Student Voting
Political apathy and subsequent low voter turnout of youth (18-29) is often cited as fact. Many decry their political disengagement and apparent laziness, but recent election cycles have presented a very different and much more troubling reason for why many youth do not vote.

Across the country, students reported that they were subjected to increased scrutiny, unequal treatment, and at times outright harassment when they attempted to register to vote or cast a ballot on Election Day. Such acts of voter intimidation and suppression are particularly distressing because most of the targeted individuals are registering to vote for the first time and are unfamiliar with election laws.

Despite the fact that every college student is entitled to register to vote at the residence he or she considers "home," including a campus residence, many college communities actively prevent college students from registering to vote where they attend school. Students around the country have faced difficulty registering to vote because of local officials. In the case of historically African-American Prairie View A&M in Texas, the District Attorney publicly stated that if students attempted to register to vote they would be prosecuted for voter fraud.

Common tactics used to dissuade students from registering to vote include:
  • Misinformation - telling college students they cannot register where they attend school or that if they register to vote at school they could be in jeopardy of losing financial aid, or that they are only able to vote where their parents pay taxes
  • Residency requirement legislation - The New Hampshire legislature passed a law after the 2000 presidential election that required newly registered voters to register their car and obtain a New Hampshire driver's license within 60 days or face criminal prosecution
Not only do students face challenges when trying to register to vote, but they also face challenges on Election Day.  In some instances, poll watchers have challenged students who are registered to vote by asking them to sign an affidavit affirming their citizenship and that they will only vote once. Long lines plagued many college campus polling places during the 2004, 2006 and 2008 election cycles.

Although students are not traditionally considered a targeted demographic for voter suppression, it is clear that they, too, face many hurdles when attempting to register and vote.

 
Articles on Student Voting
November 24th 2006
Oakland's IRV Author Believes System Will Work
Berkeley Daily Planet

While the clerks of Alameda County's (CA) three major cities want to implement the same form of instant runoff voting, the author of Measure O, which Oakland passed in November 2006, says minor differences are unlikely to drastically affect election

November 24th 2006
Campaign 2006 In Review
Asian Week

Columnist Phil Nash cites four November 2006 wins for instant runoff voting - and the San Francisco supervisor race where IRV ensured a majority winner - as positive developments for Asian Americans.

November 24th 2006
A welcome experiment with runoff votes
Seattle Times

According to the editors, King County and the entire state of Washington should follow Pierce County in restoring voter choice through instant runoff voting.

November 22nd 2006
Primary Killer
Seattle Weekly

FairVote Executive Director Rob Richie is quoted in this report on instant runoff voting's growing salience among Washington state voters.

November 21st 2006
EC consults with parties on CA polls
Nepal News

In an attempt to ensure that the upcoming Nepali elections will be free and fair, the Election Commission met with the major parties to set the election standards. Half of the CA will be elected by proportional representation.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]