College students can vote where they go to school
Published September 4, 2013
by Doug Clark, Greensboro News-Record, September 3, 2013.
Thanks to the State Board of Elections for reversing Pasquotank County's effort to disenfranchise college students.
The unanimous ruling by the Republican-majority state board technically only allows an Elizabeth City State University student to run for the city council. But Montravias King had been denied because he lived on campus. Pasquotank County Republican Party Chairman Pete Gilbert challenged his residency on that basis, and the local elections board agreed.
Gilbert might have fooled or bullied his local election board, but his claim was bogus. It has been long established by law and court decisions that college students can vote where they are enrolled. They are residents of their college towns in the same sense that military personnel are residents and eligible to vote in the communities where they are stationed.
The State Board of Elections affirmed that clear principle.
September 4, 2013 at 7:16 am
TP Wohlford says:
Each person has a legal residence. Normally this is the address on your driver's license and tax returns. Normally for a college student that is NOT their campus address. Normally this would be the address of their financial aid forms. The bottom line here is that one votes in the jurisdiction of their legal residence.
I wonder where their university determines legal residence in order to charge tuition? I wonder if the real issue here is that students claim a local address to qualify for in-state tuition? And I wonder if local politicians have a financial interest in all of the population-based money that would increase with a large number of "local" students? Is this a game of "follow the money" instead of some feigned voting issue?
September 4, 2013 at 8:38 am
Norm Kelly says:
So, if college students can vote where they are enrolled, what does "out of state" tuition really mean? Someone comes to NC from Wisconsin to attend NC State. They now reside on campus (or off-sight housing) to attend school here. They obviously (or should anyway) pay out of state tuition rates. But they are considered residents for voting purposes. Out of state for everything except voting? Is this what is implied by this post & by the BOE decision?
And does this ruling prevent the now in-state voter from also voting in the place where they actually live, in my example this would be Wisconsin? How does the local BOE and the state BOE in both states make sure that double voting does not take place?
Seems most logical that 1.) an out of state tuition payer is NOT a resident of NC, 2.) non-residents are NOT allowed to vote where they are not a resident, 3.) it is IMPOSSIBLE for the states BOEs to insure double voting does not take place, 4.) once an out of state college attendee is allowed to vote how long will it be before illegal aliens coming to NC will be allowed to vote. (this is the logical next step!)
At some point, residency has some meaning. Liberals like to extend the meaning of common sense words to mean completely different things, change the meaning of words to fit their needs/desires. Voting should be restricted to only residents. Residents of the US should be able to vote in national elections. Residents of a particular state should be able to vote in state-level elections. And on down the chain to local elections. Anyone who is not a resident of said locality should not be allowed to vote in that particular election.
Since this appears to be common sense, I don't understand why this isn't the way it's done today. Are we afraid to disenfranchise someone simply because they are ineligible to vote? What's to be afraid of? If they are ineligible, then we are NOT disenfranchising them. If they are ineligible to vote, they should not be allowed to vote. Simple. Done. Next topic.
But I suspect this will not be the end. Until anyone can vote anywhere anytime for any reason Liberals will not be happy. Let's not count the number of times an individual votes, cuz that might just make them feel bad. Isn't counting someone detrimental to their self-esteem? Isn't counting someone considered profiling? Why have any standards in voting at all? Who cares if election results are accurate & honest? Why don't we just let Democrats occupy every elected position for life, without possibility of parole, and stop calling it an elected position. We'll just start calling them appointed for life positions. The next Democrat who expresses a desire to hold a position can simply take it and hold it until they get tired of it or die.
September 4, 2013 at 8:56 am
Richard Bunce says:
... only if they are registered, at least 18, not a felon, not in prison, a citizen of the US... and presents proper ID at the poll.
