Are you a college student seeking to register to vote? Barack Obama’s website makes it easy. But does the site follow the law? Let’s take a look.

First the site asks, “Where will you be living on Election Day, November 4th?” Next it asks, “Is there another state where you might be registered?” Presumably, many college students who attend school in one state but live with their parents in another will answer this question in the affirmative. The answers to these two questions prompt curious suggestions from the Obama website.

If the respondent states that she is registered to vote at her parents’ home in Pennsylvania (a “battleground” state) but will be in her dorm in New York (a safe Obama state) on Election Day, the website recommends that the student vote by absentee ballot in Pennsylvania. No problem there — that is the legal solution in most cases. But if the respondent says she is registered in New York but studying in battleground Pennsylvania, Obama recommends that she register to vote in Pennsylvania (and presumably de-register in New York)!

Clearly, Obama is trying to switch voter registration of Democrats (who are, of course, more likely to go to his website than are Republicans) to battleground states such as Virginia, where I work. This campaign tactic raises legal and ethical questions. Is Sen. Obama’s campaign encouraging voter fraud? Is it encouraging college students to take actions that may be harmful without informing them of relevant risks? If so, what does this say about the integrity of the campaign?

First, the law. A September 8 New York Times article headlined “Voter Registration by Students Raises Cloud of Consequences” states that a Supreme Court case has held that “students have the right to register at their college address.” That’s at best an incomplete, and at worst a misleading, statement of the law. The article refers to Symm v. United States, a 1979 case affirming (without discussion) a decision by a special three-judge district-court panel.

That panel had held that LeRoy Symm, a county commissioner, had erred when determining whether a young college student could vote in his district. The case reiterates not that college students have an automatic right to vote where they are studying, but merely that they must be treated like anyone else who applies to register to vote in the county. In other words, states and counties may ask reasonable questions about legal residency and the eligibility to vote of college students, and they may require documentary support for the student’s claims, but only if they apply the same rules to all would-be voters.

Relying perhaps on the same inaccurate interpretation of Symm, the ACLU of Virginia faxed a letter to Virginia voting registrars on September 4, insisting that students have the right to register where they go to school. According to the ACLU, Virginia registrars must register students if they “have a local residential address,” without “any special inquiries or burdens.”



Again, this is misleading; students may register where they attend college only if they meet the same standards of residency applicable to all others applying to vote. These standards may include signing affidavits or showing residence-based identification (such as a driver’s license), even if the ACLU considers that to be a “special” inquiry. By a curious coincidence, five days after the ACLU letter was faxed, the Virginia State Board of Elections published guidelines that allow students to claim residence in Virginia unchallenged. Courageously, the City of Norfolk Office of Elections (which consists of two Democrats and one Republican) has declared that though it will abide by this executive-branch directive, it firmly believes the directive violates Virginia election laws.

All this is enough to make one wonder whether a move is afoot in battleground states governed by Democratic administrations to allow vote-shifting from other states. But that is not all — in addition to legal problems, the Obama campaign’s enticement of student re-registration is ethically suspect. Changing one’s legal residence requires a student’s honest belief that she intends to reside indefinitely at her new residence, the college town. Sometimes this is doubtful (do Washington and Lee students really intend to reside indefinitely in tiny Lexington, Va.?).

A less-than-truthful declaration could catch up with the declarant in future years, if he or she contemplates a career requiring vetting or close press scrutiny. But even if an honest student has suddenly acquired the intention of residing indefinitely in his college town, does he understand the legal implications of a residence change? Where is the student filing her income-tax return (will she be liable for another state’s tax)? Is the student claimed as a dependent on her parents’ return (if so, it is hard to have a separate legal residence)? Does the student have a residence-dependent scholarship (some require that recipients reside in a particular town or state) that might be imperiled by a change of residence? Would the student’s automobile or health-insurance coverage be affected by a change in residence, especially if the student is covered by her parents’ policy? Apparently the Obama campaign feels no compunction against warning students that disingenuous declarations of residency may have consequences in the future.

Registering to vote is a fundamental rite of citizenship. It is not to be undertaken frivolously and dishonestly. Shame on anyone who manipulates this process in order to tamper with our electoral-college system of state-based presidential elections.

 — Michael Krauss is a professor of law at George Mason University, where he teaches legal ethics.