Ohio Republicans Want To Punish Colleges That Enable Students To Vote

Ohio Republicans Want To Punish Colleges That Enable Students To Vote
By Ian Millhiser
Think Progress

In 1979, the Supreme Court affirmed a decision holding that state cannot place unique burdens on college student votes that do not apply to other members of the electorate. Nevertheless, Ohio Republicans now want to punish state universities that encourage students to cast a ballot. Under a budget amendment filed by Republicans in the Ohio House, state universities that provide documents enabling students to register to vote in their college town, rather than in the state where their parents reside, will be forbidden from charging those students out-of-state tuition. Thus, the amendment would effectively reduce the funding of state schools that assist their students in registering to vote.

This is the second GOP attempt to restrict college students from voting in just the past month. About a month ago, a North Carolina Republican lawmaker filed a bill that would raise taxes on families with college students if the student registers to vote at school rather than in their parents’ hometown.

It’s not difficult to guess why Republicans support these — and other — efforts to make it harder for college students to cast a ballot. As former New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien (R) said when explaining his support for measures to make it harder to vote, “the kids coming out of the schools and basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do.”

In most states, a student must live in the state for a couple years before becoming eligible for instate tuition. The purpose of this delay is to require the student to pay into the system (via state collected taxes) before being able to take advantage of state benefits (ie tuition subsidization). The GOP in Ohio is trying to prevent students who reside in the state, have to live by state laws, and pay taxes (sales, if nothing else) from being able to vote in state elections.

If they are not a state resident......and it takes more than paying state or local tax......then they should not be able to vote in state elections. They have no vested interest. That's like saying that just because I worked outta Santa Maria I should have been able to vote in Santa Barbara elections. I payed local taxes there and kept an apartment. Same thing.

Ima do some more reading. Gotta be more to this than that small, snippet article that was written with an obvious bias.

Remember......voting is not a right. It doesn't matter how much we huff and puff and wish it to be so..........it will never be a right.

Marconius wrote:If they are not a state resident......and it takes more than paying state or local tax......then they should not be able to vote in state elections. They have no vested interest. That's like saying that just because I worked outta Santa Maria I should have been able to vote in Santa Barbara elections. I payed local taxes there and kept an apartment. Same thing.

Ima do some more reading. Gotta be more to this than that small, snippet article that was written with an obvious bias.

These students would have presumably have had declared Ohio as their place of residence and be registered to vote in Ohio.

If you wanted to have voted in California's elections, wouldn't you have only had to declare California as your place of residence and register?

Marconius wrote:Remember......voting is not a right. It doesn't matter how much we huff and puff and wish it to be so..........it will never be a right.

I disagree with that. What are rights other than agreed upon assumptions about what protections are necessary for a functioning society? Is the free ability of citizens to vote not one of the underlying assumptions of our system (minding of course how the understanding of a 'citizen' has evolved over time)?

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:Remember......voting is not a right. It doesn't matter how much we huff and puff and wish it to be so..........it will never be a right.

I disagree with that. What are rights other than agreed upon assumptions about what protections are necessary for a functioning society? Is the free ability of citizens to vote not one of the underlying assumptions of our system (minding of course how the understanding of a 'citizen' has evolved over time)?

What you described are powers or privileges. In fact I could make a strong case against letting just any old person vote. The founding fathers knew that well and recognized that voting is a privilege and not a right.

A right is something you are born with. It is not something that can be earned or given. They are natural and exist always. Pretty much everyone of them stems from property ownership and the realization that I do indeed own myself.

The definition of citizen has never evolved. It still means the same thing it always did. Even in the USA the legal definition of citizen means subject.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:If they are not a state resident......and it takes more than paying state or local tax......then they should not be able to vote in state elections. They have no vested interest. That's like saying that just because I worked outta Santa Maria I should have been able to vote in Santa Barbara elections. I payed local taxes there and kept an apartment. Same thing.

Ima do some more reading. Gotta be more to this than that small, snippet article that was written with an obvious bias.

These students would have presumably have had declared Ohio as their place of residence and be registered to vote in Ohio.

If you wanted to have voted in California's elections, wouldn't you have only had to declare California as your place of residence and register?

Presumably???

You want to muddy up elections on a presumption???