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.  


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


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
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.


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.  


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.  


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.


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...


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.  


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.


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.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
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 ]

Re: Hillary will cause us to lose Iowa (2.00 / 1)

I wouldn't even be surprised if this story back-fires on Hillary. Local Democrats want more registered Democrats in their districts, so they can do better in their elections. Basically Hillary is trying to hurt all Iowan Democrats.


by Progressive America on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:25:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

The problem with Obama is , he's too nice.

Obama could easily flip the boat on Hillary and Dodd by making them take a stance on whether out of state students who wants to participate in voting could indeed vote in their college state.

Students would be pretty angry if they find out Hillary is trying ti block out of state students from voting in their college state.

Hillary is so dumb that she doesnt realized that if she wins the nomination , she may need those out of state students who lives in state like IL to vote in IA since IL is a safe blue state.

This could of course backfire on her by forcing her to say those students should not be able to vote in IA.


by Prodigy on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

I never had a difficult time casting an absentee ballot when I was enrolled in college.  I also flew home in order to volunteer if the race was close.  Perhaps it is a question of true committment.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:10:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

I also flew home in order to volunteer if the race was close.

Your committment to winning is admirable, and I thank you for your work, but that begs the question... If where you are going to college, Democrats could use your vote more, should you vote there?  It is legal and acceptable.  I listed my story in the comment above yours.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

I could not register to vote, as I was not a resident.  I also paid out of state tuition, which already determined that i was ineligible to vote, participate in juries and receive certain state benefits.  I could have tried to become a resident, but I chose not to, as the process was difficult, and it would have required me to relinquish the rights I enjoyed as a resident of my state of residence.  

Because you know nothing about the politics of my state of residence, you can reserve your thanks.


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

You must have lived in a very unusual state, since most states do not require out-of-state students to demonstrate the usual indicia of residence in order to vote at their campus addresses.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that you were simply misinformed regarding your eligibility to vote in the state where you went to school.


"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 01:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Yes, truthteller2007 was misinformed. He/she went to school in California (see above), which does not require permanent residency for voting, although it does require that for residential tuition. As Berkeley's page on establishing residency for tuition purposes says, one can use California voter registration as evidence of being a California resident after 1 year. This implies that tuition residency cannot possibly be a requirement for voting residency.


Race to 270: Tracking presidential elections since 2004.
by bschak on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:23:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

That's too bad.  In Illinois, I got an Illinois license, showed I paid bills, still paid out-of-state tuition, and voted when I could.


by pseudo999 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Are you saying voting should be hard? Are you sure you're a Democrat? Or even a democrat?


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OF COURSE HE IS YOU TWIT (2.00 / 1)

ARE YOU?


"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 12:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OF COURSE HE IS YOU TWIT (2.00 / 0)

Well, last time I checked, voter supression was a Republican tactic.  Democrats should not be sticking their hands into this.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OF COURSE HE IS YOU TWIT (2.00 / 2)

its juust obamas electoral MO - to push all ethical boundaries till they pop


"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 12:56:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OF COURSE HE IS YOU TWIT (none / 0)

Says the guy supporting the QUEEN of scandal, machine politics and cronyism.  A woman who has written the book on how to get AWAY with a scandal.  

Don't throw stones in glass houses.  Hillary's track record on cronyism and scandal makes Obama, Dodd, Biden, Edwards, Richardson and the rest look like choir boys.  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OF COURSE HE IS YOU TWIT (none / 0)

Oh please.  Knock it off with the voter suppression crap.  No one is being denied their right to vote.  Ever heard of an absentee ballot?


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OF COURSE HE IS YOU TWIT (none / 0)

It doesn't matter, the students are exercising their rights under state law.  Protest to the state, but Obama is playing within the rules.  Hillary's campaign comes dangerously close to saying these students don't belong WHICH ENTAILS VOTER SUPPRESSION.  Its a gamble on Obama's part, but its also stupidity on Hillary's part as she could get more of her supporters involved in the process, which is what's important... exciting and getting the Youth Vote, a DOMINANT Democratic age group, involved and voting in the primaries and in the General Election.  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OF COURSE HE IS YOU TWIT (none / 0)

No. Last I checked, the Democratic Party doesn't put up candidates on this side of the pond.

However, you might be better served by focusing on my point rather than my flippancy. How is making it difficult to vote a good thing for democracy?


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 08:11:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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

No, I did not.  One simple telephone call to a Secretary of State ensured that I received an absentee ballot.  Anyone who knows how to read can obtain an absentee ballot.  Did you state that these students were enrolled in college?


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm glad you appreciate the commitment (2.00 / 0)

of students to drive all the way home from wherever they're visiting their parents to caucus then. This is a case where voters can't cast absentee ballots.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:41:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

very good arguments (2.00 / 2)

you should make this into a diary - this issue - the chicago machine coming to iowa - isnt going away...


"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 12:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: very good arguments (none / 0)

Except anyone who knows Chicago machine politics knows Obama isn't really part of the machine... not int he way Blago and Daley are.  And remember, its not just one machine, it has many different factions and includes Dems and moderate republicans.  Daley and Blago are in opposite Factions as is Michael Madigan, which is why you see the strife.  

So KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.  Rezko was a player, but he was FAR FAR FAR more involved in Blago's world than in Obama's as the facts show.  Of course expecting you to actually know what the hell you are talking about is a slim hope.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

I lived abroad, so I would have had to fly home to vote absentee.

true commitment is scary.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

I'm pretty sure you can get an absentee ballot mailed to you if you live abroad, unless you renounced your citizenship.  Soldiers and ex patriates were among the ballots waiting to be counted in Florida during the 2000 recount.  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Yes,

I don't remember my parents voting in the primaries. I voted where I went to college. I didn't even think of voting as a (Canal) Zonian (even though I think we had a delegate, but I'm not sure.) I walked over to the trailer set up on campus, signed up, and pulled the lever. But that was a long time ago in a place far away,


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 08:19:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa Voter Supression (2.00 / 1)

Obama better have lawyers at all caucus sites.
it looks like team hillary will try to disenfranchise out of state students.
by parahammer on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:52:23 AM EST

Re: Iowa Voter Supression (2.00 / 1)

Honestly, from my impressions on the ground, Team Hillary does not have the type of manpower or folks to intimidate anyone, the scores of Obama folks here in Iowa would laugh them out of the precinct. She just does not have any gas here right now.


by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa Voter Supression (1.66 / 3)

Obama folks here in Iowa

- You mean his imported illinoians right.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa Voter Supression (none / 0)

Actually no, students do not get polled if they are not currently registered here. Duh.

Bitter much?


by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa Voter Supression (none / 0)

Actually no, students do not get polled if they are not currently registered here. Duh.

Bitter much?


by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Thanks for sharing this ridiculous gambit, Mike. Having worked Iowa, I believe more Iowans will think less of Clinton and Dodd for this BS. You're so right though about the narrative effect, and it could completely hobble the impact of his performance on other states.

Shame on Yepsen first.

Shame on both campaigns too, however, it's only fair to let Clinton off if they don't push this narrative further. An anonymous official could be, like, the deputy finance director grinding a personal axe.


by JoeFelice on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:58:09 AM EST

Democratic Campaigns (none / 0)

To those of you worrying about how this may affect Iowa, you may not have to worry much longer.  Rumors are going around that Ted Kennedy may endorse Obama as early as today.  

I've said it myself, endorsements only matter as much as they make themselves matter.  So why does an endorsement from Ted Kennedy matter?  Here's an article that displays the relevance.  (If anyone can tell me how to hyperlink, I really should learn how to and would greatly appreciate it)

Article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/01/k ennedy.endorsement.ap/index.html

Democratic presidential contenders flocked to Sen. Edward Kennedy's 75th birthday party earlier this year.  Sen. Barack Obama showed up at Kennedy's home with a bottle of wine as a gift. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pulled Kennedy aside to schmooze. Sen. Christopher Dodd needled Kennedy about getting older.

So for starters, people are going after this one.  So why is it important again?

Kennedy can also lend organizational muscle by sending his Massachusetts supporters across the border to neighboring New Hampshire, the leadoff primary state. He boasts a broad national fundraising and political network as well.

"Most endorsements aren't worth much," said veteran Democratic consultant Michael Shea. "But if you get Kennedy's endorsement, it's really worth something. He wants to win."

veteran Democratic consultant Michael Shea shares my feelings in regards to endorsements.  Go figure, eh?  

Kennedy's support made a difference to Massachusetts colleague Sen. John Kerry's struggling 2004 primary campaign.

Kennedy gave strategic advice and key advisers to Kerry. He campaigned heavily on Kerry's behalf at a time when few believed Kerry could win. The moves helped fuel Kerry's comeback victories in Iowa and New Hampshire that paved the way to the nomination.

If Kennedy could (although with the help of other factors) turn Kerry's struggling campaign around, imagine what he could do to Obama's flourishing campaign. If you're wondering where the rumors are coming from, there was a post on iowatrueblue (http://www.iowatrueblue.com/Blog/tabid/3 6/Default.aspx) that signaled a big endorsement and a date.  Although the post was taken down, another tip-off came from intothevortex (http://www.intothevortex.net/)

The Vortex has learned from Obama campaign insiders that Senator Ted Kennedy will endorse the junior Senator from Illinois as early as Sunday.  Kennedy has never endorsed a candidate that lost the Iowa Caucus.

 


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:13:42 PM EST

Re: Democratic Campaigns (none / 0)

could that be the bid endorsement that Ben Smith was talking about?


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns (none / 0)

never mind the big Iowa endorsement today is the mayor of Des Moines.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns (none / 0)

Who did he endorse?  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:29:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns (none / 0)

Obama


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns (none / 0)

Sweet.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns (none / 0)

I'd rather have Ted kennedy.  I'd say at this point, his endorsement is only second to Gore's.  (Bill's WOULD be important if his wife wasn't running, but  since she is and is endorsement is obvious its not as big of a deal... his support, etc is already at her disposal).


by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate Voter (2.00 / 1)

Great post.  

Something important to add:

There was much made of the fact that the caucus would take place during winter break, when students would be home.  While some considered this an advantage (more votes in rural areas), many thought this was called a disadvantage for Obama, for 2 reasons

1-They would be harder to organize

2-He would "lose" thousands of votes from out-of-state students.

The 2nd point, which I saw raised many times, implicitly accepts out-of-state students as valid Iowa voters.  You can't "lose" votes that don't count or shouldn't count in the first place.

What's more, it also highlights and obvious truth: this would be a complete non-issue if the caucus was being held when school was in session.  Obama and all the campaigns would be organizing GOTV programs on college campuses, and nobody would be suggesting that only students paying in-state tuition participate.  In years past, no doubt, thousands of out-of-state students have participated to no controversy simply because they weren't on vacation.  

All in all, this is a stupid complaint.  It sounds like Yepsen got spun badly by a rival campaign, probably Clinton (since her campaign seems to be leading the pack in criticizing Obama on this), and didn't really think this through at all.  Have past caucuses been "fake" victories or illegitimate because all the out-of-state college students were allowed to participate?

What's sad, however, is that politics is trumping principle here.  The last thing anyone needs to be doing is discouraging civic participation for any group, especially the 18-22 bloc.  To do so for political gain is insidious.


by mopper8 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:18:56 PM EST

Kind of like (2.00 / 0)

punishing students for spending Christmas with their families.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kind of like (none / 0)

Heh, exactly.  


by mopper8 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:59:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It kind of seems like the media is dedicated (2.00 / 0)

to disparaging the youth vote no matter what. If young people turn out, they'll be called carpetbaggers. If they don't turn out, they'll be called lazy and apathetic. They just can't win.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

That's exactly right.  Every other year, these students caucus and no one says boo about it.


"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 01:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Small beans anyway (2.00 / 0)

Not only is Yepsen being an absolute asshat (which seems to be in character for him) but the issue is almost certain not to be conclusive. Obama's main strength is the 29-44 demographic, not the very youngest voters. College students are clustered in very few precincts and higher turnout does not give you extra delegates. And plenty of college students will be understandably reluctant to cut short time with their families to return to cast a vote in a caucus which could anyway easily be cancelled out by clever caucus math.

If this manouevre wins Obama the Iowa caucuses, I will buy a hat purely to eat it. It's a storm in a teacup, it's terrible journalism and nobody should be honestly arguing that Yepsen has a point.

Seriously, 'real Iowa residents'? How nativist do you want to get?


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:22:15 PM EST

Natavist? (2.00 / 1)

well, duh!

go buy a clue bucko!


"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 12:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please elaborate (none / 0)

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Are you arguing that it isn't nativism? Or that nativism is right? If it's the former, I'd be happy to hear your argument (although upon reflection this probably falls halfway between nativism and parochialism). If it's the latter, then I would have to wonder what the hell is wrong with you.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 08:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Absolutely disgusting on the part of Clinton, Doodd, and Yepsen (and I do like Dodd).  Casting aspersions on the rights of students to vote in jurisdictions they reside in is totally beyond the pale.  Shame on them.


by Ramo on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:27:09 PM EST

College Precincts just don't matter that much. (2.00 / 2)

I live in Iowa City and used to live in Cedar Falls, two of the towns with the 3 state Universities.

This just isn't that big of a deal. The precincts around campus that contain large portions of the student body have a very low delegate count in proportion to other districts. Larger precincts that contain off-campus student populations are heavily blended with community members. It just won't make that big of a difference to have out of staters coming back early.

Why? Here are a couple reason (disclosure, I work for U. of Iowa in the off of Student Housing):

Iowa State, Northern Iowa, and U of Iowa are offering limited opportunity for students to live on-campus to come back to the dorms early. They are making some exceptions, but here is the kicker...none of the universities are getting large scale requests for student space on the 3rd. Campaigns are asking for us to remain open, but students themselves are not making requests. Thus, I fail to see a huge influx of students from out of state.

Now, what does seem to be impactful is that the campaigns are making a huge push for in state students to stay home and caucus in their home precincts. This has a much wider potential impact if the students actually show up...especially in Western Iowa where liberal students would not normally participate. It is a big question if the students will actually follow through, but the in-state kids staying home to caucus could be what helps Obama more.


by Greg The Wisconsin Democrat on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:32:55 PM EST

Re: College Precincts just don't matter that much. (2.00 / 0)

Greg, I haven't seen you post here very often, so I'll give you a small tip.  Don't spend too much time arguing with these guys.  They take partisanship over logic and principle.  To name a few, you have hwc, Holden, and truthteller.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:42:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: College Precincts just don't matter that much. (none / 0)

I see Areyouready is back to using the Truthteller name... Did his AREYOUREADY handle FINALLY get banned.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: College Precincts just don't matter that much. (2.00 / 0)

Greg, don't Iowa and Iowa State have some sort of abbreviated "winter term" during the first part of January?  Are the dorms generally not open for students who want to take classes during this term?


"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 01:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those college students should (2.00 / 1)

vote for John Edwards.  He wants them to vote.


by CarolinaNumber23 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:39:16 PM EST

Re: Those college students should (none / 0)

Kudos to Edwards for supporting democracy and not going the route of Clinton and Dodd on this one.  While I support Obama, I also admire Edwards and the principles he's shown in this campaign.


"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy
by dmfox on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those college students should (none / 0)

Yeah, if Obama doesn't win, I hope its Edwards.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:26:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate Voter (2.00 / 2)

Your diary should read,

Democrats should advocate for a clean and fair electoral process.

This is not about disenfranchisement , this is about keeping the electoral process above board and not looking for loopholes and gaming the system.

This is what I expect from republicans , they look for loopholes in the electoral system to gain an advantage in an election , yeah they claim it is legal but it doesn't serve democracy well.

I am surprised a lot of people are now trying to justify this using the claim of voter disenfranchisement which is just outrageous.

It is called the iowa caucus and only Iowans should be able to caucus , if Obama is saying non iowans can come back and caucus just because they went to school over there just doesn't sound like a fair electoral process to me. It might be legal but it just looks like gaming the system to me.

I expect the electoral process should be about what is fair and ethical not about looking for a way to game the system.

According to New Hampshire election law:

   You may also register on election day at the polling place.

   There is no minimum period of time you are required to have lived in the state before being allowed to register.

-  What if Hillary Clinton buses tons of students from New York to particpate in the New Hampshire primary , she can clearly do that , they don't even have to prove residency . Everybody will be up in arms.

I don't care whomever it is the democratic process should be above board period.

Your diary title is ridicoulous and I don't believe your claim about contemplating between Edwards and Dodd , there was no reason for you to disclose that because no one accussed you of partisanship or taking sides . That smacks of someone that has something to hide.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:47:38 PM EST

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

lol, your counter-example smack of total ignorance of electoral law.

When I was in school in NH, though I opted to vote absentee in Florida, the GOTV effort I was a part of regularly helped kids re-register in NH to vote for Kerry in 2004.  All they needed to provide was an electrical/utility/rent bill stating they had residence in Iowa, which, of course, every student in Iowa will have, and nobody from NY will have.

This is a manufactured issue.

Nobody would be trying to tell these students to stay home if the caucuses were taking place while school was in session; nobody has told them to in the past.

This isn't a loophole either.  This is something that's explicitly allowable per Iowa election law, and no doubt, like NH, has some sort of verification method attached to it in order to establish residency.  

Why don't you try toning down the partisanship and actually, you know, thinking through the issue?  


by mopper8 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:05:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate Voter (2.00 / 2)

This isn't a loophole either.  This is something that's explicitly allowable per Iowa election law, and no doubt, like NH, has some sort of verification method attached to it in order to establish residency.  

-  Exactly what the republicans will argue , it is explicitly allowed by the law ( that would be their position too ).

I have not said it is illegal , all I have said is it seems very unethical to me.

Yepsen who has been cheerleading Obama for a while now is spot on.

Maybe you should check your blind psychophancy to your candidate at the door and let us all advocate for a clean and above board electoral process.

This is some kind of " new politics " .

It's not new we have seen it played out by the other side numerous times . There excuse is always yes it is allowed by the law so why not do it.

I wonder what your reaction would have been if it was say Hillary Clinton that was involved , somehow I think you would have been on the side of those advocating for a better electoral process.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate Voter (2.00 / 1)

So as a student which I am. If I were to decide to go to school in Boston. You would say it is unethical for me to vote there in a presidential election?  Because I am attending school. This is why a lot of the youth vote is turned off. Because of your type of demeaning thinking.


by SocialDem on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

The fact that Republicans might point out something is explicitly allowable by law does not make it any less [i]explicitly allowable by law[/i].


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 08:23:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate Voter (2.00 / 1)

Here's why I don't think it's any sort of loophole, Lori.  The laws of Iowa specifically give students the option to vote in either place, as they choose.

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.

No one forced the legislature of Iowa to write the law this way.  They could just as well have said "no out-of-state student may vote in Iowa unless they demonstrate the intent to remain here permanently."  Some states may actually do it that way.  Iowa, however, chose to give students the option.

There's some things that are loopholes or that skirt the outer boundaries of the law.  This is not one of them.  The law was written very specifically to let these students vote in Iowa if they choose.


"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 01:33:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate Voter (2.00 / 2)

This post, and the numerous posts by Holden Caulfield, are some of the most disturbing posts I've ever read on a progressive blog.  These students live in Iowa at least 9 months of the year, are subject to Iowa's laws, and have a valid interest in voting in Iowa's elections.

I voted in Indiana when I was in college, even though I am from Illinois.  My life was governed by Indiana for 4 years.  Events in Indiana during that time affected me more than events in Chicago did.  I also felt my vote in the Congressional Election (John Hostetler's district) would elect a Democrat.  It didn't happen in 2004 when I voted, but did in 2006, with student support being a huge asset to Brad Ellsworth.  Need I also remind them that Iowa is a swing state.  We'll need their votes in November, unless you just want them to add to the 15-20% advantage a Democratic Nominee will get in Illinois.

These kids are living in Iowa for at least 4 years.  Denying them the right to vote there is a maneuver I would expect out of Republicans.  Democracy is not a loophole.

I understand you probably support other candidates than Obama, but voting isn't subject to your preference for a candidate.  Hillary and Dodd should stop whining about the fact that they didn't organize students as well as Obama did.  Their laziness is their own fault.


"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy
by dmfox on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns Should Not Advocate Voter (2.00 / 1)

btw, your New Hampshire example is ludicrous.  When you register to vote, you are signing a sworn affidavit as to your residence.  In Iowa, as in most other states, students can have residency in the state they are attending school.  Busing people in from New York would be fragrantly illegal.  Students living in Iowa are legally allowed to vote.


"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy
by dmfox on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

....Is this really debatable (2.00 / 3)

As a "out-of-state" student at a college in Connecticut, I think they idea of me voting in my adopted home being somehow "unethical" or the result of a "loophole" as absurd and frankly demeaning. In Connecticut, students can vote as long as they are residents here. I changed my voter registration in 2006 so that I could vote for Ned Lamont and now I regularly vote (and volunteer) in local elections.

1. Students living attending and out-of-state universities are subject to laws passed by public officials in those states... why shouldn't they have a right to participate in the process?

2. Federal Law prevents people from voting in two areas during an electoral cycle (but one can change between cycles and be completely within the law)

3. Out-of-state students in Iowa have been participating in the caucuses for years and if the date of the caucus weren't obscenely early then the Obama campaign wouldn't have to provide for allowing them to participate. What's the difference between out-of-state students caucussing on the 15th and the 3rd?

4. Do you really have a problem with the Obama campaign facilitating the legal (and ethical because everyone should be afforded the opportunity to participate in their local elections process) enfranchisement of youth voters or are you upset because a higher youth turnout will most likely hurt your candidate of choice?

5. Was I unethical, republican-lite or taking advantage of a loophole when I voted for Ned Lamont?


Obama2008....?
by ctnewbie18 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:57:40 PM EST

advocating voter disenfranchisement (2.00 / 0)

is a very dangerous game for Hillary, most dems know it woiuld be MUCH harder to win swing states in November without the votes of college students on campus from other states. Hillary should be ashamed of herself for this gambit.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:05:18 PM EST

Re: Democratic Campaigns S (none / 0)

That is not true.  For students who attend college in other states may be residents of competetive states where their votes are needed.  


by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:12:56 PM EST

Re: Democratic Campaigns S (none / 0)

Then truth teller would be against same day registration and for ID PICTURE CARDS AS SUPPORTED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHO WANTS TO SUPRESS VOTER TURN OUT.


by BDM on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:32:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns (none / 0)

To call hard boiled politics disenfranchising voters is a gross exaggeration.  Frankly, I wish we could somehow reduce the importance of the Iowa caucaus. The process is a joke with people moving from one corner in a room to another corner.  90% Iowans do not participate and the state itself is not demographically representative of the country. Finally, the selected representatives usually do not vote in the Democratic Party convention according to the will of the people in the room.  The whole thing is a fiction that sadly has a disproportionate impact in the political world.


by RAULC on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:23:07 PM EST

Hillary Dodd (2.00 / 1)

Hillary and Dodd are both wrong for trying to disenfranchise young voters that are eligible to vote.

Those 2 republicans owe those students an apology.


by Prodigy on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:34:45 PM EST

If the caucus were held today I'd vote Obama... (2.00 / 1)

...as first choice. But even though I'm a student and have been here over a year, I don't intend to vote in Iowa. I still go home to MN to vote--because right now in state elections the direction of MN is more important to me than the direction of IA.

I'd feel a bit like a carpet bagger if I did vote in IA because I have no intention of staying here.

But that's my personal feeling.

Yepsen can go pound sand for all I care. It's up to the individuals.


by MNPundit on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:11:40 PM EST

Re: If the caucus were held today I'd vote Obama.. (2.00 / 0)

Good point.

Let's also point out that its very important for progressives that college students be allowed to vote in their university town (where they reside for most of the year) because it is far easier to organize and GOTV on election day.  Republicans would love if they all had to figure out the absentee ballot laws in their state-of-origin...


by moreaxe on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:31:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If the caucus were held today I'd vote Obama.. (none / 0)

Right, I have no trouble with the absentee ballot stuff but then again, I post here. That means I'm a political junkie.

That said, we had a massive GOTV drive for students in 2004. The precinct that my undergrad college was in flipped from Bush to Kerry in 2004. Considering the area (the heart of Colin Peterson's 7th) that is no mean feat.

Minnesota is one of those states that allows same day registration so we get higher turnouts (60% in 2006!) so making it easier for students to vote can have a definite impact.


by MNPundit on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:27:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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

I am sure there are many Edwards supporters in that college crowd also.

If any student wants to use their break time to participate in a democratic process that is legal in Iowa, right on!
I am doubt Yep Inc...would assume these same students vote in Iowa next November.
When there are large rallies in D.C. it is common for us to be bussed in.
This should rightfully fire up young people who are tired of being pissed on by old farts.
Both Obama and Edwards are pointing in a direction other than business as usual.

Anyone know if New Hampshire has something similar? It will still be break time there...


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:29:40 PM EST

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

If this favored Hillary, then Truthteller's position would be a 180 degrees from what he is advocating now.


by BDM on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter (none / 0)

I don't know frankly how i feel about this. it's not an easy issue for me because I do think there needs to be a balancing that seems to be glossed over here.


by bruh21 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:03:09 PM EST

Pure spin (2.00 / 1)

And I call bullshit. No one is calling for people to be denied their right to vote.  What's being objected to here is organizing out-of-state voters to vote in the Iowa caucus.  No matter how you feel about this, calling it voter disenfranchisement is what's really outrageous. It's not like Yepsen is asking that people's votes not count.  After all, these students could still vote in their own primaries, couldn't they?

I don;t like Yepsen, but he has a reasonable point worth discussing without resorting to calling it voter disenfranchisement, which is an out and out lie.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:18:39 PM EST

Re: Pure spin (2.00 / 0)

They are not out-of-state voters!  


by moreaxe on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pure spin (none / 0)

And you completely missed the point.  It doesn't matter whether they're out of state or not.  The point was, it isn't disenfranchisement by any stretch of the imagination.  Whether these folks vote in Iowa or wherever their home state is, they'd still get to vote. Hence, no one has been cheated out of their rights, which is the entire premise of this diary.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pure spin (none / 0)

Saying that students should not be allowed to vote in the state in which they attend school has long been the language used to disenfrachise and discourage young voters.

By adopting that rhetoric, Clinton and Dodd are legitimizing it, and thus legitimizing voter supression.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 04:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

aexia (none / 0)

Just showed up today after a long absence, and the TR's are flying for anyone who doesn't agree. Did you forget the rules?  TR's are not for someone who doesn't agree with you. Thirty ratings in one diary.  Interesting.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 04:01:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is total bullshit (2.00 / 0)

Whether a student pays "out of state" tuition or not is a total non issue.  Most universities determine residency by where the undergraduate student's home address, or address or origin, is when they apply to the university.

Iowa law (and most state laws) allow students to choose to either vote in their university city (where they live most of the year and typically on election days) or in the state where their parents live.  Campaigns should be doing anything other than encouraging EVERYONE who is eligible by IOWA LAW to participate in the Iowa caucuses to do so.  The fact that Dodd criticized Obama for doing so just removed any chance that Dodd would get my support.  


by moreaxe on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:23:25 PM EST

Re: This is total bullshit (none / 0)

"Campaigns should not be doing anything.."


by moreaxe on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:25:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just want to say... (none / 0)

... that I'm apalled by the anti[small-d] democratic sentiments expressed on this thread.  I can't believe that so many people hate the idea of students having any say in how in their local politics.  A  commitment to democracy is just about as fundamental as it gets with respect to why I'm on this web site.


by Ramo on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 04:25:51 PM EST

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

Reading through this, the main argument for being able to decide where a student is from is whether they pay out-of-state tuition or not, otherwise there does not seem to be a way to tell if someone is from Iowa originally or has moved into the state to go to school.  Well I really know absolutely nothing about Iowa, I only drove through it once and there was a lot of corn, but I assume there are some private colleges and universities that do not differentiate their tuition to in-state and out-of state students so should students from Illinois or whereever, that go to these schools be allowed to caucus but people going to a public institution that does differentiate between in-state and out-of state not be allowed too.  Just some food for thought.  Personally I thought it was standard just about everywhere that college students can decide to vote where they attend school or where their parents live.
Oh and just to say I live in PA and would not have the slightest clue how to relinquish my right to vote here if I were elsewhere going to school
by steburke on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 05:19:30 PM EST

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

Glad to hear that college students can readily register to vote in your states when it is not their actual state of residence - but it is not the general rule and some states flatly deny students that right.  Not disenfranchisement in their minds - why have students who they feel will go home in 4 years of 8 month periods decide on school budgets and the town sheriff.  It helps us with federal elections but that is not the entire issue.


by NYMARJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 05:22:20 PM EST

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

exactly. this post over simplifies this issue


by bruh21 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:15:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democratic Campaigns (none / 0)

exactl right.


by bruh21 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:15:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why would it be better (none / 0)

for them to vote in their "state of origin" then? In which they spend even less time? Perhaps only Christmas? Perhaps the summer? Is it then better to force them to vote in the a place where they don't actually live at all? Your argument is an argument for them not voting anywhere at all. Most students are turning 18 and voting in their first elections while in college. This is their first taste in politics. It makes so much more sense for them to be involved locally in their campus communities, learning the ropes, organizing their peers. Not to mention the fact that it is their legal right to vote there as much as anyone else who moves to a new community. As Mike Connery said in his diary, we're not about to start instituting requirements that ordinary voters live in a place longer than four years before gaining the right to vote, so why should we insist the same of students?
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would it be better (none / 0)

the point at the very least which several here keep glossing over is that this isn't as simple as the diarist writes, and nor is it clear that its disenfranchisement. the idea that people here tend to simplify things for whatever reasons without regard to admitting that its complicated is what I at least have a problem with in this diary.


by bruh21 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:26:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would it be better (none / 0)

As I noted to another commenter earlier, residency questions have long been used by university towns as a tool to disenfranchise students.  By employing that rhetoric, Dodd and Clinton legitimize it in the eyes of the media, Iowans, students, and campaigns.  

IT's not complicated. Students have a legal right to vote where they attend school, and Dodd and Clinton are trying to cast that right into doubt.  


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would it be better (none / 0)

It is complicated. That's my only addition to the conversation. For you to pretend otherwise regardless of who is using the argument is false. The idea that it doesn't matter whether a voter has any real ties to the community is an important one.


by bruh21 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voting (none / 0)

It is complicated.


by bruh21 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voting (none / 0)

It is complicated.


by bruh21 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:08:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Disenfranchisement has been proven (none / 0)

When a similar controversy arose in Maine I learned one very pertinent fact. Not allowing student to register and vote where they go to school absolutely would disenfranchise some young voters. There are several (I believe it is 8 or 9) states that require a voter to vote IN PERSON the first time they vote after registering to avoid voter fraud. This means an 18 year old who has never voted in person yet would not be allowed to vote absentee. If they also cannot vote where they go to school they would be forced to pay big bucks and miss classes to go home to vote ... or be DISENFRANCHISED!

A constitutional lawyer testified at the legislative hearing that it had already been ruled on in federal courts that they must be allowed to register and vote where they went to school.


by memyself on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:22:21 PM EST

Student Voter Disenfranchisement (none / 0)

Rolling Stone article from May of 2004

Denying students the right to vote where they go to school is a VERY Republican sort of tactic!

"Federal and state courts have clearly established that students have the right to vote where they go to school, even if they live in a dorm. But interviews with college students, civil-rights attorneys, political strategists and legal experts reveal that election officials all over the country are erecting illegal barriers to keep young voters from casting ballots."

"There's no way to tell how many college students are being turned away by local election boards -- but observers say it could be enough to re-elect George Bush this fall. "

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto ry/5993354/mock_the_vote


by memyself on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:37:48 PM EST

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

i dont care if they vote in Iowa, quite frankly. I just hope they keep tabs on who does it, and hope they dont vote AGAIN in Illinois.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:31:57 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.