This January, when Vanessa Sievers '10 took office as the youngest Grafton County treasurer in history, the importance of the political participation of Dartmouth students became more apparent than ever. Not only had one of us been publicly elected, but her election was due, in large part, to the votes of students at the College.
Recent criticisms of Sievers' work ("Sievers '10 criticized for work as treasurer," Feb. 16), however, seem likely to reignite debate over whether Dartmouth students should be enfranchised in New Hampshire at all.
This debate is not a new one; just three years ago, House Bill 1566 -- which would have considerably reduced the number of Dartmouth students eligible to vote in New Hampshire -- was introduced by Republicans in the state House of Representatives, and was passed both there and in the state Senate. While Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, ultimately vetoed the bill, its preliminary success indicates support for restricting voting eligibility for students at the College.
The rationale behind the bill -- and behind similar efforts that could be forthcoming -- is certainly understandable. Temporary residents are likely to have a far less significant investment in the future of their town, county and state than do permanent residents. At Dartmouth in particular, where campus life often insulates students from both the effects of public institutions and the actions of public officials, students' stake in the results of local elections may be even further reduced. What right, then, do we as students have to use our votes to influence the lives of more permanent residents?
The answer, we believe, is that we have every right. Underlying the argument against student voting is the flawed assumption that our temporary residency here in New Hampshire implies some kind of permanent residency elsewhere -- namely, in the town or city where we grew up. It is in our "home" state, the argument goes, and not in New Hampshire, that we should cast our vote, because it is there that we are truly affected by the results of popular elections.
For many Dartmouth students, however, this claim is simply unfounded. If we have insufficient personal investment to vote in the place where we spend eight months of the year, how could we possibly have sufficient investment in a place where we spend only four? Nor can the argument be made that we will inevitably make our permanent post-college residences in our hometowns -- far too many of us have grand plans to move elsewhere.
Regardless of the validity of criticisms leveled against Sievers and those who elected her, a renewed crusade against Dartmouth students' voting rights would be a misstep. Our age group, in general, is a transient one. To deny us the right to vote in a place that may only be our "temporary" home would be to deny a good number of us the right to vote altogether.
