A recent dialogue in New England on New Hampshire’s House Bill 176 has the potential to spark a broader discussion on the voting rights of college students in the towns where they attend school. The legislation, if passed, would ban a student from voting in a town where he or she attends college if they did not have prior residency before their enrollment in the university.
New Hampshire Speaker of the House William O’Brien, R-Hillsborough, who supports the bill, was quoted saying voting college students are “basically doing what I did when I was a kid and foolish, voting as a liberal,” and how he looks “at towns like Plymouth and Keene and Hanover, and particularly Plymouth. They’ve lost the ability to govern themselves.”
This rhetoric represents the beginnings of a dangerous ideology of voter censorship. Designing laws to prevent a specific constituency from voting is a slap in the face to the very principles of a representative democracy. While other supporters of the bill have since distanced themselves from O’Brien, the fact that New Hampshire’s Speaker of the House was spouting such, for a lack of a better word, blasphemy is troublesome.
The Maneater brought this potential issue back to Columbia, where the student constituency is without a doubt present not only from MU, but from Stephen’s College and Columbia College. Such legislation in Columbia would potentially strip tens of thousands of students of their voting rights here in the college town that is, for months on end, home to us.
Mary Still, D-Columbia, told The Maneater that legislation like New Hampshire House Bill 176 in Missouri was not something to worry about, and is based on an irrational fear. Still said college students offer an important, educated perspective in any college town community.
Proponents of the bill in New Hampshire cited the fact that out-of-town students are not informed on issues in the cities they temporarily reside. This is an ignorant and broad assumption to make, as many students, especially those involved in large student organizations, are often involved in the communities where they attend school.
Amanda Swysgood, the MU College Republicans Vice Chair of Social Affairs, told The Maneater she understands the principles of the bill, saying, “I think it’s hard when business owners live in a town full of students that vote liberal when they only vote for four years. Businesses are not often supported by liberal policy. Students move in and out and don’t necessarily stay in town to live with the liberal policies they voted for.”
Swysgood, O’Brien and other supporters of this bill are forgetting one very important point. Let’s take Columbia as an example. While it is technically true that most students from MU, Stephens and Columbia College do not stay to live in Columbia for extended periods of time after they graduate, the broader constituency of students remains constant. The demographics of the student constituency are slow to change, and it’s pretty damn unethical to ignore the voices of tens of thousands of educated students. That’s what Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen did, and that didn’t work out too well for them.
Furthermore, it’s important to remember that the traditional four-year degree program as well as masters and graduate programs last long enough to either see a state politician’s term through or end. Even if the student does not live in the town for more than four years, he or she still lives in the town long enough to be subject to any state or local policies.
While we have no fears that legislation like N.H. House Bill 176 will make its way to Missouri any time soon, such ideas present a dangerous mindset for the voices of students in the communities where they attend school. And for our counterparts in N.H., we’re with you. Plus, Mary Still says you have nothing to worry about.
