Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

College students at heart of voting rights fight in New Hampshire primary

Sen. Bernie Sanders at St. Anselm College

Sen. Bernie Sanders is hoping for another round of strong support from young voters, but in New Hampshire there is confusion over the voting rights for college students from other states.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

A day ahead of the New Hampshire primary, college kids are in the center of both the main voting rights fight and concern about confusion at the polls.

The issue is what students from out of state must do in order to vote legally in the first straightforward election of the 2020 Democratic presidential contest. The rules were changed by state law two years ago, with some Republican legislators saying their aim was to make it tougher for young people who grew up outside the Granite State to take part.

But civil rights groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, are encouraging every American citizen who's at least 18 years old and wakes up in New Hampshire on Tuesday to head to the polls — potentially causing anger and delays if election judges seek to turn them away.


Some demographic studies project that people younger than 35 will make up the biggest voting bloc by age this year, surpassing people older than 65. Democrats have moved aggressively to corral the youth vote nationally, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont rounded up an outsized share as part of his strong showing in Iowa.

Now he and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are counting most on strong turnouts by college students to boost their fortunes in New Hampshire. Reports that those voters are being blocked could cause a second wave of furor aimed at the presidential nominating process less than a week after the collapse of the results tabulation process in Iowa.

Students count for as much as 10 percent of the state's eligible voters but a majority come from out of state — and not only at private colleges like Dartmouth, St. Anselm and Franklin Pierce. Half the students at the University of New Hampshire went to high school in another state.

The lack of certainty about their voting rights has been fed by the unresolved status of the ACLU's lawsuits challenging the 2018 law.

The new statute appears at first glance to change the rules for establishing residency in the state, a prerequisite to voting. One suit, on which the state Supreme Court will hear arguments a month from now, asks whether the law explicitly requires people who vote to first obtain a New Hampshire driver's license and vehicle registration — an expensive and inconvenient process that few college students are readily inclined to pursue.

If the court says they must get the documentation in order to exercise their franchise, then the ACLU will press its claim in federal court that the new law amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax.

A four-page document of "frequently asked questions about establishing a domicile / residence in New Hampshire" has been sent to all 301 polling places by the state's attorney general, secretary of state and motor vehicle department head. But it appears to offer some confusing if not contradictory guidance.

The ACLU is telling students who grew up outside New Hampshire to claim they have the right to both register and vote Tuesday by pairing their out-of-state driver licenses with their student IDs and piece of mail addressed to their campus addresses.

Henry Klementowicz of the ACLU says that advice is based on other statutes suggesting that people who consider New Hampshire their home may vote without a state driver's license or vehicle registration. Besides, he said, the very act of registering to vote is one of the requirements under state law for establishing residence.

Also, he and other critics of the law note, voters cannot be compelled to get a New Hampshire license if they don't drive in the state, and they cannot re-register a car they're driving if it's owned by someone (their parents, for example) who doesn't live in the state.

The law was written by a Republican Legislature and signed by GOP Gov. Chris Sununu. The Republicans said they were less worried about the presidential primary (which is open to all, regardless of party) than about a surge of liberal-leaning students from other states tipping the balance of power in New Hampshire. And, in fact, in the 2018 midterm (when the new residency law was not applied) the Legislature flipped to Democratic control.

Democrat Bill Gardner, the longest-serving secretary of state in the country, said the law is defensible because it ends New Hampshire's status as the "only state in the country where you do not have to be a resident to vote."


Read More

Happy teacher asking girl with hand raised sitting in classroom at elementary school

Trump's education policies are reshaping public schools. Learn how Department of Education cuts, school boards, and local elections could shape children's futures.

Maskot / Getty Images

When It Comes to Our Children’s Education, Trump Gets An ‘F’

When grading a government, there should be no metric more telling than how the kids are doing. It may come as no surprise that they are not doing well–but if the kids are failing, it is because Trump has failed them. The United States has the highest child poverty rate of any wealthy nation, yet the president continues to systematically abandon children: stripping away vital affordability protections, dismantling public education infrastructure, and cutting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Plus, there’s the ongoing threat of gun violence in schools, the cruel realities facing migrant kids in detention centers, and now new threats to digital safety and youth mental health–an intersectional crisis that desperately requires federal attention while Trump is actively trying to prevent states from stepping up in the meantime. Each of these issues deserves its own op-ed, but today let’s talk about the silver bullet for addressing inequality and building a resilient, inclusive society: public education. Its days may be numbered, but you can help.

In a move characteristically devoid of compassion, President Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), mandated that federal funding would be conditional on cutting all diversity, equity, or inclusion programs, and urged Congress to abolish the DOE outright. Following suit, Congress proposed and enacted budget cuts to reduce essential funding for programs supporting low-income students, students with disabilities, and otherwise vulnerable populations. The Supreme Court decision to allow mass layoffs at the Department of Education only worsens this crisis, reducing the department’s ability to assist schools during these challenging times. These combined federal actions will have far-reaching consequences for children and communities across the country. School’s out for summer? School might be out forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System
a doctor showing a patient something on the tablet
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System

During my junior year of high school, I was prescribed my first benzodiazepine, called lorazepam, at 16 years of age. At the time, my parents and I did not understand the potential consequences of long-term use of benzos. Like so many other patients out there, we trusted that the healthcare system would not only provide treatment and correct guidance to move forward with my prescriptions, but I never realized they would be the force that would ruin my future and so many dreams I had for my young adulthood.

What followed was a years-long struggle with severe medication dependence and withdrawal that fundamentally changed my life for the worse.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less