I am writing in opposition to yesterday's editorial titled "Students have right to choose where they vote." To begin with, the authors of the editorial demonstrate their complete lack of knowledge about the Granite State, expressing concern about the level of income tax that a college student would face in New Hampshire. Fortunately, New Hampshire does not have an income tax on wages, salaries and tips, only taxing income from interest on dividends. In addition, I fail to see the connection between the cost of university [on−campus] housing and the local property tax rate in the case of public institutions of higher education, of which close to two−thirds of New Hampshire students attend, as those institutions do not pay property tax.
In the case of private institutions, the property tax rate has a role in the price of on−campus housing since dormitories are only exempt from property tax on the first $150,000 of valuation. After adjusting for varying rates of on−campus housing and enrollments across schools, according to information from the College Board, about half of on−campus students attend private institutions in New Hampshire, meaning that while local tax rates affect on−campus student populations in New Hampshire, it is a neither uniform nor even effect. Moreover, for public schools, the property tax rate likely has an opposite effect, setting the market for off−campus properties and therefore restraining how much the university can charge for on−campus housing. While it is certainly true that students living off campus pay property tax as a part of their rent, this can be rectified by electing to become a New Hampshire resident and voting on municipal issues.
I do not oppose this new standard of residency, as I have long believed that students should have to change their driver's licenses in addition to their residency in order to vote in a different state. This is partly to ensure that only individuals committed to residency, and therefore the local issues, vote in elections. It is also to ensure that students do not attempt to vote in more than one location, as it is unlikely that elections officials in a student's home state would know that a student is also planning to vote in New Hampshire, especially since New Hampshire has same−day voter registration. While it is true that it is more convenient for students to vote at school rather than to mail absentee ballots home, this is only because they are not required to change their driver's licenses, which many would agree is the hallmark of one's identity as the resident of a given state. Just as there are mailing costs associated with absentee voting, there are also costs to applying for a new license and the choice between voting at school and at home should be considered in light of both realities.
Furthermore, after reviewing a list of New Hampshire towns that no longer have a traditional town meeting, it is clear that many of the larger institutions of higher education, such as Dartmouth College, the University of New Hampshire and Plymouth State University are located in towns that still have town meetings. Town meetings are part of the quintessential New England experience, but due to low attendance in modern times, they are often susceptible to special−interest voting when voters turn out to the meeting in support or opposition of specific causes. While many college students are politically apathetic, a motivated minority may show up to a town meeting or vote in the local elections and affect the internal politics of the town in which they will attend school for only four short years. This could cause lasting damage. This is also the case for state and federal elections, as students voting for a United States Senator could elect a candidate whose term will last longer than their likely residency in New Hampshire.
While I am not familiar with the specifics of the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case involving Hanover, New Hampshire, perhaps it would be worthwhile for the judicial system to reconsider its ruling in this case, as the potential for fraud surely exists and the system is likely exploited by the most politically motivated students. The bill has unfortunately been cast in terms of partisan politics and should instead be considered in terms of the obligations of residency and citizenship and the relationship of an individual's home to their right to vote. I welcome college students to make low−tax New Hampshire their home, but only after changing their residency in all aspects of civic life.
I am a firm believer in the New Hampshire Advantage and have chosen to vote in my hometown throughout my time here at Tufts for this reason, rather than interfere in the local politics of Medford and Somerville. This is despite the fact that I find some of their policies, especially concerning parking, quite objectionable. The same goes for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Should I choose to live in Massachusetts after graduation, I plan to take part in the civic process here and relinquish my New Hampshire residency. I have not done so as a Tufts student — despite my presence in Massachusetts for nine months out of each of the last four years — since my permanent address remains in New Hampshire. I suspect that many of my classmates here and in New Hampshire have also maintained their permanent address in their hometown. Until the student changes that address, they appear to be temporary visitors who plan to return to that permanent address and should be treated as such.
--
