Reversing Trends of Low Youth Voter Turnout

Until the recent turnaround during the 2004 elections, voting rates among youth had steadily declined since 18 year-olds first won the right to vote in 1972.  Young people are involved in this election like none before, with youth participation in some states tripling from 2004 to 2008.  We have reached a pivotal moment in bringing young people into the political process. Systems of support on campuses can serve to solidify youth civic engagement and are essential to keeping youth engaged throughout their lifetimes.

Increased Legitimacy for Civic Participation Efforts

On campuses across the country, students initiate vibrant voter registration and voter mobilization drives. Yet, their efforts can only go so far without the legitimacy that is gained by the college or university president formally sanctioning their efforts. Faculty and staff become more willing partners in efforts to register the student body to vote and ensure that students make it to the polls on Election Day. The President’s Commitment on Civic Engagement lends increased legitimacy to student efforts to increase voter participation on campus.

Dramatic Increases in Youth Civic Participation Expected 

The number of students that a student-led voter registration drive can register varies significantly based on the amount of access they are given to dormitories and high traffic areas on campus. Many colleges and universities across the country do not allow their students conducting non-partisan voter drives into the dormitories. At the University of California, Santa Barbara where students were given access to the dormitories, students were able to register 2,300 young voters on a single day. The President’s Commitment to Civic Engagement ensures access to students working to increase voter participation on campus.

Countering the Trend of Youth Voter Suppression

Low voter participation among the young and mobile points to the fact that voter registration requirements decrease turnout disproportionately for young voters. Voter registration deadlines of 30 days prior to Election Day present a significant barrier to student voters who often return to campus mere weeks before the deadline. Active student voter registration drives are necessary to ensure that students are able to register to vote, and the Presidents Commitment to Civic Engagement supports such efforts.

Restrictive voter identification laws also pose a direct challenge to young voters. In Ohio, the controversial HB-3 voter ID law causes problems for student voters. HB-3 severely limits acceptable forms of identification at the polls. Many students in Ohio are unable to meet the requirements due to out-of-state drivers licenses and mail that is addressed to campus post office boxes rather than to physical addresses.

Direct misinformation campaigns are another common form of youth voter suppression. Before the November 2007 City Council election in Statesboro, Georgia, one of the incumbent council members told students their financial aid would be taken away and their parents’ tax returns would be questioned if the students voted in the Statesboro municipal election. This is not true, but a misinformation campaign of rumors to the contrary made its way through the campus of Georgia Southern University. Voter education programs are necessary to ensure that students know the voter identification laws in their state and to counter any misinformation campaigns targeting student voters. The Presidents Commitment to Civic Engagement supports such efforts.