They keep their keep the drivers license and license plate of their home state and they pay out of state tuition. Even if they live in a state for 4 years while going to school they are not considered residents and do not get to vote or receive in state tuition. There are things they can do like buy property that changes that but other wise they are guest. Why should nonresidents vote in local elections? They are still allowed vote in their home state.
Same is true for the military by the way. I lived in north Carolina for three years and I never carried a North Carolina drivers license paid their income tax or voted in their elections. My wife did though because she was considered a resident.
I would have to double check Michigan's university rules, but I believe here a full time student pays in state tuition costs after having an in state address for one year. The one year wait is due to the assumption that the individual will be paying state taxes since he or she is living here and probably working here as well while going to school. Been a while since I was in school and I frankly don't care enough to look it up and verify how it works but I think that was the way it worked last I knew. But my point is still the same, if I'm going to be living in a state while going to school then why wouldn't I just get a darned ID and establish residency? For military personnel, I could definitely understand the reasoning for not changing residency, but for a student it would be highly beneficial due to the super high non-resident tuition rates. Overall, I just find the whole "why won't they take a student ID" argument to be retarded. Heck, I don't think my university ID even had a birth date, address or anything on it except my picture and student ID number.
two observations:
A) every state with few exceptions has the "one year wait" law to establish residency and get the in-state tuition. as you cite, it's not too difficult to establish yourself if you are financially able to attend college in another state.
B) the stated purpose of voter ID laws is to prevent the same person from voting fraudulently multiple times in the same election. if having a card, issued by an agency of the State (i.e. the university) with your picture and full name on it is not enough to identify you as who you say you are, then what is the actual purpose of the law? the reason the Indiana law was upheld was because (1) it did not prevent someone from casting a ballot if they did not have ID and (2) it allowed a wide ranging set of ID forms to properly identify the voter.
what we see with the ID laws in every other state since Indiana's was upheld is that (1) you are prevented from casting a ballot if you do not have proper ID, or you are required to show proper ID within a very short amount of time to the county clerk office of your precinct in order for your ballot to be allowed and (2) only a specific subset of IDs is allowed, and the process for attaining the "voter only" ID is byzantine. this includes only keeping the DMV offices open for six days a year, and only for limited hours (http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/jessie-opoien/brief-filed-in-wisconsin-voter-id-case-points-out-limited/article_45c2d51e-4b67-5a50-8b2f-bd24763450e1.html) and forcing women to locate and/or purchase a number of identifying documents if they happen to have their maiden name as their middle name on their driver's license (http://www.npr.org/2013/10/30/241891800/texas-voter-id-law-creates-a-problem-for-some-women).
it all boils down to the fact that people who have the means to vote have fewer obstacles to obtaining a proper ID. but if you are poor, old or other <insert coincidentally democratic aligned voting demographic here>, your right to vote is severely curtailed if you do not already have the proper ID to begin with.
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
- 06/11/2014 03:14:02 PM
523 Views