Political Animal
Blog
Ruy Teixeira makes a strong case today that the youth vote will be critical to President Obama’s re-election chances, and if young adults don’t show up, Republican odds improve significantly.
This point is not lost on GOP officials. Indeed, as a New York Times editorial makes clear today, the importance of the youth vote has led Republicans to consider this as part of their war on voting.
Next fall, thousands of students on college campuses will attempt to register to vote and be turned away. Sorry, they will hear, you have an out-of-state driver’s license. Sorry, your college ID is not valid here. Sorry, we found out that you paid out-of-state tuition, so even though you do have a state driver’s license, you still can’t vote.
Political leaders should be encouraging young adults to participate in civic life, but many Republican state lawmakers are doing everything they can instead to prevent students from voting in the 2012 presidential election. Some have openly acknowledged doing so because students tend to be liberal.
Seven states have already passed strict laws requiring a government-issued ID (like a driver’s license or a passport) to vote, which many students don’t have, and 27 others are considering such measures. Many of those laws have been interpreted as prohibiting out-of-state driver’s licenses from being used for voting.
It’s all part of a widespread Republican effort to restrict the voting rights of demographic groups that tend to vote Democratic.
Generally, when GOP officials put new barriers between Americans and their democracy, Republicans at least try to keep up appearances, pointing to imaginary voter fraud as a rationale for the restrictions.
But when it comes to young adults, some GOP policymakers simply drop the pretense — the speaker of the New Hampshire State House recently conceded that students’ access to the ballot box should be blocked because young people tend to “vote their feelings,” which leads them to vote “as a liberal.”
When we talk about the Republicans’ war on voting, we tend to focus on the impact felt by the elderly, the poor, and racial and ethnic minorities. But the youth vote matters every bit as much, and GOP policies are deliberately intended to limit their participation, too.
There’s no mystery here, and Republicans aren’t even being subtle — they’re trying to rig an entire election cycle by putting the most severe hurdles between Americans and the voting process since Jim Crow. The GOP fears losing in a fair fight, so the party is trying to rig the game through voter suppression, plain and simple.
Facebook
Twitter
DAY on December 27, 2011 9:24 AM:
Requesting an absentee ballot from the home state (ask Mom to do it!) solves this "problem".
Then throw a kegger on election day, and invite ALL the Young Republicans. . .
worcestergirl on December 27, 2011 9:31 AM:
One of Politifact's top 10 "lies": "By advocating new requirements for voters to show ID cards at the polls, Republicans "want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws." "
This was a pants-on-fire lie to them, one that in my mind was worse than the "Republicans voted to end Medicare" "lie" lie.
pol on December 27, 2011 9:47 AM:
Not necessarily in the state of Virginia, DAY. The individual has to submit an application by the eligibility deadline and either vote absentee(early) in person or have the registrar's office mail it to him. Mom can probably submit the application (if the kid did the paperwork), but she can't pick up the ballot and mail it him.
I know this because I helped an out-of-state friend do this last year. I wasn't allowed to handle the ballot.
Danp on December 27, 2011 9:48 AM:
I wonder what states like NY, FL, SC and AZ do to prevent snowbirds from alternating voting residences or voting twice.
T2 on December 27, 2011 9:49 AM:
Since the GOP knows it doesn't have the numbers to win anything but Old White votes based on their social and policy positions, not to mention recent performance, they have to cheat. They target the easiest groups to disenfranchise - minorities and youth. Those also happen to be the most likely to not vote GOP (grand OLD party). It's a formula for staying alive, and as long as Republicans have any power, they'll continue to do whatever they can to make sure only Repubs are able to vote.
jjcomet on December 27, 2011 9:50 AM:
First of all, while it was rated False, it was not a "Pants on Fire" nor one of their top 10 lies. If you are going to call out someone for being dishonest, offering lies to support your position isn't a terribly convincing first step.
Secondly, nice job of dodging the issue at hand. The article above is about the GOP trying to deny youth the vote because they tend to support more liberal candidates, not about racial disenfranchisement. When one of the folks responsible for such laws openly admits that's the motivation, it's a bit hard to claim that there is no attempt here to suppress the vote.
You do win the conservative consistency award, though - when you can't win an argument with facts, simply change the subject and hope no one notices.
c u n d gulag on December 27, 2011 9:55 AM:
Voter suppression is the only "hope" for a "change" at the top and is all that they have left.
They're certainly out of any ideas - except ones that are range between horrible and suicidal.
And why not try to suppress the youth vote?
Young people tend to be hopeful, idealistic, and aren't yet jaded by the political process in America.
Keeping them from voting until they get older and the propaganda and brainwashing have had a chance to make them bitter and angry, and lash out at their former younger and hopeful selves by voting against their own best interests - in other words - vote Republican.
Jeez, even their hero, Ronald Minimus, said that the at the very core of democracy is the right of every citizen to vote.
Maybe the confusion is the small "d."
These people ain't any too bright, you know.
square1 on December 27, 2011 10:15 AM:
@jjcomet: I believe that you misunderstood worcestergirl. Leaving aside the inaccuracies that you pointed out, I believe that worcestergirl was saying that Politifact was wrong to call accusations of intentional GOP disenfranchisement efforts "lies".
bdop4 on December 27, 2011 10:28 AM:
In jjcomet's defense, worcestorgirl's comment can be read both ways, as it is difficult to discern which "lie" she is talking about: the claim they are calling a "lie," and their claim that the subject claim is a "lie."
The second sentence should have read: "This was a pants-on-fire lie FROM them, one that in my mind was worse than the "Republicans voted to end Medicare" 'lie' lie."
My $.02.
square1 on December 27, 2011 10:35 AM:
In general, I am more concerned about voter disenfranchisement than the Democratic establishment seems to be. Their strategy, IMO, tends to be to engage in whack-a-mole: simply send out a bunch of lawyers on election day and hope to minimize GOP deceptions and improper voter challenges. Instead, the DOJ should be aggressivesly investigating Voting Rights Act violations, challenging unconstitutional laws, pushing for verified paper trails.
I'd like to see the Democrats actively try to increase vote participation. Things like making election day a holiday, supporting -- not defunding -- voter registration groups like ACORN, and, yes, consideration of IRV-type elections that allow cynical and disenchanted voters to vote for candidates that they like and not merely the lesser of two evils.
These are all things that should be done that Democrats generally don't support.
Having said that, President Obama's biggest problem with the "youth vote" isn't GOP dirty tricks. It is that he has given young voters very little to be excited about.
Young voters are idealistic. They want JFK/RFK/Obama '08 visionaries. Not Obama '09-'11 pragmatists.
What has Obama given young voters to be excited about? Not much.
Fess on December 27, 2011 11:00 AM:
At our local high school, the 12th grade civics class did 2 things for graduating seniors:
*For boys, they passed out draft registrations forms and mailed them in, even if they weren't 18 yet.
*For everyone, they passed out voter registration forms, had the kids fill them out, collected them, and turned them in. Again, this was for everyone, including kids who weren't 18 yet. I'm not sure what they did about the age delay, but it worked because none of my 3 kids was 18 by graduation, and all three were registered.
This worked out especially well for the two that went to out of state to college. It even worked for my kid who spent 3 years in WA, 2 in Asia, 1 in WA, 1 in NY, and 1 in WA again before he settled in VA. Now he's registered in VA even when he's posted in Asia.
As a civics lesson, this is excellent. It would have been very difficult for the 2 out of state kids to register from their universities when they turned 18. They all vote every election.
chi res on December 27, 2011 11:12 AM:
@jjcomet
You're right about false vs. p-o-f, but that's about all. Wasserman's statement was included in Politi-[lies] "finalist" list, which happened to include how many statement?? That's right, ten. It's here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/02/2011-lie-year-finalists/
Wasserman was replying to a statement by Roland Martin as follows, "Republicans are backing measures that will require photo identification and other types of things, including cutting the number of days for early voting. Republicans say it will cut down on voter fraud. Critics contend it's a step backwards, and it would discriminate against the poor, elderly, students, people with disabilities, and minorities. [emphasis added]
Can't figure out how this is "dodging the issue at hand" which is pretty much about republicans backing measures that will require photo identification that would discriminate against students.
If you were trying to "win an argument", you failed miserably.
zandru on December 27, 2011 11:44 AM:
In New Mexico
...the County Clerks have been pushing for same-day registration for years. We have a long "early voting" period (about 4 weeks), during which voter registration is CLOSED. But this is ridiculous - people don't start getting interested in the election until the last month or so.
Moreover, a county's Early Voting Centers have access to the entire State's voter registration database via the Internet, so registrants can be checked out as not having already voted. As an added bonus, the better-trained staff is able to verify any of the many possible identification credentials that current New Mexico law provides for.
By a law passed in the 2011 Legislative Session, Election Day can now also have Voting Centers, instead of the precinct-based voting of the past, so voter registration on the spot is both viable and secure.
Expense: way down. Paper ballots are generated as needed, for the particular precinct. No paper voter roll books are needed. Fewer provisional (aka "throw-away") ballots.
And - after the voting and counting is done, law requires a statistically-based audit of the accuracy of the voting machines.
No wonder the state's Republican administration is pushing for photo ID...
Daniel Kim on December 27, 2011 11:51 AM:
The argument that "young people tend to 'vote their feelings'", and therefore are not trustworthy to vote sounds a lot like arguments against women voting. I remember seeing (in books, I'm not that old) cartoons caricaturing the possible outcomes of womens' suffrage, with women fretting over the quality of a candidate's hair, etc.
Jabberwocky on December 27, 2011 12:19 PM:
College kids "vote their feelings"? Hardly. If anything the people I knew in college were the most active in terms of seeking out information on various candidates and really looking at their records. They're much less likely to simply vote along party lines like older folks.
I think what the Republicans want to say here is that because these young people are *educated*, they've done the research on Republican candidates and can't find any reason to support them.
That said, I'm a little upset that neither article lists just which 7 states have the very restrictive ID requirements. I'd like to know if I should bring my passport along on voting day, just in case.
Texas Aggie on December 27, 2011 12:32 PM:
“vote their feelings,”
I submit that if this is a disqualification, then no member of a fundamentalist church should be allowed to vote nor a member of any of the antichoice organizations. These are people who don't even know what a candidate is like other than their position for or against choice, and their feelings are pure emotion, nothing rational.
Sgt. Gym Bunny on December 27, 2011 12:39 PM:
Fess' entry above made me smile :)... In North Carolina, the youngin's could register to vote at the DMV after they turned 18. I think the incentive was that even if you got your driver's license at 16 or 17, you definitely wanted to go back to the DMV to get the driver's license that didn't have that annoyingly large "UNDER 18" stamp on it.
With all the lip service they pay to patriotism, love of country, civic and moral responsibility, proud-to-be-'merican yada yada yada, you would think that the GOP would be the sentinels of voting rights. What better way to show that you're not a moochin', ne'er-do-well than through civic engagement. But, alas, the GOP concerns itself with the voting concerns of its own die-hard core.
Hmmmmm on December 27, 2011 12:49 PM:
One of the comments under the Time editorial was spot on. Jon wrote: "Isn't it amazing that these "patriotic" Americans don't think students are old enough to vote responsibly, yet have no problem sending them off to war. Reminds me of the '60s."
But I do have a question. Many folks believe that students voting where they go to school is voter fraud, but my understanding is that it is perfectly legal. Can anyone shed light?
Doug on December 27, 2011 8:41 PM:
Hmmmmm, as long as a student only votes in ONE jurisdiction there's no problem. The student, by voting where they're going to college, is saying THAT place, and NOT their parent's address, is their Home of Record.
Or Dormitory Room of Record...
(except maybe if that jurisdiction tends Republican?).
Doug on December 27, 2011 8:43 PM:
Someone was supposed to delete that last line...