The Virginian-Pilot
©
NORFOLK
Norfolk election officials on Friday reluctantly loosened procedures for registering college students to vote after protests from presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign and an admonishment from state election officials.
The Illinois senator's campaign complained that the Norfolk registrar's policy of sending a questionnaire to anyone applying to register from a college campus discouraged students from following through. The State Board of Elections asked general registrar Elisa J. Long to halt the practice.
The Norfolk Electoral Board agreed to that but said in a statement: "This compliance is with the understanding that the Board strongly feels that by doing so, we are out of compliance with Virginia Election Laws."
Kevin Griffis, a spokesman for Obama's campaign in Virginia, said Norfolk's practice was "completely ridiculous" and had "a chilling effect on voter registration on campuses."
Obama's campaign has been aggressively registering students in Virginia, viewed as a battleground state. Griffis said Obama "is energizing young voters in a way that's not happened in a generation or more."
Of Virginia's 49,000 new registrations in August, 43 percent were age 23 and under, he said.
State law requires registrars to decide eligibility based on two components of residence: place of abode and domicile. Long said the questionnaire had been used to determine domicile and was based on suggested questions from the state elections office. Abode is address.
"The frustration is that the code says you may ask questions to help you make the determination of domicile, yet now we're being told we cannot use a questionnaire," Long said.
"Domicile is a tricky question; we don't consider any one thing," she said. Questions included whether the students pay out-of-state tuition, pay Virginia income taxes or have a Virginia driver's license.
Long said she does not know how a student's residency status now will be determined.
Mary Alana Welch, a 21-year-old student at Old Dominion University, received one of the questionnaires.
"It was a big deterrent," she said. "It gave me the impression I wasn't supposed to be registering here."
She said she never returned it and is still figuring out how to change her registration from Northern Virginia to Norfolk.
To cast her first vote, she wants to go to the polls instead of sending in an absentee ballot.
Long and the Norfolk Electoral Board are urging that the General Assembly clarify the student voter registration policy.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia agrees.
"College students are in a unique situation.... They live in two places," the organization's executive director, Kent Willis, said. "The state law does not address that properly."
"If homeless people have the right to vote by choosing their principal residence, college students ought to have the same right."
Long said she's now reviewing an application from a student from Savannah, Ga., who pays out-of-state tuition, is declared as a dependent in Georgia and has a Georgia driver's license and car registration.
"What automatically makes these out-of-state students Virginians?" she asked.
The Norfolk Electoral Board statement reads: "Although the revised policy guidelines places the burden of proof of residence with the person asserting it, the policy allows students to claim residence in Virginia unchallenged."
Firestorm s erupted in a few other Virginia college towns this month - including Blacksburg with Virginia Tech - over college student registrations, particularly those of out-of-state students.
Registrars in two other local cities with colleges - Virginia Beach and Williamsburg - said they do not use questionnaires. Newport News officials could not be reached.
Pilot writer Lauren King contributed to this report.
Debbie Messina, (757) 446-2588, debbie.messina@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Even
the ultra right wing, pro NRA, Supreme Court, appointed in recent times, has said there are & should be restrictions on gun ownership. Try reading their recent opinions on the subject. If, as some of you insist, the 2ND Amendment grants unimpeded gun ownership, to all, then you are insisting that convicted murderers have that right. Conviction on a felony crime charge doesn't take away one's citizenship. At the time the amendment was added, gun ownership, was limited to Whites. People of color, in the USA, at that time weren't included as human, so your 2ND Amendment & the rest of the so-called "Bill of Rights", wasn't legitimate. Free Blacks, Native Americans & certain Asian & European American descendants of immigrants, basically had no rights.
Sorry!
My apologies for getting off topic.
CS
You're waisting your time. It's obvious that since twomiler2 was a former LEO, you, I, and any other civilian have the common sense of an ice cube and we are not smart enough to know what is best for us. Twomiler2 helped James Madison draft the U. S. Constitution in 1787 and only he knows what the founders meant when The Bill of Rights and The Second Amendment was put into The U. S. Constitution. He also has a sister (I think) that is a federal judge. So there is a double whammy.
He also doesn't remember that The 13 Original Colonies were 13 separate sovereign works in progress and the federal government was an agent to the several states. But that's not important.
actually
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you and decided the 2nd Amendment affirms an individual right to arms. I guess the Justices don't have the same "full understanding" of Constitutional law you do.
Actually
I happen to be 1 of those persons fully understanding the limitations of the 2ND Amendment. The right to own & bear arms, was necessary to have a well-regulated militia. At that stage of the USA, the professional military was pretty rag-tag. Leaders also feared possible juntas by a professional army. These matters are no longer of concern. The National Guard has taken the place of militias for states & the federal military forces take care of the national & international scence. The "Right to Bear Arms" is restricted. Using the logic of some, it wouldn't be illegal for convicted murderers to buy guns. We have "Freedom of Speech" yet can't yell "fire", in a crowded theater, or "bomb", in an airport.
The Constitution isn't a static document. If It were, there would be no Amendments.
ironic
twomiler, aren't you the same person who wants to impose local limits on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which, as you say, supersedes local and State law?
This
is legal, federal law people. Norfolk has no choice but to follow the law. Federal law supersedes local & state law. Stop whining.
Balley Again: RE: Voting in Two States is Not Illegal! "WRONG"
Balley, are you sure you are a College Student???? I learned in grade school each citizen has "ONE and only One vote!!! Where did you get the idea you could vote twice???? No wonder Norfolk needs a questionaire to keep you people straight!!!!
balley
First of all, this site can censor anyone it chooses. The Pilot owns it and operates it and therefore decides who and who won't be published. Just as you are the student editor of the ODU newspaper, you too have that choice. IF you are concerned about censorship, then I suggest you start your own website or opinion column and you can do as you please.
re: What are the guidelines for censorship on this forum?
There are several links to the guidelines of posting including the need to have your post approved if you are new to this blog. Additionally, your right to free speech is taken away the minute you enter a private place. When you are here, you are [in essence], in The Pilot's home. The Pilot can "censor" your speech just as I or anyone whose private residence you enter.