Proposed Bill Forbids Educated Young College Students from Voting

Concord, New Hampshire - A new bill proposed by lawmakers in states such as New Hampshire, Ohio, and North Carolina would require voters or their parents to have previously established residency in the town they plan to vote in, effectively preventing college students living away from home from exercising their constitutional rights.

New Hampshire House Speaker William O'Brien cites the "foolish[ness]" of college students as the reason he supports this bill. He also derides their tendency towards "voting as liberal[s]. That's what kids do. They don't have life experience, and they just vote their feelings."

Concord resident Jim Oakley wholeheartedly agrees with O'Brien. "These darn kids don't know what they're doing," he says, shaking his head sadly. "They're just not smart enough to understand what goes on in the world. I don't want the same kids who spend day and night twittering about what they had for breakfast deciding who's going to be the next president."

"Back in my day, we couldn't vote until we were twenty-one," continues Oakley. "Then that blasted Johnson man decided to open it up to high schoolers. Worst decision he ever made. I mean, they're just plain ignorant."

Oakley is referring to the twenty-sixth amendment, which was ratified in 1971, during Richard Nixon's presidency.

Dartmouth political science major Claire Matthews recently held a rally to protest the controversial bill. "I understand O'Brien's concern that college students, as temporary residents, will not have the same level of concern about New Hampshire that permanent residents do, but I don't see that as reason enough to deny us our right to vote," she says seriously. "I'm from Massachusetts, but I've lived in New Hampshire for nearly three years, and after I graduate, I'm hoping to get a job clerking for a congressman in Concord and eventually run for the state legislature myself. I care about New Hampshire as much as anyone."

"At the end of the day, we're voting to change our future, too, not just O'Brien's," says Matthews, who has a 4.0 G.P.A. and is currently ranked second in her class. "We should have a chance to make our voices heard. I don't understand how someone who professes to defend the Constitution can justify taking away our constitutional rights."

When asked if she routinely votes as a liberal, Matthews reacts with surprise. "I don't routinely vote anything," she says. "I consider both sides of an issue before I decide. For instance, someone asked me where I stood on the idea of free trade with China, and I realized I didn't know much about it, so this semester, I'm taking a class on diplomacy in foreign trade agreements. It's fascinating. I never realized how nuanced these treaties are."

"Besides," she continues, "if we do vote liberal, it shouldn't matter. You can't shut out an entire block of voters because they don't agree with you. The point of democracy is giving everyone a say - young and old, liberal and conservative. That's the principle our country was founded on."

In New Hampshire, the bill has been defeated for now, but it is expected to be reconsidered in January, leaving plenty of time before the November election to change the voting laws.

(Note: This article refers to a real bill being seriously considered in  several states, including New Hampshire. Claire Matthews and Jim Oakley are fictional creations, but William O'Brien is a real person, and the quotes from him are legitimate. The bill was defeated 13-5 in March, but lawmakers say voter residency remains a concern, and measures similar to those in the bill will be reconsidered in January.)