New Hampshire disenfranchisement push.

[Gil Hamilton]

Beyond the completely valid points made about how college students have more vested political interest in where they are at than in their home state...

Casting absentee ballots can be a pain in the ass. I requested an absentee ballot to vote in PA my first year of graduate school and they managed to send it to me late enough that by the time I got it and filled it out, they had stopped taking them. Further, absentee ballots have, with surprising regularity been disallowed by technicalities from party vote watchers whom have a vested interest in disqualifying certain demographics. I point to our folks in the military and what has happened to their absentee ballots in certain electons.

Secondly, it's not merely a matter of residency. Getting residency is easy enough. I have Arizona residency now as a byproduct of going to the DMV and getting an Arizona driver's license. However, read the article. It's not just having residency, it's having previously established permanent residency of you or your parents. In other words, even if you get residency, it's still not enough. They STILL wouldn't be able to vote with this.

Finally, the lawmakers involved have made it clear the reason they are doing this is specifically to reduce the number of democratic votes in New Hampshire. That, by itself, should be a reason to chuck this, since the legislation isn't for the improvement of the state, but for political warfare.

[Alphawolf55]

As long as the homeless could prove they've been in the state for a certain amount of time. Which could be documented by homeless shelters, family members or friends through mail addresses, ect. There should be no problem.

Again if we don't let foreign citizens vote in our country when they live here with vistas, why should we let people from other states vote in state elections?

But I agree with Gil, this law is stupid. If someone wants to change their state residency and become a member of a new state then I have no problem, but requiring them to prove somehow that they always planned on being there is stupid.

Though what would it take to get permament residency? Renting an apartment? Having a job?

[General Zod]

As long as the homeless could prove they've been in the state for a certain amount of time. Which could be documented by homeless shelters, family members or friends through mail addresses, ect. There should be no problem.

Again if we don't let foreign citizens vote in our country when they live here with vistas, why should we let people from other states vote in state elections?

But I agree with Gil, this law is stupid. If someone wants to change their state residency and become a member of a new state then I have no problem, but requiring them to prove somehow that they always planned on being there is stupid.

Though what would it take to get permament residency? Renting an apartment? Having a job?

You're making this more complicated than it has to be. The only thing a state requires in order to be considered a permanent resident is . . . guess what? An ID card. Most states have very minimal requirements for them.

[Alphawolf55]

And yet you didn't answer my question at all. If foreign citizens who are going to live in the US for a few years can't vote in elections, why should citizens from different states vote in state matters? Why is one groups short term interest valid, but another not ? Unless you believe that foreign citizens should be able to vote, no problem in that.

[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?

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

Yes, they do. But Alphawolf was talking about letting people vote outside their original town (even when it's still the same state; such as going to college in North State when you live in South State) which would tend to imply letting people vote outside their district. Hence my pointing out local elections as a reason it wouldn't be a great idea.

[Alphawolf55]

I was talking about for state elections, and primary presidential elections. Sorry I should have clarified.

[Soontir C'boath]

And yet you didn't answer my question at all. If foreign citizens who are going to live in the US for a few years can't vote in elections, why should citizens from different states vote in state matters?

They are US Citizens who have a right to vote in the US of A?

As mentioned before, a student may stay for four years in school which can be as long as one term for most offices. What those people do while in office may affect them.

Why is one groups short term interest valid, but another not ?

They are not citizens.

Unless you believe that foreign citizens should be able to vote, no problem in that.

Someone is forgetting that there are people called resident aliens who live here long term and cannot vote.

[Lusankya]

Wow. The American system is more like the Chinese system than I knew. In China, everyone has a hukou, which limits their rights outside of the area where their hukou is, in order to control the movement of the population. Sure, the rights that are limited are different (in China, it's related to education and employment, but in the US it's related to voting rights), but it's rather similar. If more states follow the lead of New Hampshire, then the US will effectively be using State Residency for the same effect.

[Alphawolf55]

And yet you didn't answer my question at all. If foreign citizens who are going to live in the US for a few years can't vote in elections, why should citizens from different states vote in state matters?

They are US Citizens who have a right to vote in the US of A?

As mentioned before, a student may stay for four years in school which can be as long as one term for most offices. What those people do while in office may affect them.

Why is one groups short term interest valid, but another not ?

They are not citizens.

Unless you believe that foreign citizens should be able to vote, no problem in that.

Someone is forgetting that there are people called resident aliens who live here long term and cannot vote.

Yeah they're citizens so they should be able to vote in their original state. but if you're going to argue that living in a state even for four years, give someones a vested interest in the affairs in the state, and a right to decide said affairs, then it shouldn't matter what country they're citizens of. They live there, thus the politics matter to them.

[Soontir C'boath]

Yeah they're citizens so they should be able to vote in their original state. but if you're going to argue that living in a state even for four years, give someones a vested interest in the affairs in the state, and a right to decide said affairs, then it shouldn't matter what country they're citizens of. They live there, thus the politics matter to them.

Unfortunately when it comes to matters of the state, the possible injection of foreign interests into local affairs intrudes in the way.

[RogueIce]

I was talking about for state elections, and primary presidential elections. Sorry I should have clarified.

But local elections are often had alongside broader state/national elections. So they'd essentially need an entirely different ballot to vote in their "new town" (one without the local offices/issues).

And then they'd need another seperate ballot for the "original town" so they could still vote for those issues as well (although granted there may not be overlap for a particular election; however if you're drafting law for this they'd likely need to prepare for the possibility, unless ALL local elections throughout the state are staggered in such a way that it'll never come up).

And then of course they'd need to track this to prevent duplication of votes. Seems like more effort than it's worth.

[bobalot]

Is this same standard going to be applied to members of the armed forces who are out of state?

[Block]

Is this same standard going to be applied to members of the armed forces who are out of state?

We've always had to vote in our home state.

Edit: Whereever our home of record that is. If you choose to and you live off base you can vote locally, but then you're paying for your housing and thus a resident of the state.

[Akhlut]

Again if we don't let foreign citizens vote in our country when they live here with vistas, why should we let people from other states vote in state elections?

Because foreign citizens aren't US citizens and do not have all the rights and privileges that US citizens have.

Yeah they're citizens so they should be able to vote in their original state. but if you're going to argue that living in a state even for four years, give someones a vested interest in the affairs in the state, and a right to decide said affairs, then it shouldn't matter what country they're citizens of. They live there, thus the politics matter to them.

Foreign citizens still aren't US citizens. All nations have a vested interest in maintaining only their own citizens casting votes; Bermuda certainly wouldn't want China shipping 100,000 people over and having them all vote for Chinese interests, to make a super-extreme example. States and other subnational units are not equivalent to nations and their interests. Nations, nominally, have a duty to represent the interests of their citizens, regardless of where they live, and subnational units should not try to restrict the political rights of citizens of the nation.

[Soldier of Entropy]

Wow. The American system is more like the Chinese system than I knew. In China, everyone has a hukou, which limits their rights outside of the area where their hukou is, in order to control the movement of the population. Sure, the rights that are limited are different (in China, it's related to education and employment, but in the US it's related to voting rights), but it's rather similar. If more states follow the lead of New Hampshire, then the US will effectively be using State Residency for the same effect.

I'm not sure this is really the same thing. While I wholeheartedly disagree with the law, and think it's an immoral, blatantly partisan attempt to weaken the Democratic Party in New Hampshire, the fact is that US states are much more powerful than their counterparts in other countries. The reason it's so important what state you vote in is because, in almost every election, the only issue that will be voted on by people of different states is the US President (once every four years). Everything else is a state election, many of them for quite powerful positions.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah they're citizens so they should be able to vote in their original state. but if you're going to argue that living in a state even for four years, give someones a vested interest in the affairs in the state, and a right to decide said affairs, then it shouldn't matter what country they're citizens of. They live there, thus the politics matter to them.

That whole 14th amendment thing. Citizens get to vote, however being a citizen of a state only requires A) Being a citizen of the US and B) living in said state. That is it. Once I set up a household of any sort in a state, I should be able to vote there.

That is why if this law passes, it will never pass constitutional muster. Ever.

[Darksider]

Could the assholes pushing this try to claim that living in a college dorm doesn't constitute having residence in that state? since you don't own a home or an apartment in it, and you (usually) return home for 3 months out of the year.

Although now that I've written that out, it sounds like arguing that case would be like trying to return to the times when only property owners can vote. I don't know. I'm just trying to wrap my head around exactly what rationale the people supporting this are using.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Could the assholes pushing this try to claim that living in a college dorm doesn't constitute having residence in that state? since you don't own a home or an apartment in it, and you (usually) return home for 3 months out of the year.

Although now that I've written that out, it sounds like arguing that case would be like trying to return to the times when only property owners can vote. I don't know. I'm just trying to wrap my head around exactly what rationale the people supporting this are using.

Dorms are effectively rental space with a 9 month lease. They fall under the laws of lease agreements.

[Terralthra]

As long as the homeless could prove they've been in the state for a certain amount of time. Which could be documented by homeless shelters, family members or friends through mail addresses, ect. There should be no problem.

Again if we don't let foreign citizens vote in our country when they live here with vistas, why should we let people from other states vote in state elections?

But I agree with Gil, this law is stupid. If someone wants to change their state residency and become a member of a new state then I have no problem, but requiring them to prove somehow that they always planned on being there is stupid.

Though what would it take to get permament residency? Renting an apartment? Having a job?

You're making this more complicated than it has to be. The only thing a state requires in order to be considered a permanent resident is . . . guess what? An ID card. Most states have very minimal requirements for them.

This is simply untrue. Many states have much more specific rules for residency, for example, when it comes to paying tuition at state universities. Out-of-state residents pay a significantly higher rate, and you don't get resident tuition just by having an ID card.

[General Zod]

As long as the homeless could prove they've been in the state for a certain amount of time. Which could be documented by homeless shelters, family members or friends through mail addresses, ect. There should be no problem.

Again if we don't let foreign citizens vote in our country when they live here with vistas, why should we let people from other states vote in state elections?

But I agree with Gil, this law is stupid. If someone wants to change their state residency and become a member of a new state then I have no problem, but requiring them to prove somehow that they always planned on being there is stupid.

Though what would it take to get permament residency? Renting an apartment? Having a job?

You're making this more complicated than it has to be. The only thing a state requires in order to be considered a permanent resident is . . . guess what? An ID card. Most states have very minimal requirements for them.

This is simply untrue. Many states have much more specific rules for residency, for example, when it comes to paying tuition at state universities. Out-of-state residents pay a significantly higher rate, and you don't get resident tuition just by having an ID card.

I'm talking about whether or not the state considers you a resident. Not whether or not a university considers you a resident, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[Rogue 9]

I was talking about for state elections, and primary presidential elections. Sorry I should have clarified.

But local elections are often had alongside broader state/national elections. So they'd essentially need an entirely different ballot to vote in their "new town" (one without the local offices/issues).

And then they'd need another seperate ballot for the "original town" so they could still vote for those issues as well (although granted there may not be overlap for a particular election; however if you're drafting law for this they'd likely need to prepare for the possibility, unless ALL local elections throughout the state are staggered in such a way that it'll never come up).

And then of course they'd need to track this to prevent duplication of votes. Seems like more effort than it's worth.

I've been a poll worker during primary elections before, and having multiple ballots isn't a challenging technical issue. The law is still wrong, but it wouldn't be hard to implement a separate ballot without local issues on it; we already have separate ballots for the Democratic and Republican primaries.

[Alphawolf55]

Although now that I've written that out, it sounds like arguing that case would be like trying to return to the times when only property owners can vote. I don't know. I'm just trying to wrap my head around exactly what rationale the people supporting this are using.

The difference between deeming someone needs to own property and someone needs to shows some sort of intention to live permanently in the state are completely different. Renting an apartment, having a job, living there with friends all could show the latter and doesn't completely exclude the poor.

[Akhlut]

Although now that I've written that out, it sounds like arguing that case would be like trying to return to the times when only property owners can vote. I don't know. I'm just trying to wrap my head around exactly what rationale the people supporting this are using.

The difference between deeming someone needs to own property and someone needs to shows some sort of intention to live permanently in the state are completely different. Renting an apartment, having a job, living there with friends all could show the latter and doesn't completely exclude the poor.

College students often rent apartments (or dorms) and usually have jobs in the community. Essentially, there's no way to set up a system where one excludes college students that cannot be used against other people.

[Alphawolf55]

Oh I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just disagreeing with the idea that requiring voters to establish some kind of permanent residency to vote is not nearly the same as requiring citizens to own property to vote.

[Terralthra]

This is simply untrue. Many states have much more specific rules for residency, for example, when it comes to paying tuition at state universities. Out-of-state residents pay a significantly higher rate, and you don't get resident tuition just by having an ID card.

I'm talking about whether or not the state considers you a resident. Not whether or not a university considers you a resident, so I'm not sure what your point is.

You're talking about the state, not the university which is run, and whose residency requirements are created, by the state?

Anyway, it's a moot point, as you're wrong on the face of your claim. Even right now, many states require residency for 30 days before you can register to vote, with an additional requirement that you register another 20-30 days before the election, meaning residing in the state for 60 days to vote in state elections. Almost none require you to have state-issued ID. source