College Republicans and University Democrats are working together to garner support against a bill they both consider unconstitutional.
University Democrats met on Sunday with Indiana Rep. Sue Errington and Young Democrats District 9 chair and lobbyist Lindsay Shipps discussing Indiana House Bill 1311.
“I read through the bill and thought ‘Well damn, [Rep. Peggy Mayfield, (R-Martinsville), who introduced the bill] doesn’t want any students to vote anymore,” Shipps said. “I decided to take this bill under my wing and stomp the crap out of it.”
A provision in House Bill 1311 bans students paying out-of-state tuition from voting in Indiana. Both Shipps and Errington pointed out the unconstitutionality of this bill, saying it defies the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
“Every one of the 150 state legislatures took an oath to uphold the constitution,” Shipps said. “This bill clearly flies in the face of that.”
Steve Walsh, University Democrats campus director, pointed out that this bill would only affect public college students, because private universities do not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state students. This discrimination only adds to his opposition of the bill, he said.
Errington said if the bill were to make it past committee, which she doubts will happen, she would use her position as representative to fight the bill.
“They may come from somewhere else but they live in Indiana now,” Errington said. “If they want to vote in Indiana, they should be able to.”
Errington said she believes those in support of the provision are using it to stop students from voting in two states at once, something she said just doesn’t happen.
College Republicans President Kayleigh Mohler said some Republicans may believe it will remove support for Republican candidates.
“That would be a really inefficient and awful way to win elections,” Mohler said.
Mohler said the law would hurt those who pay out-of-state tuition but plan to stay in Indiana and run for political office. Since they would have no stake in Indiana’s elections, they would have no political credibility when they graduate, she said.
Walsh said the University Democrats plan to fight this provision because, as he said, out-of-state students are just as much residents of Indiana as born and raised Hoosiers.
“This is something that if we put enough pressure on representatives who are on the committee to pull out the provision [we can change their minds],” Walsh said.
Quinton Stewart, a sophomore finance major, said he disagrees with the measure.
“This is just so typical government,” Stewart said. “They are going to take your money and then not let you have a say.”
Kenneth Jones, a junior communications major, is an out of state student from Illinois, and he doesn’t believe the bill would affect him because he votes in Chicago anyway.
Jones said he cares more about his home town than he does about politicians in Muncie.
This measure has opposition from both sides of the aisle.
Walsh said he contacted Mohler informing her of the policy, leading to a semi-cooperative effort between the two opposing party organizations.
“There is Democratic policy and there is Republican policy,” Mohler said. “But this is just bad policy.”
[Marge]
Section 1 of Amendment 14
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
Symm V. United States (1979)
Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court ruled against LeRoy Symm, the then Voting Registrar of Waller County, Texas. Symm required those looking to register to vote answer a survey, the first question of which was, “are you a college student?” The Attorney General of the United States filed suit, saying use of the questionnaire denied students the right to vote. The court found this to be unlawful, citing the fourteenth, fifteenth and twenty-sixth Amendments.
