Fwd: Re: Student voter registration

[Earl Maltz]

She can get an absentee ballot.

At 06:47 PM 10/31/2008, Margo Schlanger wrote:
>just from curiosity, what's someone supposed to do if she moves for 
>a time certain to a new state, without maintaining a residence or 
>address of any sort in the old one?  She's got no address to vote 
>from, so she can't vote in the old state - any mail from the voting 
>board will be returned.    it can't be that she can't vote, I think 
>we agree.   So what result?
>-----------------
>Margo Schlanger
>Prof. of Law
>Washington University in St. Louis
>314-935-8242
>sent from my treo
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From:  "Earl Maltz" <emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu>
>Subj:  Re: Fwd: Re: Student voter registration
>Date:  Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:01 pm
>Size:  5K
>To:  "Howard Schweber" <schweber at polisci.wisc.edu>; "Frank Cross" 
><crossf at mail.utexas.edu>
>cc:  "conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu" <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>; 
>"conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu" <conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu>
>
>"Should workers temporarily located in one state for 9 months have to
>travel back to the state they came from in order to vote?"
>
>Unless they choose to vote by absentee ballot, the answer to that
>question is clearly yes.  That has always been the law, and it should
>continue to be the law.
>
>At 04:16 PM 10/31/2008, Howard Schweber wrote:
> >What Frank describes below sounds about right.  I was quite
> >surprised by  Ed's suggestion that federal court standards for
> >diversity jurisdiction apply in all states to determine
> >domicilability, particularly with respect to eligibility for
> >voting.  Article II is pretty clear about who determines those
> >qualifications, and it is not the federal courts.
> >
> >Re Earl's comments, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is with a
> >"fielder's choice."  If I live 9 months out of the year in one state
> >and 3 in another, do I not have a stake in the governance of
> >both?  I agree that students are in the same position as workers who
> >spend 9 months out of the year in one state and 3 in another.  How
> >does that help clarify the situation?  Should workers temporarily
> >located in one state for 9 months have to travel back to the state
> >they came from in order to vote?  Note that if I have moved from job
> >to job and never established an intent to remain "indefinitely" --
> >conceding that "indefinitely" does not mean "forever," I may still
> >have every intention of moving on with the next contract -- I would
> >be required to travel to the state in which my parents had lived at
> >the time I turned 18, regardless of whether they or I retain any
> >connection to that jurisdiction whatsoever.
> >
> >Let's see.  I go to college, but Earl says my domicile remains my
> >parents' state for the five years I am an undergraduate.  On to law
> >school -- no change.  Ambitions of scholarship dancing in my head I
> >enroll in a PhD program, get married, have a couple of
> >children.  Throw in a judicial clerkship, a stint in Teach for
> >America.  At every stage, I intended to move on once my current
> >activity was completed, so I am still domiciled in my parents'
> >state.  And if anyone suggest otherwise we should all be"outraged"
> >at the attempt to perpetuate a massive "fraud."  Seriously???
> >
> >
> >David Bernstein's in-state tuition/domicile congruence proposal for
> >students makes some sense as a policy choice that states could
> >choose (Saenz v Roe concerns aside), but it's not the only
> >one.  Obviously various rules -- including the presumption Frank
> >describes -- could be devised to limit the choice.
> >But we have come a long way from bright line Blackstonian rules and
> >accusations of widespread voting fraud.  The rules are far from
> >bright or clear, they vary by state, they are not necessarily
> >coincident with Blackstone, and to cry "fraud" every time someone
> >wants to register a college student to vote is despicable.  For
> >starters, since fraud includes an intent element, it implies that
> >the person registering the student knows the state of the law on the
> >question -- something the assembled worthies of this list have as
> >yet been unable to conclusively determine.  Those are pretty smart
> >vote fraud perpetrators!
> >
> >As a democratic theorist of sorts, I find the utter lack of concern
> >with whether citizens are able to vote for the officials who will
> >govern them rather disquieting.  I'm not saying there is a perfect
> >legal solution, but we should at least be willing to pay some
> >minimal lip service to the idea that we are trying to enhance
> >democracy rather than limit the participation of college students.
> >
> >hs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Frank Cross wrote:
> >>
> >>A concededly very quick google suggests that there is no brightline
> >>rule.  Nonresident students are presumed not domiciliaries, but I
> >>find various statutes suggesting that they may obtain domicile in
> >>the state.  The standards for residency and domicile are not
> >>identical.  I don't think this gives students a complete fielder's
> >>choice, as they must overcome the presumption.  However, it would
> >>seem to be a question of state law choice, so a fielder's choice
> >>would seem to be legally allowed, if it were so.
> >>
> >>I kind of doubt anyone takes the position that they can vote in two places
> >>
> >>At 02:12 PM 10/31/2008, earl maltz wrote:
> >>>Who "forced" them to live there.  Students stand in no different 
> positions
> >>>than persons who work temporarily in other states.
> >>>
> >>>The rules advocated by Howard and others would essentially give 
> students a
> >>>"fielder's choice" about where to vote (unless, of course, one takes the
> >>>position that they can vote in two places.
> >>>
> >>>At 12:55 PM 10/31/2008 -0500, Howard Schweber wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >>  Further, a domicile once
> >>> >>established continues unless and until a new one is acquired.
> >>> >>Consequently, there is a presumption in favor of an 
> established domicle
> >>> >>that must be overcome by a party seeking to show a change in domicle.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Sure, which only points to the fact that