Galois: Disenfranchising College Students

Books Relevant to Same-Sex Marriage

Other Books of Interest

My Wish List

Blog powered by Typepad

Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Lewis v. Harris: The Families | Main | SSM and Conflict of Laws »

May 07, 2004

Disenfranchising College Students

Jonah Goldberg is not troubled in the least by creating biased standards of voter eligibilty in violaton of the fourteenth and twenty-sixth amendments to the US Constitution. It's fine with him if one disenfranchises college students because, hey, they might vote for socialists. And they might want to support the environment.

Goldberg was responding to this post by Nick Confessore at TAPPED which was itself a quick summary of this article in Rolling Stone by Damien Cave. Now Goldberg admits he didn't bother to read Cave's article, so maybe he was unaware that Cave is referring to blatant constitutional violations. Perhaps he was also unaware that in 1979 the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision of a three-judge District Court panel which established the right of college students to establish residency in the local college town. (For a detailed analysis of the case and a copy of the District Court injunction see this advisory opinion by Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbot.)

But forget about that pesty little thing called the US Constitution for a second. Maybe there are good reasons for disenfranchising college students. What are Goldberg's reasons? Well as noted before they might vote with the socialists, or otherwise vote for environmental friendly policies. Furthermore:

They don't care about property values, the quality of the schools, the business climate, the traditions, values, standards, prospects etc of the small town they're in -- at least not in the way residents who devote their lives and their children's upbringing do.

Yes because they might have different values or priorities than other town residents they should be disenfranchised. Oh yes and Goldberg says they are "spoiled." That's right spoiled rich kids shouldn't be able to vote. It's also okay to disenfranchise college students because they don't pay property tax. Forget for a moment that the fees the students pay for dorms are almost certainly affected by the rate of property tax. Haven't we been allowing people who don't own property to vote for awhile now? Now military bases are I believe exempt from local property taxes. Most military personnel are only stationed there for limited time periods. I wonder if Goldberg would like to disenfranchise those "tourists" as well.

As with military personnel, college students are not required to establish residency in their local towns if they do not wish to do so. Why might a college student be interested in voting where they go to school? Well, most students spend at least nine months a year at college. Even when they go elsewhere over the summer, it isn't necessarily to where their parents live. And according to this page by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts even the average Amerian family moves once every four years. Many college students do more volunteer work in the community than the "permanent residents". Issues such as zoning ordinances, the cost of off-camups housing, crime, and public transportation greatly affect college students. Gold erg even brings an example from a reader about college students helping to remove alcohol prohibitions from a county. I know when I was in college I would have been deeply interested in whether the sale of alcohol was legal. The reader complains that they don't have to worry about the increased crime due to the new law, but I fail to see how college students are unaffected by the crime rate.

I'm curious as to what Goldberg would have had me do. I grew up just outside of St. Louis, MO. I then went to school in Houston, TX for four years, followed by five years of school in New York, NY. The last three years I have been working in a three year post-doctoral postion just outside of New Haven, CT. And at the end of the summer I will be moving again. For the past twelve years, therefore, I have always lived with the understanding I would likely only be residing in that location for a limited time. Should I have been voting these past twelve years in Missouri, to where I'm only likely to ever return for brief visits to family? Yes, at times it's a little weird. In the 1992, 1996, and 2004 presidential elections I voted in one state in the primary/caucus only to vote in another state in November. I just turned thirty, but I have now voted in the primary or caucus of four different states. So perhaps I don't share all the same values of the permanent residents of a town, but my vote should count just the same.

04:10 PM in Other: Election Methods | Permalink

Comments

I once declined to vote in an election where I knew that I would be moving out in the week immediately following. But college students strike me as having much more investment in their chosen communities than even many residents might have: For the rest of their lives, that little college town is going to be the site of their alma mater. They're likely to visit it several times and, if they had a good experience, to contribute money toward that school's continuance. In fact, when you consider the often transitory nature of modern jobs and housing, I'd even say that a lot college students have a greater stake in the community than most residents.

But there's something tremendously insidious here: It's the premise that those with greater stake in the community ought to have greater representation in the first place.

Perhaps, then, we should give Churches, corporations, community groups, and other entities the vote as well, since they also have a stake in the community? Maybe they should get more of a vote than individuals, since these entities will be around for longer?

Amd maybe we should deny the vote to individuals entirely, because all individuals are transitory in this mortal life...

Posted by: Jason Kuznicki | May 07, 2004 at 06:24 PM

I too moved around when I was an undergraduate.
My family lived in Libertyville, Illinois.
The summer before Freshman year, I worked in New Jersey. I went to school in Chicago.
The summer after Freshman year, I worked in Naperville, I went to school in chicago.
The summer after Sop. year, I wored in Ohio, I went to France junior year.
The next summer, back to Naperville, then school in Chicago.

I voted in Chicago.
Had I been an itinerant waitress, I would have met the residency requirements to vote in Chicago. So, why should I be disenfranchised simply because I went to school.

Granted, not even Mr. Goldberg would consider Chicago a small town. Students votes are hardly likely to skew any results.

However, my two sisters were undegradutes at UofI in Urbana. Like most students, they rented an apartment after sophomore year. Like most students, my younger sister took a job away from my parents home during summers. (She worked in Rochester NY).

And like many students both paid for a portion of their schooling. (I had a full tuition room and board scholarship. So, who paid was irrelevant.)

As to the "spoiled rich kids" aspect. Many, many students are not "rich kids" an are not being put through school by solely by their parents. One of my classmates grew up in the projects, her parents paid nothing.

But even if all college kids were trust fund babies, since when have we disenfranchised people born with silver spoons in their mouths?

Posted by: lucia | May 08, 2004 at 10:43 AM

I was prepared to defend Jonah whose writing and common-sense I typically admire.

Jonah has written other articles saying that low-voter turnout is not necessarily a negative indicator. His view is that getting people to vote who are neither interested nor knowledgeable about issues (either local or national) is not a positive outcome. I happen to agree with him there.

For example, the argument that the so-called republican revolution in 1994 was supported by a small minority of the voters (40% of 60% = 24%) and therefore not legitimate is a poor argument. I am sure that if Democrats took control of Congress in the same fashion, that same logic would be used by the likes of Rush Limbaugh to say that the election of Democrats did not represent 'the public' view.

Therefore, in this case I believe Jonah's view is based more on his conservative ideology than solid logic. Would he feel the same way about a vote on an abortion related issue in South Carolina where the students at Bob Jones University voted in large numbers ? My guess is in that scenario, the pro-choice groups would be raising the same issue about the rights of college students to vote that he is in this case.

Just another example of the arbitrary application of rationale based on ones ideology. In other words, partisanship.

I thought that Jonah was one of the pundits above that. But, in this case, it appears not.

Posted by: Mark Miller | May 10, 2004 at 05:31 PM

I don't believe that this is necessarily a partisan issue. For example, for all I know Goldberg would still hold the same view if the situation were reversed as in your BJU hypothetical. The problem I have is the same one the court in Texas had. That is Goldberg favors--or at least has no problem with--biased eligibility standards. College students (over 18) have the same right to vote as everyone else, and they have the right to declare their residency on the same basis as others.

As for low voter turnout, I happen to think it is indicative of a larger problem. You can say only those interested or knowledgable about issues should be voting, but I would still see a problem in such apathy and ignorance in the United States. Also is a low voter turnout simply a sign of apathy and ignorance, or are there other issues involved. For example, when most congressional districts are decided by a landslide why bother voting. Perhaps we should consider alternate election systems, like proportional representation.

In any case, even if one did think that the uninformed and apathetic should not vote, why discourage college students from voting? Why not apply the same standards to everyone?

Posted by: Galois | May 10, 2004 at 06:06 PM

In any case, even if one did think that the uninformed and apathetic should not vote....
The low voter turn out issue is irrelevant in this case. The towns weren't motivated to disenfranchise the students because the students were uninformed and apathetic. They wished to disenfranchise them because the students enthusiastically informed themselves about issues and voted.

Posted by: lucia | May 10, 2004 at 06:22 PM

Exactly Lucia. These college students are certainly not apathetic, and are likely very well informed.

Posted by: Galois | May 10, 2004 at 06:30 PM

I still think Goldberg's comments are more indicative of ideology and based on the how those specific college students would vote. And I agree that his comment regarding the effect of crime is lame. How about the effect on schools for elderly voters who always vote down school levies ? Should their bias on taxes affect their eligibility to vote ?

Regarding low voter turnout, I agree that voter apathy and ignorance and other issues such as the constant polling and landslide issue that you referred to all affect voter turnout. Where I agree with Goldberg is that this isn't the serious social problem that some say.

While I happen to think that voting should not be based solely on one issue such as abortion, gay rights or even by strict political party (and I believe that is a negative result), I wouldn't say that there should be some baised eligibility standards either.

But if a law came up where a person had to have a certain knowledge of the issues to be allowed to vote, I'm not sure how I would feel about that. I do think it could result in better decisions by the eligible voters but I also think that the result of making certian people ineligible to vote for ANY reason borders on infrigement of freedom and civil rights. And I'll agree that trumps all.

Posted by: Mark Miller | May 11, 2004 at 12:18 PM

But if a law came up where a person had to have a certain knowledge of the issues to be allowed to vote, I'm not sure how I would feel about that.

I would think the law was perverse and highly undemocratic. Such a law would almost certainly be used to disenfranchise rightful voters.

I don't believe it is possible to draft a fair test to determine whether or not someone is sufficiently knowledgable of the issues to vote without introducing a political bias.

Posted by: lucia | May 11, 2004 at 01:23 PM

I'm with Lucia on this one. I agree it would almost certainly be better if voters were better informed. I'm torn about whether in theory only those knowledgable of the issues should be able to vote. In practice, though I would oppose any such scheme. It gets the government into making decisions about who should be voting and for what reasons, that I don't want the government to be making. What is evidence that one is knowledgable about the issues? Which issues must they know about? Etc.

In this case, while I would like a more informed electorate, I think the only solution is to work to educate voters, not to limit who may vote. A similar issue came up with regards to people entering into "sham marriages". I don't think people should be getting married for the wrong reasons, but I certainly don't want the government to be making the determination of what are the "right" reasons to marry. Nor would I like any method of determining what one's reasons for marriage were.

So yes, I don't particularly want someone entering a voting booth and deciding on whom to vote by flipping a coin. Nor do I want them deciding based on looks or countless other reasons. I'd like voters to vote based on an informed knowledge of the issues. But I also don't want somebody else telling me what I must base my vote on. So the only policy I can think of is to allow voters to vote on whatever basis they choose.

Posted by: Galois | May 11, 2004 at 01:45 PM

I don't disagree with either of you. It is not possible to draft a fair test to determine whether or not someone is sufficiently knowledgeable of the issues to vote without introducing a political bias.

As I said, the infringement of rights trumps all.

My point here is that Goldberg has written that low voter turnout does not necessarily represent or refer to a negative outcome. I happen to agree.

Even on the issue of same-sex marriage, if it were based solely on a vote, it would not happen (yet). In my opinion, it is those who are more informed on the facts (and the law) that are more supportive of it. (hence the attacks on the 'academic elites' as they are called)

This country is not a pure Democracy, it is a Republic with two distinct branches that are meant to *represent* the will of the people and the Judical branch that represents the Constitution. The bototm line is that the people do not get to vote on everything.

My point remains that Goldberg's view on the voting rights of college students, in this case, seems to be arbitrary based on the outcome. I don't know but I wonder if he was one of the conservatives screaming how it isn't fair that a few unelected judges are forcing same-sex marriage against the will of the people.

Posted by: Mark Miller | May 12, 2004 at 10:42 AM

Mark,
Actually, I didn't think you were disagreeing! ;-)

I posted to emphasize that I am certain, rather than uncertain about my thoughts on making voters pass "knowledge" tests to qualify for voting. You expressed some uncertainty.

I agree with you that Goldberg's position is based on outcome. In fact, his position in some sense proves my concern. He thinks it's ok to disenfranchise some groups of voters based on how they vote. The fact that the group is large enough to wint the election agree seems to provide additional justification to disenfranchise them. (Heck, why bother disenfranchising a group if they are so small in number they lose anyway?!)

Oh.. on voting, I have a minor quibble. We do get to vote on everything. We can vote to amend the Constitution. It's just that modifying the Constitution has been made intentionally more difficult than passing a bill.

Posted by: lucia | May 12, 2004 at 11:56 AM

Yep.

Regarding voting, we don't in the specific sense. There are scenarios in which a number of issues which may be popular (in the 'majority' sense) never get to the voters due to things that happen (or do not happen) in Congress. For example, the FMA will not be getting to the voters since it won't even get out of committee. I'm not saying that is bad thing. I'm just saying that while all the people may indirectly have a vote (or a voice) in a democracy - it isn't a direct involvement.

Posted by: Mark Miller | May 12, 2004 at 12:03 PM

Regarding voting, we don't in the specific sense
True. I agree in this sense. As a nation, we do not vote on many, many specific issues. We never have, and we never will. In my opinion, not voting on every single issue is a good thing. I do not want to inform myself on every single zoning issue that arises in my county.

We do vote directly on a some things, for example I vote on school referenda, and for that matter park district referenda, all the time. I'm glad for that.

I'm fairly satisfied with the system-- although I don't always get the specific laws I prefer.

Posted by: lucia | May 12, 2004 at 12:34 PM

"I'm fairly satisfied with the system-- although I
don't always get the specific laws I prefer."

Me neither. Maybe when I become a temporary dictator so I can change the Constitution(s) in order make everything the way I prefer and then go immediately back to the current system (with some slight modifications or should I say, improvements).

Yea. I'd never make it in politics.

Posted by: Mark Miller | May 12, 2004 at 01:18 PM