Ohio Senate advances bill that could deter college students from voting.

[dead0man]

Incidentally, thanks to the Republican-passed REAL ID act, in order to get my D.C. driver's license, I needed
(1) valid Virginia driver's license
(2) original copy of my passport
(3) original social security card
(4) original copy of my lease signed by my landlord (not easy since my landlord lives in Nevada)
(5) original mail sent by the federal or D.C. government only (not including Virginia or Maryland government official mail) and not including my voter registration card and not including anything older than 60 days
(6) a $40 fee

As the result of this it took like 4-5 trips to the DMV to get it done, since they are closed on Mondays and on Saturdays when the following Monday is a holiday. The thing is, if you just move to D.C. and never get a driver's license, no one knows or cares.

You can't get a DL in DC if you don't have a passport?  That seems odd (and highly unlikely).  I don't understand the lease thing either....every place I've gotten a DL (IL,GA,FL and NE) have asked for a proof of residence, but they usually just expect an electric bill (or whatever).  Number 5 is so confusing I don't even know how to address it.

Mind, I'm no fan of REAL ID, but I don't get the level of outrage over it either.  On the official list of things wrong, it's probably not even in the top 100.

[ingemann]

In many countries it's a value in itself that people vote.

[Beet]

Incidentally, thanks to the Republican-passed REAL ID act, in order to get my D.C. driver's license, I needed
(1) valid Virginia driver's license
(2) original copy of my passport
(3) original social security card
(4) original copy of my lease signed by my landlord (not easy since my landlord lives in Nevada)
(5) original mail sent by the federal or D.C. government only (not including Virginia or Maryland government official mail) and not including my voter registration card and not including anything older than 60 days
(6) a $40 fee

As the result of this it took like 4-5 trips to the DMV to get it done, since they are closed on Mondays and on Saturdays when the following Monday is a holiday. The thing is, if you just move to D.C. and never get a driver's license, no one knows or cares.

You can't get a DL in DC if you don't have a passport?  That seems odd (and highly unlikely).

Err, you're saying I'm lying or something? I need a passport, since I wasn't born in this country. If I was, an original birth certificate could have been accepted as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that was before D.C. started complying with REAL ID.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Little barriers to participation add up. $75 is not a lot of money for me for the right to vote, but for a college student racking up debt every day, it can be the difference between voting or not voting.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You seem confused by the prospect that people might still be more interested in participating in the political process back home rather than at school, and therefore they shouldn't.

That's taking my words to be much more strict than I intended.  If you are keeping up with what is going on in your home community, and want to vote there, I don't really problem with that. I just don't expect that most students or others that live most of the year somewhere else are really keeping up with what is going on back home.

[King]

You know, if Democratic PACs really cared about this issue, rather than fighting it tooth and nail on laws, they can use money and resources to help poor and disadvantaged people get state IDs.

[Beet]

You know, if Democratic PACs really cared about this issue, rather than fighting it tooth and nail on laws, they can use money and resources to help poor and disadvantaged people get state IDs.

That's like saying if Democrats really wanted to help the poor, they should just give to charity.

[King]

You know, if Democratic PACs really cared about this issue, rather than fighting it tooth and nail on laws, they can use money and resources to help poor and disadvantaged people get state IDs.

That's like saying if Democrats really wanted to help the poor, they should just give to charity.

Eh. Not really. I think having a state ID is a good practice for everyone. The motivations behind these laws are obviously suspect--if it were up to me, state IDs would be free for low income people--but having a state ID is important.

The amount of people we are talking about getting disenfranchised here is not that large. A good investment by wealthy Democratic donors could neutralize these laws easier than having to fight it politically; and if the laws become neutralized even in one state, the far right will give up their pursuit of this plan for something else.

[pbrower2a]

In many countries it's a value in itself that people vote.

The GOP will not be happy until it has an effective monopoly on political power. There will be tolerated minor parties that know their places for window-dressing, but 70% of all votes will go you-know-where. People will know how their employers expect them to vote, although there could be safe places where Democrats might win House seats -- like the South Bronx, Harlem, the South Side of Chicago, Watts, maybe a rural district here and there in Mississippi or Alabama all to create the illusion that the United States still has some pluralism. Parties might be divided along ethnic or religious lines so that there is a "black" Party, a "Hispanic" party, and maybe a "Chinese", "Jewish", or "Muslim" party. Maybe on 'professional' lines, as in distinct parties for accountants, engineers, teachers, or physicians.

But if one works for a big corporation one knows how to vote... maybe one's employer makes the decision for you in secret. After all, there will still be a secret ballot -- one so secret that even the voter dares not know how he 'votes'.     

[dead0man]

Do you actually believe that crap?

[badgate]

The apologists for this bill disturb me and need a serious privilege check.

[Beet]

You know, if Democratic PACs really cared about this issue, rather than fighting it tooth and nail on laws, they can use money and resources to help poor and disadvantaged people get state IDs.

That's like saying if Democrats really wanted to help the poor, they should just give to charity.

Eh. Not really. I think having a state ID is a good practice for everyone. The motivations behind these laws are obviously suspect--if it were up to me, state IDs would be free for low income people--but having a state ID is important.

I do think it's important to prevent people from committing voter fraud by voting in two different states, I'm not not convinced such behavior is nonexistent - but at the same time, as someone who has lived in 3 different license-granting jurisdictions in the past 2.5 years, I think "state ID" and other such concepts are flawed. One could easily imagine a college student who keeps their car at their parents' house, and hence has a primary driving state different from their primary residence state. What harm is there then, from keeping their license and registration in their primary driving state?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, by itself it's not large. This, plus REAL ID is not large. This, plus REAL ID, plus disenfranchising released felons, is not large. This, plus REAL ID, plus disenfranchising released felons, plus gerrymandering, is not large. This, plus REAL ID, plus disenfranchising released felons, plus gerrymandering, plus whatever else they think of next...

The point is, it's wrong on principle. As jfern said, everything they do is done to make it harder for people to vote, with a special target on marginalized groups. IMO this is right-wing politics in its most pure form. It has nothing to do with policy, it's solely about restricting the franchise and targeting a vulnerable group.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, they'd see that it's an easy way to force Democratic donors to spend money on something they otherwise wouldn't spend money on, so they'd just do it in every state.

[pbrower2a]

Do you actually believe that crap?

I regret that I must.  The Republican Party is becoming an authoritarian party, one intent only on consolidating power on behalf of its financial backers. If anything it is the front groups (like Club for Growth, Freedom Works, and Americans for Prosperity that flood the airwaves with Orwellian propaganda as the election approaches. That Republican pols accept the aid of such groups
indicate that winning means more than service.

I wish that I could believe otherwise. May I be proved wrong on Election Night 2016. I have read of democracy dying in other countries, and I see much of the same pattern here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Or perhaps they could just register to vote where they have their vehicles registered?  Registering to vote is a declaration you live there.  So long as failure to pay the car. income, and other taxes due because of where they registered doesn't disqualify one from voting, it isn't a poll tax.

You either didn't go to college or didn't have to so this.

Not only did I go to college, I participated in a presidential caucus in my home precinct and in a county convention in my home county while at college.  Granted, I went to a college only two and a half hours from home by car, but even if I had been too far to make that level of participation possible, it would have been fairly easy to vote absentee, just as it was easy to register to vote when I was in high school.

Regardless, it is unconstitutional for states to set "unreasonable" residency requirements. If a college student changes their registration to their dorm room or an apartment they are renting, and have been in the state for a month, they have just as much a right to vote in the state as anyone else.

And just as much obligation to pay the taxes expected of any other resident.  I certainly hope none of these non-tax paying "residents" also try to claim in-state tuition rates.

[Stranger in a strange land]

You know, if Democratic PACs really cared about this issue, rather than fighting it tooth and nail on laws, they can use money and resources to help poor and disadvantaged people get state IDs.

If Republicans are really so concerned about voter fraud, why not issue a free photo ID to every citizen who wants one?

[Torie]

I don't think it is Unconstitutional to require folks to change their car registration and driver's license within 30 days of becoming a resident. In NY, it's 90 days. I don't think this Bill means students who don't comply can't vote. It merely says if they claim residency, then certain duties attend that. They can refuse to comply, and still vote, but yes, will be fined.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Also, uh... what about students who don't have cars?  Or, god forbid, don't have driver's licenses?  Where do they fit into this sh*t sandwich?

Sounds like this wouldn't apply to them. It's saying if you have a car, it should be registered in OH if you are registered to vote in OH. 

The car-vote registration connection seems pretty arbitrary to me. If you live somewhere the greater part of the year, you are involved in that community. It makes more sense for you to vote there than somewhere you don't spend as much time in and so don't have as much of a clue what's going on. If you have your car registered in another state with your parents or whatever because it's easier, what's the big deal? 

     College students are sojourners who will mostly leave when it's done. They have no vested interest in enacting good policy or in seeing the city succeed. They have no skin in the race. Unless they are willing to take the extra steps of registering their other particulars in the area, their claim to interest in the area is tenuous.

Except, that's not how voting works.  There is no reality show, "So, you think you can vote?" where you need to prove that you deserve the right to vote.  Your state or county has no ability to tell if you "really" love them enough to vote with purpose.  Therefore, it's a complete red herring.

You do not need to intend to live somewhere for the rest of your life to vote there.  That's not a requirement to vote for anyone, although Republicans have decided it is for students.  This is clearly a cynical political move to disenfranchise people because Republicans don't like how they vote.  It is nothing else. 

Let's just think about this logically.  Being a full-time student in Ohio is more than enough to claim domicile in Ohio.  That meets all the requirements, so dragging in vehicle registration or driver's licenses is just putting a special burden on one group for political purposes.

     Of course, people get to vote as a matter of right. My issue is that college students don't face the consequences of their actions. When the time comes to pay the piper, they're long gone. While San Francisco passed Sit-Lie, Berkeley was not so fortunate. The student body at the university had no small part in that happening. Now the long-time residents of the city are stuck with the input of these sojourners.

     Not being a liberal, I don't suppose that the government should enforce my opinions. I do suppose that we should work to encourage college students to not interfere with other people's cities. That would require a level of maturity and sensibility beyond many of them, though.

[Ebsy]

And just as much obligation to pay the taxes expected of any other resident.  I certainly hope none of these non-tax paying "residents" also try to claim in-state tuition rates.

States vary on who they offer in state tuition to, but in my experience there is a residency requirement of a minimum of two years before enrolling. The right to vote and the right to in state tuition are not really comparable though.

[Ebsy]

     Of course, people get to vote as a matter of right. My issue is that college students don't face the consequences of their actions. When the time comes to pay the piper, they're long gone. While San Francisco passed Sit-Lie, Berkeley was not so fortunate. The student body at the university had no small part in that happening. Now the long-time residents of the city are stuck with the input of these sojourners.
     Not being a liberal, I don't suppose that the government should enforce my opinions. I do suppose that we should work to encourage college students to not interfere with other people's cities. That would require a level of maturity and sensibility beyond many of them, though.

So by pouring millions if not billions of dollars into the city's economy they are interfering? Sometimes the sh**t people say on this forum is unbelievable.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Of course, people get to vote as a matter of right. My issue is that college students don't face the consequences of their actions. When the time comes to pay the piper, they're long gone. While San Francisco passed Sit-Lie, Berkeley was not so fortunate. The student body at the university had no small part in that happening. Now the long-time residents of the city are stuck with the input of these sojourners.
     Not being a liberal, I don't suppose that the government should enforce my opinions. I do suppose that we should work to encourage college students to not interfere with other people's cities. That would require a level of maturity and sensibility beyond many of them, though.

So by pouring millions if not billions of dollars into the city's economy they are interfering? Sometimes the sh**t people say on this forum is unbelievable.

     Considering the political damage that they casually visit without caring to own, "interfere" is a kind word to use for them. What about the money they take out of the city by damaging property values and negatively impacting the quality of their neighborhoods?

[MaxQue]

     Of course, people get to vote as a matter of right. My issue is that college students don't face the consequences of their actions. When the time comes to pay the piper, they're long gone. While San Francisco passed Sit-Lie, Berkeley was not so fortunate. The student body at the university had no small part in that happening. Now the long-time residents of the city are stuck with the input of these sojourners.
     Not being a liberal, I don't suppose that the government should enforce my opinions. I do suppose that we should work to encourage college students to not interfere with other people's cities. That would require a level of maturity and sensibility beyond many of them, though.

So by pouring millions if not billions of dollars into the city's economy they are interfering? Sometimes the sh**t people say on this forum is unbelievable.

     Considering the political damage that they casually visit without caring to own, "interfere" is a kind word to use for them. What about the money they take out of the city by damaging property values and negatively impacting the quality of their neighborhoods?

Universities need students and I'm pretty sure closing the university would make property values crash, especially in cities built around universities, like Athens, OH or State College, PA.

[Adam Griffin]

Incidentally, thanks to the Republican-passed REAL ID act, in order to get my D.C. driver's license, I needed
(1) valid Virginia driver's license
(2) original copy of my passport
(3) original social security card
(4) original copy of my lease signed by my landlord (not easy since my landlord lives in Nevada)
(5) original mail sent by the federal or D.C. government only (not including Virginia or Maryland government official mail) and not including my voter registration card and not including anything older than 60 days
(6) a $40 fee

As the result of this it took like 4-5 trips to the DMV to get it done, since they are closed on Mondays and on Saturdays when the following Monday is a holiday. The thing is, if you just move to D.C. and never get a driver's license, no one knows or cares.

You can't get a DL in DC if you don't have a passport?  That seems odd (and highly unlikely).  I don't understand the lease thing either....every place I've gotten a DL (IL,GA,FL and NE) have asked for a proof of residence, but they usually just expect an electric bill (or whatever).  Number 5 is so confusing I don't even know how to address it.

Mind, I'm no fan of REAL ID, but I don't get the level of outrage over it either.  On the official list of things wrong, it's probably not even in the top 100.

Yeah, it's not that way anymore in most states. I have to go for my "Secure ID" renewal for the first time next year, and I will have to take:

• An original or certified document to prove WHO YOU ARE such as a Birth Certificate or Passport
• Your SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
• Two documents showing your RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS such as a Bank Statement or Utility Bill
• If you've had a NAME CHANGE, then you'll also need to bring a document to prove that, such as a Marriage License.

They've amended the list of documents accepted since they initially passed it, because too many people couldn't adequately fulfill the requirements when they only had three accepted documents in that third category. It took my 58 year-old little ol' white lady of a mother almost a month and four trips down there to get hers because she's been married since she was born. Now it is much "easier", but there are still plenty of gaps when it comes to the process being something everyone can do quickly and easily.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Of course, people get to vote as a matter of right. My issue is that college students don't face the consequences of their actions. When the time comes to pay the piper, they're long gone. While San Francisco passed Sit-Lie, Berkeley was not so fortunate. The student body at the university had no small part in that happening. Now the long-time residents of the city are stuck with the input of these sojourners.
     Not being a liberal, I don't suppose that the government should enforce my opinions. I do suppose that we should work to encourage college students to not interfere with other people's cities. That would require a level of maturity and sensibility beyond many of them, though.

So by pouring millions if not billions of dollars into the city's economy they are interfering? Sometimes the sh**t people say on this forum is unbelievable.

     Considering the political damage that they casually visit without caring to own, "interfere" is a kind word to use for them. What about the money they take out of the city by damaging property values and negatively impacting the quality of their neighborhoods?

Universities need students and I'm pretty sure closing the university would make property values crash, especially in cities built around universities, like Athens, OH or State College, PA.

     It depends. It certainly holds for retail property since the university is an economic engine. Not so much for commerical or residential property. Unless it's a fairly remote town, the land would hold significant value independent of the existence of the university.

     At any rate, I'm not saying that universities should be shut down either (I would hope to see college attendance scaled back, but that is for altogether unrelated reasons). My claim is rather that it would be preferable for college students to vote where they hold permanent residence.