"As several journalists coined it, 2008 was the “Year of the Youth Vote.” For the third consecutive presidential election, young voter participation (among 18-29 year olds) increased considerably, with over 23 million young Americans—or 52% of all eligible young voters—casting ballots. This was also a 12% increase in young voter participation since the 2000 presidential election. Beyond just statistics, young people provided unprecedented energy, spirit and volunteer service to political campaigns, which was instrumental in shattering the conventional wisdom that “young people don’t vote” or “don’t want to vote.” Yet notwithstanding these clear successes, a closer examination of the 2008 election demonstrates that young voters succeeded in spite of numerous barriers, not necessarily because the system worked efficiently. The problems of the 2008 election begin with voter registration:

First, there were several instances of misleading statements made by elected officials regarding the potential consequences for out-of-town college students who wished to register and vote within their campus communities. At jurisdictions including Virginia Tech and Colorado College, for instance, county clerks issued statements indicating that if students chose to register at school, then their parents could no longer claim them as dependents for tax purposes. The registrars also cautioned that students could lose scholarships, grant money, and health insurance. And since these false claims originated
with election officials, disputing their accuracy was particularly difficult. It was not until civil rights attorneys sued and the IRS declared such claims inaccurate that these registrars issued corrections to their student populations.

Second, students attempting to register at Jackson State University in Mississippi,Furman University in South Carolina, and both Radford University and Mary Washington College in Virginia, were repeatedly denied registration status because they listed a dormitory room as their address. This dilemma was (and is) the result of vague definitions of domicile, which registrars may interpret subjectively to include or exclude dormitories. With such different styles of housing (whether a dorm, an apartment, a home, a public assistance agency, etc.), there is room for potential malfeasance or confusion in granting residency to eligible citizens.

Third, voter caging resulted in the removal of young people from the voter rolls. A prominent example of voter caging, which specifically targeted students, occurred in Montana. Republican Party officials intended to use “change of address” forms to remove voters from the registration rolls despite the fact that students routinely use such forms to forward mail during temporary absences. Certainly, a temporary leave of absence does not constitute a legitimate reason for removing a potential voter from the rolls; and after several groups, including SAVE, brought significant public pressure against party officials, the voter-caging plan was abandoned. Had the voter caging continued unchecked, thousands of young voters could have been removed from the registration lists without their knowledge and left with little recourse.

These examples demonstrate the symptoms of a greater problem: the voter registration process is flawed. In addition to the problems I cited previously, election officials are often overwhelmed by an influx of voter registration forms immediately prior to the deadline. As a result, officials are swamped and hard pressed to sort through hundreds, if not thousands, of forms in a matter of days, which often results in delays. Delays in the registration process decrease voter confidence, lead to uncertainty, and open the door to mistakes. . ."

To read the entire testimony please view it here - it should be posted later this afternoon or tomorrow.