People should vote where they live - New Hampshire's new voting law under scrutiny.

As I reported (and critiqued) last July, New Hampshire is set to enact a voting law that will restrict who will be allowed to vote in the state. The law, which changes the definition of "resident" for voting purposes, places arduous requirements on college students in the state and looks almost certain to restrict who is allowed to vote in the state. The ACLU and two Dartmouth students have responded by filing lawsuits. As you may recall, the law was sold to Granite Staters with the idea that it would bringing NH in line with other states across the country. This was misleading.

However, "misleading" is a fair characterization of much of the dialogue around the law. Just yesterday, the New Hampshire Union Leader published an editorial with the headline, "Here's a novel idea: People should vote where they live." I agree with the headline but not the contents of the article. After all, college students do not live in their childhood hometowns but rather in the towns where they attend college. During my time as a New Hampshire college student, I was there for at least 9 months out of the year because of the need to be physically present to take classes. However, many students, myself included, spent the entire year in New Hampshire because we pursued internships or other opportunities that kept us in the state, even when we weren't taking classes. By almost every conceivable definition, we "lived" in New Hampshire.

The article states, "[i]f they want to vote here, they need to show proof that they actually live here." I also agree with this line. However, I disagree with its framing. A New Hampshire college student needs to only show a class schedule to prove that they live in the state. In fact, the initial iteration of New Hampshire's voter ID law recognized this when they allowed students to use a college ID to vote. The article's points and its proposed remedies are remarkably out of step with each other.

As I have said before, this law also undercuts efforts to recruit and retain talented young people in New Hampshire. Students should be encouraged to participate in local governance, begin to get involved in the community, and put down local roots. By being systemically excluded from the dialogue in the place where they have chosen to spend at least four years, they are increasingly likely to silo themselves onto their campus communities and leave the state after graduation. This would be a huge net negative for New Hampshire, which is already one of the oldest states in the country.

It is disheartening to see such disingenuous rhetoric surrounding a law that deals with the exercise of a fundamental right, the ability to vote in a place where you live.