Student Association for Voter Empowerment

Barriers to the Youth Vote in 2008
A briefing on specific issues and tactics that compromise the ability of young people to exercise their vote

Across all demographics, there are significant challenges when it comes to the exercising the right to vote; however, young voters face a unique set of barriers.  The Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE) compiled the following list of impediments to the youth vote from a variety of sources including personal experience, individual interviews, collected testimony, news media, and election protection organizations.

Voter Registration

The first step in the process of voting is registration; unfortunately, the numerous requirements that young people confront when attempting to register are particularly onerous.

In some cases, students face overt legislative attempts to prevent them from voting at their college or university.  For example, SAVE heard testimony that every year a bill is introduced in the Maine state legislature prohibiting students living in college owned housing from claiming residency.   Fortunately, the bill has not passed; however, if it did, it would effectively disenfranchise thousands of students who wish to vote in their new communities. 

Many local boards of elections across the country effectively practice the discrimination that members of the Maine state legislature preach.  Since state statutes expressly prohibit the use of a post office box for registration purposes, officials frequently turn student voters away by failing to recognize dormitory addresses as legitimate residences.  When students cannot use their dormitory address, there is no means for them to register in their new community.  In instances where election officials do recognize dormitory addresses, the discrepancy between a student’s mailing address and actual physical address creates a situation where students are susceptible to voter purging.   In such instances, certified mail is sent to student voters’ addresses, and if the mail was returned as undeliverable, the information was used as grounds to purge the registered voter from the rolls.  Since college students typically have different mailing and living addresses, they are particularly susceptible to this method of challenging voter eligibility.

Other significant barriers to registration exist beyond challenges to eligibility.  Voter registration drives targeting college students are subjected to rules that are not imposed on groups that do not register students to vote.  In Tennessee, students were asked to provide identification, typically not required of other registrants.   If standards are applied consistently to individuals across the demographic spectrum, the practice would be acceptable; however, when young voters and students are forced to follow a different set of rules, it amounts to discrimination.

Finally, several instances of election officials presenting residency questionnaires to students have been reported.   In 2004, the board of elections in Williamsburg, Virginia asked students to complete a questionnaire relating to the location of their parents’ home, possession of property outside the town, and their place of worship.   Such detailed information was not required of other residents and was collected solely to establish a reason to reject a student’s registration.

Clearly, a multitude of challenges confronts students, and those who register students, when taking the initial step in the voting process.  However, successfully navigating these initial barriers does not mean a student’s vote is secure.

Misinformation Campaigns

Misinformation campaigns designed to discourage students from voting have also been widely reported.  In some instances, the disinformation is aimed at students prior to registration.  Recently, stories surfaced from students at Virginia Tech regarding false claims made by local election officials.   Election officials disseminated false information, stating that students who attempted to register at their school address could jeopardize their status as dependants on tax returns, their car and health insurance, and even school scholarships.  After the issue received greater public scrutiny, election officials modified their statements; however, the number of discouraged student voters will remain a mystery.

Misinformation is also a tool to dissuade or prevent students from voting on Election Day.  Flyers were printed and posted around the University of Pennsylvania in 2004 containing information similar in nature to that at Virginia Tech.  The posters warned of serious consequences for out-of-state students who voted in Pennsylvania.   The key difference, however, was that the posters did not appear until after the registration deadline.  Consequently, students were scared out of voting at all because it was too late to register in their home districts.
Disinformation campaigns represent the most blatant form of discrimination against student voters.  The practice is a malicious attempt to discourage students from either registering to vote or casting a ballot.

Voter Identification

Voter identification laws have recently garnered legislative success in several states, most notably in Indiana.  Proponents of the identification laws claim they are designed to curb voter fraud; however, reports of voter fraud are virtually non-existent and the reports that do exist typically relate to absentee or mail-in ballots.  Essentially, voter identification laws target a phantom problem, yet clearly have a negative impact on young voters.  According to a Rock the Vote survey, 19 percent of young adults (18-29) report they do not possess a government issued photo ID with their current address.   As a result, young voters are forced to rely upon alternative forms of identification.  The substitutions for a photo ID, such as utility bills, are not easily obtainable for students because colleges and universities generally pay all the bills for students that live in dormitories.  To remedy the problem, Oberlin College took the initiative and issued utility bills to their students for identification purposes .  While it was a remarkable effort by the college, it is not a step every school is prepared to take.  Instead, SAVE believes it is important for states to recognize college and university IDs as an acceptable alternative.  For the students who make it to Election Day eager to vote, it is critical that a voter identification law not derail their effort.

Vote Machine and Ballot Allocation

In the recent past, long lines to vote, which result from poor allocation of voting machines and ballots, have marred our elections.  A few examples include in Florida, Maryland, and Virginia.  In at least one instance, insufficient allocation of machines directly affected student voters from Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio.   There were only two machines located at the polling place, for a district with over 1,000 registered voters, a ratio well in excess of established guidelines.  As a result, some students were forced to wait in line up to 10 hours before voting.  Many students were unable to wait in line due to other commitments, essentially forced to forfeit there vote.  Long lines are far too common and negatively affect young voters.

All the previous examples of discrimination demonstrate a general sentiment opposing student-voting rights.  We have seen barriers established at every step in the voting process—registration, between registration and voting, at the polls, and in the booth.  A fear that the student population may overwhelm the community may drive such discriminatory practices.  This fear is unwarranted.  Young people genuinely wish to become members of their community and often consider registering to vote a positive step in that direction.  As leaders in our own communities, we must foster an environment that encourages an active and engaged citizenry, particularly among our youngest citizens.  It is the great fear of SAVE that a young adult, who experiences a barrier to voting, will become disillusioned to the extent that they will not participate in the future.