Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate Voter Disenfranchisement

I just read a very disturbing piece in the Politico.  It appears that both the Clinton and the Dodd campaigns are criticizing the Obama campaign for rallying students to return early to Iowa to participate in the January 3rd Caucus.  In effect, what they are doing is advocating for the disenfrachisement of young voters.  

David Yepsen, the Dean of the Iowa press corps, stirred up this hornets nest in a blog post, The Illinois Caucus, in which he all but accused the Obama campaign of trying to rig the caucus and privileged the parochialism of "native Iowans" over the rights of young voters - a group often maligned (by Yepsen himself) for their lack of participation:

While it's legal for college students to register to vote in Iowa to do that, this raises the question of whether it's fair, or politically smart.   No presidential campaign in memory has ever made such a large, open attempt to encourage students from out of state, many of whom pay out-of-state tuition, to participate in the caucuses. No other campaign appears to be doing it in this campaign cycle.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama's campaign, said "we have no intention of doing something here that is in any way illegal or that will raise questions about the credibility of the caucuses."  He said election laws allow students to register and vote where they go to college and that means they can caucus in those precincts as well.

That's fine but these are the Iowa caucuses.  Asking people who are "not from Iowa" to participate in them changes the nature of the event.  

Yepsen, who's reporting on Iowa is incredibly influential, even goes so far as to threaten the Obama campaign, promising that any Obama win will be marred by a negative media narrative:

And trying to pack the caucuses with people from Illinois might taint Obama's showing.  Polls show Obama is in a close race with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.  Recent surveys show him with a lead of a few points.  If he wins the Iowa caucuses with Illinois votes, his victory would be discounted by his opponents and media people.

Yepsen's comments are particularly outrageous in that just yesterday he wrote a story in which he criticized young voters for failing to turn up at the caucus:

Obama's gained 6 points in the last month and has opened up a statistically insignificant lead over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. That lead looks even weaker when you consider a chunk of Obama's support comes from younger adults, who are notoriously poor caucusgoers. (Only 5 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers are under 25. In 2004, only 17 percent were under 29.)

Aside from the fact that Yepsen violated rule # 2 in reporting on the youth vote, apparently he sees no contradiction in chastising young people for trying to participate with one hand while demeaning their participation rates with the other.

This isn't new though.  The media has long been terrible when it comes to accurately reporting on young voters.  The real disappointment comes from the Dodd and Clinton campaigns, both of which hopped on the Yepsen bandwagon in criticizing Obama's attempt to encourage Iowa students to attend the caucus:

A Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign official said: "We are not courting out-of-staters. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans."

Chris Dodd for President Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen said in a statement on Saturday:

"I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign's attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses. ... `New Politics' shouldn't be about scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process. That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa."

As far as I'm concerned, this is advocating voter disenfranchisement.  These students live in Iowa for at least 9 months a year for 4, 5, 6 years.  For all intents and purposes, Iowa is their home, and elections in Iowa affect their lives far more than an election in their "home" state.  Pundits like Yepsen celebrate Iowa for it's "retail" politics, and embodying the best characteristics of our democracy.  If thousands of young voters want to experience that first hand and participate, it's outrageous for Clinton, Dodd, Yepsen or anyone, to discourage them from exercising their legal right.  

No one would ask resident Iowans to take a pledge that they intend to live in the state for more than 4 years before participating in the caucus, and students should not be subject to such a requirement either.  Rather than spending their time whining that the Obama campaign is out-organizing them among college students, Dodd and Clinton should get to work energizing their own student base.  Young voters already face many barriers to participation, which in part accounts for their lower turnout rates.  Rather then erecting more barriers to participation, campaigns and the media should be working to reduce those barriers.  Shame on them for doing otherwise.



Display:


it's sad (none / 0)

considering that Dodd himself talks a lot about how JFK inspired him as a young man.

oh well, i'm sure a lot of insider democrats didn't support JFK.

obama is not JFK but he sure has sparked a fire among young people and it's sad that dodd of all people would even go that way.


by pmb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:25:23 AM EST

Oh come on... (2.00 / 2)

As yepsen pointed out...there is a difference between those who pay "in state" tuition and those that pay "out of state" tuition.

If  student becomes a citizen of the state...drivers license etc....get "residency" ...you bet..

But to just take advantage in loopholes in the system...please....

Yepsen has no dog in this caucus, maybe you should consider his opinion a little more carefully - before you start yelling the word 'disenfranchisement".


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh come on... (none / 0)

Yeah, but Yepsen is old school and has a stake in the "purity" of the Iowa caucus as he's been reporting it for years.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:02:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

EXACTLY!!! (none / 0)

and that should be RESPECTED, not scorned.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:58:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: EXACTLY!!! (none / 0)

The idea of "purity" always bothered me.  Why shouldn't young people in the state participate in the caucuses?  Really.  For purity's sake?  That's no argument at all.  Because they don't know what they're talking about?  To stupid?  Of course not.

Is it because they don't care about Iowa enough?  Why?  Every state has college students who can vote in-state.  Should all those college students only be allowed to vote in the state where they're from?  Should they only participate in politics in the state where they came from?  Should their voices only matter because in the state where they're from?  Should they live in the state, pay out-of-state tuition (often twice as much as in-state), and have no say?

No.  That statute made a policy decision in allowing students to vote in the state where they go to college, and it only makes sense to allow them to caucus as well.  To discourage that is truly disturbing.

Purity is a thin gruel to substantiate the claim that they should not participate in the caucuses.


by pseudo999 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh come on... (2.00 / 1)

It's not a "loophole."  The law specifically says:

A student who resides at or near the school the student attends, but who is also able to claim a residence at another location under the provisions of this section, may choose either location as the student's residence for voter registration and voting purposes.

This is not some kind of clever interpretation of the law.  It's very straightforward.  If the people of Iowa thought it was "unfair" for out-of-state students to participate in the caucuses, no one forced them to write the law this way.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh come on... (none / 0)

The clause you cite pertains to residents of Iowa, not out of state students who pay out of state tuition.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:18:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh come on... (none / 0)

If only it said that, you'd be right, but it doesn't.

According to the Politico, the Iowa Secretary of State said that Obama's instructions to out-of-state students were "playing within the rules."

Now, why would he say that if the law prohibited out-of-state students from caucusing in Iowa?  Answer: he wouldn't.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh come on... (1.00 / 2)

So you agree with Barry busing the students in. Shouldn't they provide their own transportation. That's unethical no matter how its spun.


by lonnette33 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:10:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh come on... (none / 0)

Well, I consider busing a sort of side point.  What I'm mainly saying is that there is nothing wrong with these students voting at their campus addresses, and that there's nothing wrong with encouraging them to do so.

I'd note, though, that where I come from, giving voters a ride to the polls is typically known as "GOTV."

I don't know all the facts regarding the busing issue, but it seems to me that if Obama is simply busing people to the caucuses and then busing them back home afterwards, that's perfectly acceptable GOTV stuff.  On the other hand, if he's effectively paying their transportation costs to come back early from winter break, that seems a little more sketchy to me as a legal matter.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:19:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh come on... (none / 0)

That's totally absurd.

By the same logic, Clinton shouldn't do any GOTV.  No knocking on doors of supporters, no organizing buses and carpools to caucus sites, etc.  Since it's apparently "unethical" to help someone get to a voting location.

This is a disgustingly anti-democratic sentiment you're expressing.


by Ramo on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 04:15:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh come on... (none / 0)

Yeah They pay MORE in tuition than the out of state students who have contributed very little to the state education system (of course there parents have, but this isn't about them.) You support voter suppression because it HELPS hillary.  Given she actually does decent in the youth vote, she should be showing how much she likes democracy and actually work to get ALL students who go to school in Iowa (and thus spend MORE time in Iowa than in their home states) out to the caucuses.  The more people participating the better.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Biases (2.00 / 1)

Just to head off any partisan flame war, I should note my personal biases here.  I'm a New Yorker who is on the fence between Edwards and Dodd.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:30:09 AM EST

and I'm an Edwards supporter (2.00 / 2)

who totally agrees with you and thinks Yepsen owes Obama an apology.

Also, as I wrote yesterday at the Iowa progressive blog Bleeding Heartland, Julie Andreeff Jensen worked on Kerry's campaign here before the last caucuses. Surely she knows that there were students at Iowa colleges, originally from other states, who caucused for Kerry.

Here is my take:

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=709


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and I'm an Edwards supporter (2.00 / 2)

I agree with both of you on this... Personally, I think ALL the candidates should be encouraging ALL supporters to participate in the Caucuses.  By getting more involved, it might mean more involvement in the GE or in the future.  Dodd and Hillary are just not thinking big picture, nor is Yepsen.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing wrong in what Dodd or Clinton did (none / 0)

Obama can do it if he wants. However, I don't see anything wrong in Clinton and Dodd pointing it out to Iowans. Let the rest of Iowans make an informed decision and be fully aware of it.


by rakk12 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:32:58 AM EST

Re: Nothing wrong in what Dodd or Clinton did (none / 0)

There is definately something wrong with this, its a major strategic mistake. The fact of the matter is that many of these "college towns" are run by a small, white minority that keeps itself in power by disenfranchising blacks, latinos, and white youth.
Their petty, parochial concerns drive them to screw the voters that the Democratic Party needs on a state and national level. These little fiefdoms are doing the work of the Republicans.
by lynfidel on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:48:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing wrong in what Dodd or Clinton did (2.00 / 0)

Is this the "Keep off my damn lawn, you young hooligans!" voting bloc really that important in Iowa? And isn't it mostly going to Gravel anyway?

There are no residency requirements to caucus in Iowa, so this kind of reporting is frankly malign.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is the difference between this (1.33 / 3)

and spreading the usually false rumor around black communities that felons are not allowed to vote --- as the Republican Party has. No Democrat should be questioning the legitimacy of voters and discouraging their turnout.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is politics. (2.00 / 2)

Look at the Michigan boycott Obama orchestrated.  That move helped literally disenfranchise thousand of voters.  


by bookgrl on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:35:03 AM EST

Re: This is politics. (none / 0)

How so?  I'm admittedly not up to speed on Michigan, but from what I can tell, Obama just decided not to campaign there, he didn't say that any class of voter didn't have a right to vote in that state . . .

Can you elaborate on your point?


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:42:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is politics. (none / 0)

Ihave to say that I'm not in favor of that, though I do think it is different.  In that instance, Obama himself is opting out.  I don't agree with that, but it's not a third party attempting to intervene and remove the ability of someone to vote.  

Neither one is good, but I tend to find the instance I'm reporting here to be much more egregious.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:55:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeaa, it different - it helps Obama (1.25 / 4)

throughhout his career Obama has always played the unethical though legal loopholes to give himself advantage - from state to the US Senate...

now he helped block an entire state because he was losing there by 25% and it held hundred of delegate...

thats the real story here -  
how obama will work to win  

BY ANY MEANS NECESARRY.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeaa, it different - it helps Obama (none / 0)

I'm troll rating this, because it fails to provide any evidence.

I'm troll rating this, because it's all smear, no substance.

I'm troll rating this, because you appear to believe that Democrats shouldn't try to win by any means necessary. And also that Michigan somehow has the right to disregard a decision which it was itself originally party to.

Finally, I'm troll rating this because I can't think of one comment you've made that shows any intellectual integrity.

You don't like Obama? We get that. You prefer Clinton? Fine. Nothing wrong with that. But if you have to shill, could you at the very least not do it so appallingly badly?


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and nerdy pretender boy... (none / 0)

use your google to learn up on Barrys past elections and how he had his opponents removed from the ballot...

through legal and leeking methods...


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeaa, it different - it helps Obama (none / 0)

Good to see you back.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeaa, it different - it helps Obama (none / 0)

Obama the brand has always contrasted with Obama the politician. His long association with Gibbs, and the interesting coincidence that his best funded Senate opponents were each knocked out by leaks of sealed court records, cemented Obama's reputation as the sleaziest candidate in the Democratic field this cycle, at least among those who pay attention. Obama's campaign has bragged about engineering the boycott of the Michigan ballot, so his claims of disenfranchisement when opponents call him on his attempt at ballot box stuffing rings hollow.

It is foolish to attack another's intellectual integrity when you demonstrably have so little yourself. You have followed Obama's campaign closely enough to be familiar with the articles I've linked above and his Michigan shenanigans, you know that Holden's points are factual.


by souvarine on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 04:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeaa, it different - it helps Obama (none / 0)

Nah, I'll agree he's not spotless (although who is?)

I vaguely remember those scandals, although I don't think I actually read the articles - the presidential horse-race started to bore me pretty quickly - so I may not be the paragon of all that is good and just.

That said, what holden was doing was pretty clearly a smear and not a good one either. I tend to disagree with you on a lot of points, but you tend to have some reasoning behind your argument. I was just pissed off because the argument being made boiled down to "Obama did something and therefore he must be bad and you should vote for Clinton." If I were eligible to vote, that kind of thing would be more likely to make me vote for Obama - something that doesn't as it stands particularly appeal to me.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 07:59:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is politics. (none / 0)

No one is purging voters from the rolls.  I really wish we would refrain from utilizing this defamatory rhetoric.  Other campaigns are simply noting how voters who are not Iowans may flood the caucuses.  My concern is different: I desire to know how one can determine that these students are only registered to vote in one state.  Evidence that they have relinquished previous voter registrations is required.  Why else is the word "or" inserted in the law cited at the Iowa Secretary of State's website?


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is politics. (none / 0)

all ya gotta know about obama and axelrod is look at how barry got to both the state and us senate by playig the angles and really disenfranchising voters of a CHOICE...

they dont give am F about "fair"...


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:29:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The DNC stripped Michigan of its delegates (none / 0)

It's a meaningless beauty contest outside of party rules. I'm glad that Edwards, Obama, and most of the Democratic field are boycotting it.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

watch for this though... (none / 0)

Michigan could gain back some of its relevance if Obama, Edwards and Biden (not sure about Richardson) ask their supporters to vote uncommitted.  This might make Michigan a referendum on Hillary and where she stands on 1/15.


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is politics. (none / 0)

Blame the DNC and Dean.. OR BLAME Michigan for moving up the dates... Obama, Edwards and several others removed there names because of the DNC decision.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is politics. (none / 0)

Book you should write a diary on that. Excellent point!


by lonnette33 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:11:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Voter (2.00 / 1)

If one pays out of state tuition, one is not technically allowed to vote in the state, as one is not a resident.  This was the case for me when I attended a public institution in the bay area as an undergraduate for five years.  But I did cast votes in elections in my state of legal residence, just as the Illinoisians can.  This is not disenfranchisement; this is a request that voters adhere to the rules.  Besides, if one is not paying in state tuition, then one is not a resident.  

If I followed the rules as an undergraduate at one of the most prestigious public universities in the bay area during the late 1990s, then Obama's drones can too.  And why are they attending school in Iowa?  Did they fail to meet the admissions requirements of Urbana-Champaign?


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:36:23 AM EST

This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 6)

This is false.  The Iowa Secretary of State's office explicitly states that "non resident" students have a right to participate in the caucus in lieu of participating in their home state if they wish.

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/Vot erInformation/CollegeStudents.html#3

These students have every legal right to participate in the Iowa caucus.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:44:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (none / 0)

Did these student relinquish their right to vote in the other state?  Are they in possession of an Iowa identification card?  Have they participated in jury duty?  Those were the steps I had to undertake in order to become a legal resident of California.  But I chose not to, and I cast my votes either in person or by absentee voting whenever there were elections in my state.  


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 1)

Um, if those are the legal requirements, then it is up to those running the caucuses to ensure that they are enforced, and there is no reason at this point to suspect that they won't do so.

Your asking me to prove something for thousands of voters . . . at this point, there is no reporting - by Yepsen or anyone else who has a stake in this issue - that would indicate that this is otherwise.  

No one is saying that what Obama is doing is illegal.  Everyone admits that it is legal.  So they are reduced to saying that it is "in bad taste" and "would offend real Iowans."  

Also, I'm pretty sure that a student ID would be a legal form of identification in this instance.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 2)

It depends if that ID is updated every year, for a university ID without a time stamp can lead to various forms of fraud.  This explains why universities such as Harvard force their IDs to expire at the end of every academic year.

The students, if enrolled at a university, should be allowed to vote, but they must relinquish their registration in their home state.  I notice the "or" in the law, and I hope it is enforced.  I also hope evidence that one relinquished one's voter registration in their home state is required.

States such as California ensure this is the case by requiring those seeking residence to obtain a state ID.  Because I do not see such a requirement in the Iowa law, I see a loophole that can be exploited by unscrupulous campaigns.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (none / 0)

you would make a poll taxer.


by moreaxe on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (none / 0)

a GREAT poll taxer that is.


by moreaxe on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (none / 0)

He only supports suppression because it Helps Hillary.  If the roles were reversed, he'd be all for it... and Obama wouldn't be saying a word about it.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

as always (2.00 / 2)

theres a big difference between whats LEGAL and whats FAIR..

or ethical...


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (2.00 / 2)

Damn right. We young'uns should know that it's not ethical to vote when we're legally entitled to. Let's leave it to our elders and betters.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (none / 0)

Entitled to vote?  You are entitled to vote in your state of residence.  To vote willy nilly in any state on impulse compromises the integrity of elections.  Besides, if one votes, one is usually a resident of the state.  And I fail to see how someone who pays out of state tuition as a result of their residency in another state is entitled to vote in the state of the university in which they pay out of state tuition.  For they have not relinquished their residency and, by implication, their right to vote in a different state.  And if they desire to vote in another state, they should at least have to demonstrate an intention to become a resident of that state.  

Call it disenfranchisement if that is what you necessarily have to do in order to support a candidate or espouse a sanctimonious politics of youth; I call it exploiting a loophole in Iowa's election code.  I also view it as an attempt create oppportunities whereby students can vote twice in different states.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (2.00 / 0)

That would be illegal, and nobody in the Obama campaign is advocating that.  They lay down pretty hard into that.  Republicans in Wisconsin get really angry about that, and try to discount votes even when they ARE legal.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:28:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (none / 0)

Then what evidence have these students produced in order to verify their relinquishment of their previous voter registration?  And how is the Obama campaign determining that this is the case?  Because I see no clause in the law that requires evidence of a students' relinquishment of their status of resident or of their right to vote in a different state, I see a possibility for voter fraud.  And how, exactly, is the campaign of Obama ensuring these students relinquish their right to vote in Illinois?  How?  What measures is the campaign undertaking?  

All I see here is an exploitation of a loophole in a very ambiguous and poorly written law.  And I am disgusted, as I always voted in my state of residence while paying out of state tuition at a university on the west coast.  Because I followed rules when an undergraduate, I expect students from Illinois who are now in school in Iowa to do the same.  I also expect campaigns not to exploit loopholes in states' election codes.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (none / 0)

When you vote somewhere else for convenience sake, you don't "relinquish" your ability to vote in the old place.  If people suspect voter fraud, they investigate it.  It isn't hard to check records and see if you voted twice.  They ask for your name and checkoff if you voted.  If you vote in two places, it is pretty easy to find out.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (none / 0)

you need to reread my comments.  one should only be granted the right to vote if one has taken the requisite steps to become a resident.  because those steps usually require one to relinquish the id issued by the state of previous residence, there is no ambiguity.  but here there is ambiguity, as these students are paying out of state tuition for the precise reason that THEY ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF IOWA.  if they desire to vote, then they can demonstrate an intention to become a resident of iowa.  but they have not, which is why all these problems regarding their real voter registration status surface.  


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (2.00 / 0)

Having been a part of a GOTV effort in NH in 2004, I can tell you that you're completely unfamiliar with common election law.  Just like in Iowa, students who pay out-of-state tuition in NH are fully eligible to vote in NH.  When they re-register in the state, they simply have a 60 day window in which to change the state that issues their driving license, and provide a bill addressed to a residence in NH with their name on it.  Its really not difficult to do at all, and fully "playing by the rules", seeing as how the practice is explicitly permitting within the rules and its mechanics are clear and well-known.

In 2004, though, the people running this disgusting anti-youth movement were, not surprisingly, Republicans.  A shame to see Dem partisans aping their efforts to discourage youth civic participation.


by mopper8 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (2.00 / 1)

That is incorrect, as you explained how students had to provide evidence that they had some form of intention of becoming a resident of the state.  Why else produce a utility bill?  And I am not advocating for the suppression of votes.  In fact, I believe campaigns in any state should ensure students are aware of their right to vote absentee.  

Filing a tax return in the state in which one desires to vote is another manner whereby one can express an intention to become a voting resident.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (none / 0)

Yet they spend more time in Iowa than their home state.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (2.00 / 0)

What's laughable about this is you keep implying that students would somehow not be following the rules and calling it a "loophole", even though the what they're doing is explicitly within the rules to such a degree that it hardly can be considered a loophole

This isnt' some obscure idea the state legislature forgot to prohibit; it is explicitly deemed allowable in the election law.  That's not a loophole, that's the law.  And doing something within the law is the definition of "following the rules"

As I noted below, there is no doubt that this same bloc of voters have participated in the caucus in every year they've been eligible, since the past caucuses have happened when school was in session.  No controversy then.

This is a fake controversy, a political point and not one of principle, and to see partisans rally behind it is disgusting.


by mopper8 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (none / 0)

It is a loophole, as these voters can potentially vote twice if they do not relinquish their right to vote in their actually state of residence.  they are paying out of state tuition for a reason.  


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always (none / 0)

In Illinois, even after I got an Illinois driver's license, showed that I was paying utility bills, had my PA driver's license taken away (by the DMV), indicated I planned on staying in the state (easier to get a job), and voted a few times in Illinois, I STILL PAID OUT-OF-STATE TUITION.  I was pissed.  They had so many damn loops which I had to jump through to get in-state tuition it just wasn't funny.

Point being, just because you pay out-of-state tuition doesn't mean you can't vote, or in this case, participate in the caucuses.


by pseudo999 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as always sounds like a republican argument (none / 0)

This sounds like a Republican meme to surpress voter's to their advantage,

They want picturew ID cards. I suppose truthteller would want picture ID cards. What is legal in CA. may be different in IA or any other state. I have lived in MN(MY HOME STATE), GA, CA and my current residence VA. aLL HAVE DIFFERENT RESIDENCY RULES FOR REGISTRATION.

Minnesota has same day registration on election day, this is not the law in VA.


by BDM on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 2)

Um, if those are the legal requirements, then it is up to those running the caucuses to ensure that they are enforced, and there is no reason at this point to suspect that they won't do so.

Your asking me to prove something for thousands of voters . . . at this point, there is no reporting - by Yepsen or anyone else who has a stake in this issue - that would indicate that this is otherwise.  

Thank you for conceding my point: the law as it is written highlights a loophole presently exploited by an unscrupulous campaign.  These students should only vote if they have evidence that they have relinquished their voter registration in their home state.  And one way to do this is to require them to obtain an ID issued by the state of Iowa.  Otherwise, students can vote in two states.  And no, a college ID is not a valid form of identification, unless the production of that ID is contingent upon the relinquishment of one's residency in another state.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:17:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (none / 0)

Newsflash:

No ID is required to register and vote the day of the Iowa Caucus...so anyone could choose to circumvent this...ID's won't matter. There just has not been an issue with this in the past.


by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (none / 0)

Then Iowa needs to rewrite its laws.  After all, they jealously guard their right to vote first in the primary schedule.  One would think they would take the requisite measures in order to ensure the integirty of their caucus system.  If just anyone can waltz into a caucus and vote, why even bother?


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 1)

How does living somewhere 8 months of the year count as "anyone" just "waltz into a caucus"?

Please truthteller.  The arguements here are week.  If you move to Iowa, lived there for less than 8 months, you shouldn't be able to vote?  That's absurd and you know it.  That is not what the Democratic party stands for.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 2)

Again, these students pay out of state tuition for a reason.  There legal residence is in Illinois or some other state, and they are more than welcome to vote there.  And no, this has nothing to do with Party; this has everything to do with the law and with the integrity of elections.  And if someone is committed to becoming a resident of the state in which they are paying out of state tuition, they can express an intention to become a resident by obtaining a state ID, participating in jury duty, receiving utility bills at an address in the state and by establishing a bank account in that state.  All that can be used as evidence that they have relinquished residency in a different state and that they will become a resident of the state in which they are paying out of state tuition.  After all, they pay out of state tuition for the sole reason that they are not a resident of the state and that they have no intention of becoming a resident.  

This is why they should vote at home, not in Iowa.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 0)

 And no, this has nothing to do with Party; this has everything to do with the law and with the integrity of elections.

Funny you should say that, because as you know, this is LEGAL.  So if it has to do with the law, the law sides with me here.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:48:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 2)

Not at all, for there is no requirement that these students who are not paying in state tuition present evidence of an intention to become a resident.  And if I may be frank, your arguments are jejune, for you have bracketed the issue of residency.  According to you, anyone can just arrive and vote.  No one supports such a notion, and you only defend it, as your candidate is the beneficiary of this unethical practice.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 0)

for there is no requirement that these students who are not paying in state tuition present evidence of an intention to become a resident.  And if I may be frank, your arguments are jejune, for you have bracketed the issue of residency.  According to you, anyone can just arrive and vote.  No one supports such a notion, and you only defend it, as your candidate is the beneficiary of this unethical practice.

What the hell are you talking about?

In yet another quirk of Iowa's caucus system, all citizens can participate as long as they sign a voter registration card, attesting to residency in the precinct and show that they'll be 18 in time for the general election.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl es/2007/11/27/focusing_on_who_can_vote_i n_iowa_nh/


by mopper8 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:08:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 2)

I am referring to the law as it is written at the Iowa Secretary of State's website, which mentions nothing about residency.  But then if one is paying out of state tuition, which is a sign of their lack of residency, how could they possibly obtain a voter registration card.  For one pays out of state tuition for the precise reason that they are not a resident.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 0)

Once again, your complaint is borne out of ignorance.

I address it below in this post


by mopper8 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 2)

No, it is not.  And nothing you have posted have addressed anything I have typed.  


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 0)

LOL, "truthteller".  What an ironic handle.

Keep on believin'.


by mopper8 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 0)

How does living somewhere for 8 months of a year, for somewhere between 1-4 years mean someone can "Walk right in to a caucus and vote"  If you're going to argue, at least try to maintain credibility.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:12:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 2)

Because there is a difference between a TEMPORARY address and a PERMANENT address, or the address of ACTUAL residence.  


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:16:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 0)

So you're saying rich people could buy a house in Iowa and caucus there just so their vote counts, then sell the house for 3 years, then buy it again during an election year and that would be okay?  But college students, that would be horrible.  Good to know you have a strong handle on ethics.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 0)

Download a voter registration form here

You will note that one has to provide an address in Iowa so as to determine which precinct in which one is eligible to vote

The penalty for knowingly falsifying this information is fines up to $7500 and up to 5 years in prison.

In order to vote in Iowa, one must have a physical residence in Iowa.  Coincidentally enough, anyone who goes to school in Iowa....has a physical residence in Iowa!  Who would've though...?


by mopper8 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 2)

That is not always true.  And there is a difference between a permanent address and a TEMPORARY address on campus.  Anyone who completes a college tuition billing form knows this.  


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:15:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (2.00 / 0)

What are you talking about, "this is not always true?"

Of course it is, that's the freakin VOTER REGISTRATION FORM.  ONE CANNOT VOTE WITHOUT REGISTERING TO VOTE.

That's the point.  You can register the night of the caucus, sure, but you still have to register.

And the minimum requirement for registering does not differentiate between "temporary" and "permanent" address.  Simply a physical residence in Iowa.  And that is by design, just as the rule allowing out-of-state college students to vote in Iowa is also by design

When my lease is up in Florida, I plan on moving out.  Does that mean my current residence is only a temporary residence, and as such, I shouldn't be able to vote in Florida?

You're wrapping yourself up into pretzels and denying obvious, objectively-true facts, for partisan gains.  give it up.  You look pathetic.


by mopper8 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (none / 0)

Because it is so small and so community oriented that you know who should not be there. If 25 of your neighbors come together, you know who is not living down the block or section from you.


by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is demonstrably false (none / 0)

f you are from another state (i.e. Illinois) and are attending college in Iowa (i.e. Iowa State University), you may register to vote in:

your Iowa college town or
your home state (hometown) and vote absentee - subject to the laws of your home state

(You cannot register to vote in both locations)

I notice the "or."  I hope the Iowa Secretary of State will share this voter registration information with other Secretaries of States.  But I also hope these students demonstrate other intentions to become residents of Iowa if they are committed to that state's politics.  

But to claim that they are disenfranchised is false, for they always have the opportunity to vote in the state of residence if that is the place at which they are registered.  


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter (none / 0)

Cheers to Mike Connery for definitively refuting your incorrect suggestion that residential tuition status is perfectly correlated with voting eligibility.

Another refutation would be the clear text from Iowa State's and Iowa's discussions of eligibility for residential tuition: "If the person is in the state primarily for educational purposes, that person will be considered a nonresident. For example, it may be possible that an individual could qualify as a resident of Iowa for such purposes as voting, or holding an Iowa driver's license, and not meet the residency requirements as established by the Board of Regents, State of Iowa, for admission, tuition, and fee purposes." [Emphasis mine]

Also, it isn't logical in the first place for residential tuition status to determine voting eligibility, since plenty of students go to private colleges where "tuition status" is undefined.

When I moved from Minnesota to Pennsylvania for college and grad school (1999 through 2007), it was well understood among those of us conducting voting drives that out-of-state citizen-students could elect to vote at college or at their parents' residence but not both. (This common-sense rule was particularly valuable for students whose parents moved while they were in school: For example, if a student's parents moved from North Dakota to Minnesota while she was in school in Pennsylvania, it wouldn't make much sense to force her to vote in Minnesota, where she had never lived.) I myself switched to Pennsylvania midway through college; my final Minnesota vote was a 2002 write-in absentee for Walter Mondale in Paul Wellstone's place. From then until when I left grad school in 5/2007, I voted in Pennsylvania.

To answer your specific questions from your response to Mike Connery:
"Did these student relinquish their right to vote in the other state?" Yes, at least for the 2008 presidential primary. Voting twice in the same election is a class D felony in Iowa. I would have to know more about case law to say whether they could switch back to their parents' state for a future election, but I suspect they could.
"Are they in possession of an Iowa identification card?" This is very close to an FAQ-question on the webpage that Mike Connery linked to. Perhaps you should read that page. In Iowa, one does not need identification to register to vote, but may need to produce identification showing one's address in order to vote such as: a photo-ID card, a utility bill, a bank statement, a paycheck, or a government check. This is pretty standard stuff. (Remember the kerfuffle when Georgia recently insisted on a photo ID?)
"Have they participated in jury duty?" They are eligble to be called to jury duty if Iowa takes its jury rolls from voter lists, as many states do. I remember that once I registered in Pennsylvania, I was called for jury three times. The first time, it fell during midterm exams, and I was granted a deferral. The second time I was the foreman in a civil case. The third time, I was scheduled to serve a few weeks after I moved out of the state.

It disappoints me, but does not surprise me, that Sen. Clinton's campaign is criticizing Iowa's student-citizens for wanting to vote. After all, this is the same curmudgeonly candidate who gave an out-of-touch and cliché speech in May 2006 to the effect that kids-these-days think that "work is a four-letter-word," expect $50,000 jobs straight out of college, and enjoy iPods too much. I was offended by her remarks (and by her non-apology apology), and will not volunteer for her campaign or vote for her in the primary.

By the way, you're likely a little confused about California law. From Berkeley's discussion of residency: "Indications of your intent to make California your permanent residence can include registering to vote and voting in California elections." This implies that permanent residence in California for tuition purposes is not a requirement to vote in California.


Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.
by bschak on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate (none / 0)

If this were frowned upon by Iowans, you would expect a law to be made by the state legislature to change non-native college students ability to caucus.  But that brings another question, how long do you have to live in Iowa before you can caucus there?  If someone moves to Iowa, that's almost the exact same scenario.  Should there be a double standard?  It really doesn't make that much sense to me.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:37:17 AM EST

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate (2.00 / 0)

Generally, as long as you move somewhere with the intent to stay permanently, that's good enough.

Students are a special case which is why there's a specific Iowa statute telling students where they can vote.

A student who resides at or near the school the student attends, but who is also able to claim a residence at another location under the provisions of this section, may choose either location as the student's residence for voter registration and voting purposes.

There's a lot of nonsense flying around this thread that basically relies upon pretending this duly enacted statute doesn't exist.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate (none / 0)

the statute exist but you overinflate what it means regarding understanding what voters who are permanet to the state know of it or whether it answers the question as to whether its fair to allow influence by out of staters. it may not have been a problem that was previously considered at lenght in the past, and it isn't something that just by having a law exist that we can know. thats not always how the legislative process works.


by bruh21 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate (none / 0)

You sum up the reason, and its the big one for me, of why I am ont he fence. I used to say "well if they are there they should have the right to vote" but now I look at this and ask -- are they really planning to stay? That's important to me so that looking at the big picture the locals aren't finding their voice obscured by people who don't even intend to remain in the state and thus live with the long term consequences of their decisions. Now here that's less of problem since we are talking President, but its a real issue of who should have the power in a given state or local. If they are just transient voters who are voting to have influence rather than people intending to stay to live under the changes they make- thats a different story. i know what the law says- and indeed most states have similar such laws so the argument that Iowans choose this is beside the point to me as to whether I support the idea. instate students however is a different story. There should be no problem with this. this isssue to me is more complicated than it seems to be explained here


by bruh21 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate (none / 0)

Well many 18 year olds will be there for the most part for four years... but how can you ask that of a Junior in College.  They don't know what the job market is or WHERE there are jobs.  THey may want to stay but if there arent jobs...


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate (none / 0)

My only point is that on the one hand I know how these issues are hot button if someone is 18 and thinking they are being disenfranchised, but at 35 I see things differently. I can understand why someone who has been there not just transiently might have a problem  with this. I can also understand why they might not have dispite what peo say here even known this was a rule that allowed this. I just dont see it as simple as both sides are arguing.  For instance, on the one hand I do want everyone where they aren't transient to have a vote, but I don't think its fair to give undue influence to out of staters who only want to vote this time because of a favored candidate without regard to impact. I am arguing process which I know maybe is a m istake here at this time. This is one of those issues I've always had a problem with both as a student and now as a permanent resident wheer I am.


by bruh21 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:10:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate (none / 0)

See I don't have a problem with it... Whether you just moved to the state or you have lived there for years... to me if you work int he state, pay money to the state through taxes or tuition or live int he state, it should give you a say in their politics... IF you decide that that state is your FOCUS.  Voting in Both is obviously wrong.  But if you live in Illinois and work or go to school in Iowa (Or any states that border each other) or the reverse, live in Iowa and work or go to school in Illinois, I feel you should be able to pick one of the states to support politically, since you are contributing to both states through taxes, tuition payments, community support, etc.  Just as I feel that if you live in one state and work in the other, you should be able to get in-state tuition in either state.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hell-Yeah Hillary student group (2.00 / 1)

One of Hillary student leader in charge of whipping up student support for Hillary is in fact a Minnesota Out-of stater and she's planning to cut short her winter break to caucus for Hillary.

So there it is , you have the Clinton campaign stating they do not count out of staters , but one of their student leaders is indeed an out of stater.


by Prodigy on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:40:09 AM EST

WRONG!!! (2.00 / 1)

THATS BE PROVEN UNTRUE!!!

ITS THE REVERSE -

SHE GOES TO SCHOOL IN MN AND IS COMING HOME TO IOWA TO CAUCUS!

damn - another hllary slander disproved - damn!


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:15:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG!!! (none / 0)

A slander is intentional you fucking moron.  He was incorrect, but that doesn't make it slander.  And FOR the RECORD, educate yourself.  It isn't SLANDER, It's LIBEL.  Slander is spoken.  Libel is written.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:04:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

best front page post on this site (2.00 / 0)

Hillary is making me sick.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:40:17 AM EST

Re: best front page post on this site (none / 0)

Yepsen owe the Obama camp an apology...Obama is following Iowa rules here and out of staters have always participated in those caucus.

Yepsen is making it seem like those people never participated in the Iowa caucus before.

Obama should demand an answer from the Clinton camp on whether they believe out of staters who lives in Iowa on campus , can vote or caucus.


by Prodigy on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:48:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: best front page post on this site (2.00 / 2)

How is this Hillary's fault?  Her campaign is not actively organizing out of state students to vote in Iowa.  Neither is Dodd's campaign. It's a fair criticism.  Neither of them is suggesting that it's illegal, because it clearly isn't.  But calling it voter disenfranchisement is disingenuous, as best.

The fact is, the caucus will be on Jan. 3, when most out of state students would normally still be in their home states, not in Iowa. School won't start for a couple more weeks, so getting these folks back to vote in Iowa seems a little sketchy to me, although I have mixed feelings about it.  However, it is certainly NOT disenfranchising anyone. The college kids could still vote in their home states, so no one is being denied their rights.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary will cause us to lose Iowa (2.00 / 0)

You know, many students vote in their college districts, rather than in their home districts in the November elections to avoid casting absentee ballots. I'm considering this myself. This is always encouraged by local party officials and the party. The only thing calling these students out for does is cause them to register in Illinois to vote in November, which makes them less likely to cast a vote in the Presidential election next year. Basically, Dodd and Hillary are trying to cause the exact opposite of what Obama wants, their efforts will make it even more difficult for young people to vote while Obama's efforts would it easier.

Their efforts could cost us Iowa in the next Presidential election.


by Progressive America on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:49:42 AM EST

Re: Hillary will cause us to lose Iowa (none / 0)

And also add the fact that many of the college students who are now studying in Iowa will go on to live there. Some of them have already lived there longer than some "normal" Iowa residents.


by Progressive America on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:52:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary will cause us to lose Iowa (2.00 / 0)

You know, many students vote in their college districts, rather than in their home districts in the November elections to avoid casting absentee ballots. I'm considering this myself. This is always encouraged by local party officials and the party.

This is so true.  It rings with my story.  I lived in Ron Kind's district (D-WI) but I'm going to college in Steve Kagan's district (D-WI).  Democrats are struggling here more than in my old district.  There is a state senate seat they are going after, while Democrats have all the state senate and assembly seats in my old district.  Kagan only won his election with 51% even after self-funding 2.7 million dollars, while Ron Kind easily sailed to victory with 65%.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:59:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

<