New Hampshire disenfranchisement push.

[SirNitram]

Link

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

New Hampshire House Republicans are pushing for new laws that would prohibit many college students from voting in the state - and effectively keep some from voting at all.

One bill would permit students to vote in their college towns only if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there - requiring all others to vote in the states or other New Hampshire towns they come from. Another bill would end Election Day registration, which O'Brien said unleashes swarms of students on polling places, creating opportunities for fraud.

The measures in New Hampshire are among dozens of voting-related bills being pushed by newly empowered Republican state lawmakers across the country - prompting partisan clashes akin to those already roiling in some states over GOP moves to curb union power.

Backers of the voting measures say they would bring fairness and restore confidence in a voting system vulnerable to fraud. Many states, for instance, do not require identification to vote. Measures being proposed in 32 states would add an ID requirement or proof of citizenship, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

"I want to know when I walk into the poll that they know I am who I say I am and that nobody else has said that they are me," said North Carolina state Rep. Ric Killian (R), who is preparing to introduce legislation that would require voters to show a photo ID at the polls.

Democrats charge that the real goal, as with anti-union measures in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere, is simply to deflate the power of core Democratic voting blocs - in this case young people and minorities. For all the allegations of voter fraud, Democrats and voting rights groups say, there is scant evidence to show that it is a problem.

"It's a war on voting," said Thomas Bates, vice president of Rock the Vote, a youth voter- registration group mounting a campaign to fight the array of state measures. "We'd like to be advocating for a 21st-century voting system, but here we are fighting against efforts to turn it back to the 19th century."

The debate over voter fraud has become a perennial issue since the contested 2000 presidential election. While limited by federal law and court rulings, states have authority over how they run elections. Although elections officials say there are occasional cases of fraud, experts say the battle lines are drawn largely along deeply partisan - and largely theoretical - lines.

"Election policy debates like photo ID and same-day registration have become so fierce around the country because they are founded more on passionate belief than proven fact," said Doug Chapin, an election-law expert at the Pew Center on the States. "One side is convinced fraud is rampant; the other believes that disenfranchisement is widespread. Neither can point to much in the way of evidence to support their position, so they simply turn up the volume."

Implications for 2012

The disputes are taking on national implications. Several states where newly empowered Republicans are pushing voter legislation, such as New Hampshire, Wisconsin and North Carolina, are expected to be battlegrounds in the 2012 presidential race. Democrats say the voters most likely to be affected are core pieces of President Obama's base.

An analysis by the North Carolina State Board of Elections showed that any new law requiring a state-issued ID could be problematic for large numbers of voters, particularly African Americans, whose turnout in 2008 helped Obama win the state.

Blacks account for about one-fifth of the North Carolina electorate but are a larger share - 27 percent - of the approximately 1 million voters who may lack a state-issued ID or whose names do not exactly match the Division of Motor Vehicles database. The analysis found about 556,000 voters with no record of an ID issued by the DMV.

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina had pledged to make a photo ID bill a top priority for their new majority, but they have yet to release a plan, with the caucus deliberating over how restrictive it should be. The issue could present a dilemma for Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue, who would have to choose between signing or vetoing a bill that would be popular with swing voters but that could dampen turnout of voters she needs to win reelection next year.

In Wisconsin, a photo-ID bill backed by the state's new GOP majority would not permit voters to use school-issued student cards. The measure would allow for other IDs, such as passports, but opponents say thousands of students who do not have Wisconsin driver's licenses or passports would face unfair hurdles that would keep many of them from voting.

Republican state Sen. Mary Lazich, who heads the chamber's elections committee, said the legislation is designed to prevent irregularities, such as allegations that votes have been cast by the deceased. She said she hoped to work with university officials to allow student IDs at some point.

Student groups are rallying opposition, distributing fliers on campuses and creating Facebook pages to pressure lawmakers.

"It's no coincidence that some of the groups being targeted and that would be most affected by the bill are more Democratic generally," said Sam Polstein, 19, a University of Wisconsin sophomore from New York who is helping to organize the protests.

Opponents are also using a tea party twist - cost - to try to defeat the bill.

States that require voter IDs also must be willing to pay for them, the result of a court ruling that declared part of Georgia's ID law unconstitutional because people lacking IDs would have to pay for cards themselves - creating, in effect, a poll tax. A legislative analysis shows the Wisconsin measure would cost the state $2.7 million a year.

The Wisconsin bill is poised for passage in the state Senate but is stalled because of the legislative standoff between Republican Gov. Scott Walker and state Senate Democrats over his plan to roll back public-sector unions' collective-bargaining rights.

The outcome could be particularly critical in Wisconsin. Though Obama won the state easily in 2008, strategists in both parties expect his reelection contest to be much closer. In 2004, the Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), won there by just 11,000 votes, a margin easily covered just by the 17,000 out-of-state students who attend the University of Wisconsin's campus in Madison.

New Hampshire bill

In New Hampshire, the measure that covers college students also targets members of the military who are temporarily stationed in the state. But there are no major military installations there, and GOP lawmakers have reserved their criticisms for the voting behavior of students - leading even some college-age Republicans to fight back.

"There's no doubt that this bill would help Republican causes," said Richard Sunderland III, head of the College Republicans at Dartmouth College. But, he added, "this doesn't help if the Republican Party wants to try to win over people in the 18-to-24 age range."

After posting O'Brien's comments about college students on the Internet, state Democratic Party officials accused the GOP of pushing the legislation to rig elections. Voting rights advocates have noted that the courts have affirmed the rights of students to vote where they live.

A spokeswoman for O'Brien said he had not endorsed specific legislation but had spoken out in favor generally of tightening state voting laws.

Same-day registration "coupled with a lax definition of residency creates an environment in which people may be claiming residency in multiple locations," O'Brien said in a written statement from his office. He added that changing the law "is not an idea targeting any particular political party or ideology."

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

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

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

Speaker O'Brian was refreshingly honest: They vote Democratic, let's remove their ability to vote.

[ShadowDragon8685]

If this goes through, the reaction it deserves is violence.

It won't get it, but this is nothing short of a bald-faced attempt to disenfranchise a specific voting block because they vote for the other side.


Or to put it another way: were the tables turned, these assholes would be howling for "Second Amendment Solutions" if someone proposed disenfranchising the ultra-religious on the grounds of them voting their religion and not secular reasons, or if someone proposed disenfranchising Tea Partiers on the grounds of them being batshit insane.

And they would not be wrong to do so. When a system has stopped fundamentally listening to you because you present an opposing viewpoint they don't want to hear and don't want to allow to participate in government, the system is breaking down.

[gizmojumpjet]

Won't the students be able to vote in their homes states? How can this be considered disenfranchising them?

If this goes through, the reaction it deserves is violence.

It won't get it, but this is nothing short of a bald-faced attempt to disenfranchise a specific voting block because they vote for the other side.

I thought we were supposed to be elevating the debate in the wake of the Giffords shooting. Nice job sounding like an internet tough guy, you miserable shitstain.

[Molyneux]

Won't the students be able to vote in their homes states? How can this be considered disenfranchising them?

If you're in college, it's often quite difficult to get home for a single day, especially when you may well have classes scheduled for that day. Forcing students to travel to a different state in order to vote is de facto disenfranchisement.

[Akhlut]

Won't the students be able to vote in their homes states? How can this be considered disenfranchising them?

When I was in college, I lived in Wisconsin for 9 months of the year, as opposed to 3 months of the year I lived in Illinois. Thus, for four years, I had a much more vested interest in Wisconsin politics then in Illinois politics. So, if I couldn't have voted in Wisconsin, I would have been effectively disenfranchised from participating in politics that had a very profound effect on me.

[gizmojumpjet]

Won't the students be able to vote in their homes states? How can this be considered disenfranchising them?

If you're in college, it's often quite difficult to get home for a single day, especially when you may well have classes scheduled for that day. Forcing students to travel to a different state in order to vote is de facto disenfranchisement.

What would prevent you from sending in an absentee ballot?

When I was in college, I lived in Wisconsin for 9 months of the year, as opposed to 3 months of the year I lived in Illinois. Thus, for four years, I had a much more vested interest in Wisconsin politics then in Illinois politics. So, if I couldn't have voted in Wisconsin, I would have been effectively disenfranchised from participating in politics that had a very profound effect on me.

This seems reasonable, but I can also see it from the point of view of state-natives who might see college students as temporary residents who shouldn't have such an impact on the governing of the state.

[Molyneux]

Won't the students be able to vote in their homes states? How can this be considered disenfranchising them?

If you're in college, it's often quite difficult to get home for a single day, especially when you may well have classes scheduled for that day. Forcing students to travel to a different state in order to vote is de facto disenfranchisement.

What would prevent you from sending in an absentee ballot?

Nothing, but you must admit that requesting and sending in an absentee ballot is significantly more difficult than voting in person. In addition, primary elections (to the best of my knowledge) do not generally allow absentee ballots.

[Akhlut]

When I was in college, I lived in Wisconsin for 9 months of the year, as opposed to 3 months of the year I lived in Illinois. Thus, for four years, I had a much more vested interest in Wisconsin politics then in Illinois politics. So, if I couldn't have voted in Wisconsin, I would have been effectively disenfranchised from participating in politics that had a very profound effect on me.

This seems reasonable, but I can also see it from the point of view of state-natives who might see college students as temporary residents who shouldn't have such an impact on the governing of the state.

It's a bit of a trade-off; the locals are more then willing to sop up the money the students spend for their local economies (both municipal and state) and create an environment to attract those students, so they should be willing to accept that those students should be able to vote in local/state elections, since the decisions of the elected officials will have a profound effect on them. Otherwise, it's complete bullshit; they'll happily accept any money from the students into the local economy without giving them any power to affect the system. Were the same done to them, I'm sure they'd be more then unhappy about it.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Won't the students be able to vote in their homes states? How can this be considered disenfranchising them?

Molyneux and Akhlut have addressed this quite adequately, I believe. If someone lives in State X for the majority of the year and in State Y the rest of the year, most people would call them a resident of State X, with their vested interests lying primarily in State X's politics. What we have here is State X trying to say "No, even though they live here most of the year, we don't want their input, so they can't vote here," effectively disenfranchising them from participating in the politics of the state they have the most vested interest in. Telling them that they're free to vote in State Y's affairs - if they travel back to State Y, which they may have to do in order to vote there if that state doesn't have adequate provisions for absentee voting - is inadequate, as their interests are vested in the affairs of State X.

Or did you think that the extent of enfranchisement was being able to put a checkmark next to a name for PotUS once every four years, shitforbrains?

I thought we were supposed to be elevating the debate in the wake of the Giffords shooting. Nice job sounding like an internet tough guy, you miserable shitstain.

A people can not, should not, and must not tolerate being disenfranchised. But if they're disenfranchised, exactly what are they supposed to do about it? Impotently march and hold parades? Bed those who are not disenfranchised to stand up to reinfranchise them?

Taking away someone's right to participate in government is only one step below actually revoking their citizenship and kicking them to a border - any border - as persona non grata. It's one of the most extreme things a government can do, ranking up there with revoking someone's personal liberties and revoking their right to continued respiration. That we disenfranchise felons is a sticky issue that many would disagree with.

Disenfranchising an entire voting bloc, because they tend to vote for the 'other' group, is outright unacceptable. If anything in politics is worth standing up and fighting for, if anything requires that you protest with violence, that is it.

Nice job not thinking, you dimwited cuntsmear. Violence is a last resort and only a last resort, but the scenario described is one in which all other resorts have been removed.

[gizmojumpjet]

Molyneux and Akhlut have addressed this quite adequately, I believe. If someone lives in State X for the majority of the year and in State Y the rest of the year, most people would call them a resident of State X, with their vested interests lying primarily in State X's politics.

If they have a vested interest in the local politics, why not establish residency there? I've never moved out of state so maybe there's some prohibitive residency issues going on that I'm not aware of, which is why I'm asking questions instead of saying people should get violent.

A people can not, should not, and must not tolerate being disenfranchised. But if they're disenfranchised, exactly what are they supposed to do about it? Impotently march and hold parades? Bed those who are not disenfranchised to stand up to reinfranchise them?

We have these things called "courts" where grivances can be aired and wrongs made right. But the thought of arguing your case in the courts should this go into effect didn't even occur to you. You didn't say "If this goes through, the reaction it deserves is agressive litigation." You went right for the jugular: "If this goes through, the reaction it deserves is violence."

I am curious. In the event that this legislation went into effect, who, in your mind, would this violence be most justifiably be directed against, and what form would this violence take? Who do you think deserves what, because you don't think they deserve to be hauled into court. I look forward to your answers to these questions.

Taking away someone's right to participate in government is only one step below actually revoking their citizenship and kicking them to a border - any border - as persona non grata. It's one of the most extreme things a government can do, ranking up there with revoking someone's personal liberties and revoking their right to continued respiration. That we disenfranchise felons is a sticky issue that many would disagree with.

Disenfranchising an entire voting bloc, because they tend to vote for the 'other' group, is outright unacceptable. If anything in politics is worth standing up and fighting for, if anything requires that you protest with violence, that is it.

Since we're on the subject of things we find outright unacceptable, I find your advocacy for political violence to be just that. Just so you know.

[gizmojumpjet]

Nothing, but you must admit that requesting and sending in an absentee ballot is significantly more difficult than voting in person. In addition, primary elections (to the best of my knowledge) do not generally allow absentee ballots.

Actually, I'll take issue with this and assert, at least in my state, absentee voting seems significantly easier than voting in person. It requires me mailing in a form or even requesting a form online, which is then mailed back. So with a single stamp and a walk to the mailbox, I've voted. I can't imagine how this process could be described as significantly difficult by any reasonable metric.

For someone like me who hates driving, public places, and waiting in queues, this sounds as nifty as Netflix. I'd do it every year if I was eligible.

If it's harder in other states, that sound to me like an absentee-ballot-process reform issue rather than a it's-time-to-bomb-the-capital issue. Yes, I know you're not the one advocating violence.

[Edi]

If this goes through, the reaction it deserves is violence.

It won't get it, but this is nothing short of a bald-faced attempt to disenfranchise a specific voting block because they vote for the other side.


Or to put it another way: were the tables turned, these assholes would be howling for "Second Amendment Solutions" if someone proposed disenfranchising the ultra-religious on the grounds of them voting their religion and not secular reasons, or if someone proposed disenfranchising Tea Partiers on the grounds of them being batshit insane.

And they would not be wrong to do so. When a system has stopped fundamentally listening to you because you present an opposing viewpoint they don't want to hear and don't want to allow to participate in government, the system is breaking down.

Shut the fuck up, you drooling moron. Advocating violence is not an acceptable answer here and you are again just frothing at the mouth with your usual shitposting style that is all rabid raving and no substance.

You've been warned about similar behavior in the past and you've been titled because of it, yet you just don't fucking learn. Your fate will be decided once the various administrative options have been sufficiently deliberated.

[ShadowDragon8685]

If they have a vested interest in the local politics, why not establish residency there? I've never moved out of state so maybe there's some prohibitive residency issues going on that I'm not aware of, which is why I'm asking questions instead of saying people should get violent.

To the best of my knowledge, in most places you can't establish residency with the type of temporary housing that is a college dormitory. Thus, to establish residency, you'd need to go and rent an apartment, which does in fact place prohibitive costs on the students; they have to locate an available rental location, and then they'd have to actually pony up the dough. Doing so would also require them to go to that state's DMV and get a new driver's license (fee, time, background check, proof of identity,) re-register their auto if they have one (fee, time, proof of identity,) and reinsure their auto (fee, time.)

And then you have to change it all back again when/if you graduate for good and move back to the home state of your old residency. So yes, I do consider that to be placing an unreasonably high residency burden on someone who has a clear vested interest in your state, is bringing money to your state, and is living in your state most of the year, but is also a student who likely have extremely limited personal finances and time in which to do this - because ostensibly they're also supposed to be getting an education at the same time.

We have these things called "courts" where grivances can be aired and wrongs made right. But the thought of arguing your case in the courts should this go into effect didn't even occur to you. You didn't say "If this goes through, the reaction it deserves is agressive litigation." You went right for the jugular: "If this goes through, the reaction it deserves is violence."

I am curious. In the event that this legislation went into effect, who, in your mind, would this violence be most justifiably be directed against, and what form would this violence take? Who do you think deserves what, because you don't think they deserve to be hauled into court. I look forward to your answers to these questions.

No-one in particular. I'm certainly not saying that people should be killeed, but it at least calls for a unruly civil disturbance, a clear demonstration of outrage, and the willingness of aggrieved persons to act.

Since we're on the subject of things we find outright unacceptable, I find your advocacy for political violence to be just that. Just so you know.

Sorry dude, but some things deserve a violent reaction. This is the equivalent of someone slashing your tires, taking a dump in the driver's seat of your car and throwing rocks through the windows of your house. A noble man might not react violently, or a cowardly man might not, but violence is a deserved reaction to that sort of thing.

Can you really say that if someone did that to you, you wouldn't want to knock him on his ass?

[Simon_Jester]

Keyboard-rage aside...

There is a really fundamental issue of democracy here, and the fact that things like this are coming up is a sign of two things.

One, I think it means the far right is getting desperate: the policymakers for that faction of American politics (those factions?) know perfectly well that demographics are against them and that the farther they push the country in the direction they want it to go, the more people are apt to resent being pushed there, because it stinks living in the Tea Party vision of America. Therefore, they have concluded that they need to "fix" America: perform plastic surgery on the country, as it were, to mutilate remake it in an image that will back their ambitions.

Two, I think it is a sign that the system is failing to adequately persuade anti-democracy elements in our society that threats to democracy itself (as distinct from disagreements over policy) will be quashed by peaceful means. This is not a good thing. It encourages fools and madmen on both sides to start looking towards violence as a way to solve all their problems in one go: string up a few politicoes from lamp posts, that'll fix things! Suuure.

This is an especially big problem because of the way it affects people who have an institutional inability to understand that a democratic society might, after free and fair discussion, not want to do what they want to do. Again, that can apply to fools and madmen on both sides.

[Dalton]

ATTN ShadowDragon8685: Your shit is tiresome, and if I see one more post from you advocating violence, I will ban you for a month. Am I clear?

[Molyneux]

Nothing, but you must admit that requesting and sending in an absentee ballot is significantly more difficult than voting in person. In addition, primary elections (to the best of my knowledge) do not generally allow absentee ballots.

Actually, I'll take issue with this and assert, at least in my state, absentee voting seems significantly easier than voting in person. It requires me mailing in a form or even requesting a form online, which is then mailed back. So with a single stamp and a walk to the mailbox, I've voted. I can't imagine how this process could be described as significantly difficult by any reasonable metric.

For someone like me who hates driving, public places, and waiting in queues, this sounds as nifty as Netflix. I'd do it every year if I was eligible.

If it's harder in other states, that sound to me like an absentee-ballot-process reform issue rather than a it's-time-to-bomb-the-capital issue. Yes, I know you're not the one advocating violence.

You have a point. However, I did overlook one pertinent argument that ShadowDragon presented - in many cases, these students are spending most of the year living in the state where their college is located. Why should they be prevented from voting in the state where they are, more often than not, living?

[Psychic_Sandwich]

That is indeed a good point. If somebody actually moved to that state for four years, as a non student, they would of course get the vote. Even if they the moved out of the state after that time, there wouldn't be any argument that they should be allowed to participate in the political process. Just because students aren't necessarily going to live in a state for the rest of their life, doesn't meant they don't also deserve political representation, given that they're going to be affected by laws passed in that state. They are basically living there for the better part of half a decade, after all.

[Alphawolf55]

To the best of my knowledge, in most places you can't establish residency with the type of temporary housing that is a college dormitory. Thus, to establish residency, you'd need to go and rent an apartment, which does in fact place prohibitive costs on the students; they have to locate an available rental location, and then they'd have to actually pony up the dough. Doing so would also require them to go to that state's DMV and get a new driver's license (fee, time, background check, proof of identity,) re-register their auto if they have one (fee, time, proof of identity,) and reinsure their auto (fee, time.)

You're right about certain things but not about others.Student dorming is not generally considered conductive to form residency because in most states to gain residency, you must be intending long term residency but to claim that apartments cost far more then dorming is just not true.Dorming is generally 6000 a year for a shared room, the average NH room is around 500-800 a month. Also in alot of places there's no real requirement to change your license.

Now here's my feeling about it, I don't think non-NH residents should be voting in NH elections, sure they may have a short term interest in the election process, but they do not hold a long term interest, if they do then they should get residency, there are absentee ballots to make it so they can vote. Now the idea that actual residents have to vote in their original town is just plain stupid though. They're residents, being a resident of Dover shouldn't make any difference on your ability to vote then does being a resident of Nottingham.

What Im wondering is what is happening to NH? It use to be statistically arguably the best state in the union and now it seems to be plunging in quality.

[The Romulan Republic]

If this goes through, the reaction it deserves is violence.

You can't try violence before legal avenues and peaceful protest are no longer possible. Jesus Christ.

Or to put it another way: were the tables turned, these assholes would be howling for "Second Amendment Solutions" if someone proposed disenfranchising the ultra-religious on the grounds of them voting their religion and not secular reasons, or if someone proposed disenfranchising Tea Partiers on the grounds of them being batshit insane.

Yes, so lets try to be better than them.

And they would not be wrong to do so.

Yes, they would.

When a system has stopped fundamentally listening to you because you present an opposing viewpoint they don't want to hear and don't want to allow to participate in government, the system is breaking down.

And resorting to civil war as anything other than an absolute last resort in the most extreme circumstances is only making it more broken.

Edit: Anyway, all that aside, this is obviously evil and corrupt, and yet another sigh of the totalitarian direction America is heading. I hope that this attempt is met with the full condemnation it deserves, and inspires as many youth as possible to get out and vote against the GOP.

[General Zod]

To the best of my knowledge, in most places you can't establish residency with the type of temporary housing that is a college dormitory. Thus, to establish residency, you'd need to go and rent an apartment, which does in fact place prohibitive costs on the students; they have to locate an available rental location, and then they'd have to actually pony up the dough. Doing so would also require them to go to that state's DMV and get a new driver's license (fee, time, background check, proof of identity,) re-register their auto if they have one (fee, time, proof of identity,) and reinsure their auto (fee, time.)

You're right about certain things but not about others.Student dorming is not generally considered conductive to form residency because in most states to gain residency, you must be intending long term residency but to claim that apartments cost far more then dorming is just not true.Dorming is generally 6000 a year for a shared room, the average NH room is around 500-800 a month. Also in alot of places there's no real requirement to change your license.

Now here's my feeling about it, I don't think non-NH residents should be voting in NH elections, sure they may have a short term interest in the election process, but they do not hold a long term interest, if they do then they should get residency, there are absentee ballots to make it so they can vote. Now the idea that actual residents have to vote in their original town is just plain stupid though. They're residents, being a resident of Dover shouldn't make any difference on your ability to vote then does being a resident of Nottingham.

What Im wondering is what is happening to NH? It use to be statistically arguably the best state in the union and now it seems to be plunging in quality.

I thought we abolished this "long term residency" nonsense when they removed the ownership of property as a requirement to vote?

[Omega18]

You're right about certain things but not about others.Student dorming is not generally considered conductive to form residency because in most states to gain residency, you must be intending long term residency but to claim that apartments cost far more then dorming is just not true.Dorming is generally 6000 a year for a shared room, the average NH room is around 500-800 a month. Also in alot of places there's no real requirement to change your license.

On the other hand with regards to the residency issue, even if you're only likely living in a place for say 8 months for example while temporarily doing something specific for the company you're working for in a different location but then are almost certainly moving back to your original location elsewhere and the original location for the company vote, you should be able to vote in the election no problem. (At least given the right timing with the example.) It should be noted that there are definitely states where a student dorm is not a barrier to registering.

You also could absolutely be intending to permanently live in the new state you are attending college in, especially given that specific universities are usually better known by companies and organizations in the state in question versus other ones. (Baring the obvious exceptionally high profile colleges.)

[RogueIce]

Now the idea that actual residents have to vote in their original town is just plain stupid though. They're residents, being a resident of Dover shouldn't make any difference on your ability to vote then does being a resident of Nottingham.

I think it would matter for local elections. Why should someone who lives in Dover vote for Nottingham's mayor, after all?

[General Zod]

Now the idea that actual residents have to vote in their original town is just plain stupid though. They're residents, being a resident of Dover shouldn't make any difference on your ability to vote then does being a resident of Nottingham.

I think it would matter for local elections. Why should someone who lives in Dover vote for Nottingham's mayor, after all?

I'm pretty sure most states already have regulations about not allowing people to vote outside their district for local elections.

[Alphawolf55]

To the best of my knowledge, in most places you can't establish residency with the type of temporary housing that is a college dormitory. Thus, to establish residency, you'd need to go and rent an apartment, which does in fact place prohibitive costs on the students; they have to locate an available rental location, and then they'd have to actually pony up the dough. Doing so would also require them to go to that state's DMV and get a new driver's license (fee, time, background check, proof of identity,) re-register their auto if they have one (fee, time, proof of identity,) and reinsure their auto (fee, time.)

You're right about certain things but not about others.Student dorming is not generally considered conductive to form residency because in most states to gain residency, you must be intending long term residency but to claim that apartments cost far more then dorming is just not true.Dorming is generally 6000 a year for a shared room, the average NH room is around 500-800 a month. Also in alot of places there's no real requirement to change your license.

Now here's my feeling about it, I don't think non-NH residents should be voting in NH elections, sure they may have a short term interest in the election process, but they do not hold a long term interest, if they do then they should get residency, there are absentee ballots to make it so they can vote. Now the idea that actual residents have to vote in their original town is just plain stupid though. They're residents, being a resident of Dover shouldn't make any difference on your ability to vote then does being a resident of Nottingham.

What Im wondering is what is happening to NH? It use to be statistically arguably the best state in the union and now it seems to be plunging in quality.

I thought we abolished this "long term residency" nonsense when they removed the ownership of property as a requirement to vote?

Yeah because the two concepts aren't completely different

[General Zod]

Yeah because the two concepts aren't completely different

So how exactly would you ensure homeless people aren't disenfranchised? An ID card is the only thing you should need in order to vote.