioan Democrat activists have used the Brownlee Avenue address to register themselves to vote in the Buckeye State" Link here.
If a student isn't a resident of a state, then they shouldn't vote there. If they establish residency, then they ought to vote there. It is that simple. The Soldier and Sailor's relief act deals with residency issues of Military folks.
Aug '10
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
Edited to delete double post
Edited on Mar 11, 2011 at 4:35amRe: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
Instugator
If a student isn't a resident of a state, then they shouldn't vote there. If they establish residency, then they ought to vote there. It is that simple. The Soldier and Sailor's relief act deals with residency issues of Military folks. · Mar 11 at 4:33am
I think the whole point is that the proposed legislation would make it impossible for college students to establish residency.
I established residency in New Hampshire a number of years ago by presenting the lease to my apartment when I registered to vote. But as I understand this bill, that would no longer suffice.
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
Palaeologus- fair enough. The point I was driving at is that college students have the potential to become informed, active voters, something that shouldn't be jeopardized.
Instugator- the quote I was referencing in that linked article was this: "Numerous studies have shown that the type of voter fraud that New Hampshire Republicans are supposedly targeting is all but non-existent in the United States. In what's considered the most comprehensive study into the issue, Barnard College political scientist Lorraine Minnite concluded last year that extensive, intentional voter fraud is a myth." Here's a link to a PDF of that study.
Aug '10
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
Interesting study. It looked at items from 2002 - 2005 and found "At the federal level, records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year."
It is interesting that she defined voter fraud at the individual level “intentional corruption of the electoral process by the voter.” - thereby excluding any larger actors (ACORN anyone?)
Oh, she does look at ACORN - silly me, "Opponents of ACORN continue to spread false rumors that the organization engages in voter fraud." I nearly wet myself when I read that.
Adam, please look here for the Complete Guide to ACORN Voter Fraud, courtesy of PJM.
Oh and here is the money line from this "most comprehensive study", "the use of baseless voter fraud allegations for partisan advantage has become the exclusive domain of Republican party activists." - heh
Great source you got there, Champ. Good, unbiased, well-researched stuff.
My compliments.
Edited on Mar 14, 2011 at 4:40pmAug '10
Re: Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire
Interesting story on Powerline. It details how Dem officials are attempting to corrupt the political process by registering fake candidates.
Oh, but it doesn't meet the definition of voter fraud, maybe it goes somewhere else.
Edited on Mar 17, 2011 at 7:53am