Surely the most important story of Tuesday night’s election was the record low turnout, estimated at 59.1%. So low was the turnout that the Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc Québecois, and NDP all lost votes in absolute terms compared to the 2006 Federal Election. Most alarming to me were the untold thousands of students who were systemically denied the right to vote.

We often point out the dismal voter turnout among students and youth and attribute this to the ill-defined concept of “voter apathy”. While it is true that an unacceptably high number of youth have tuned out of politics (due, in my view, largely to the abject failure of politicians to create meaningful space for youth participation in public policy), we must also look at the systemic factors that prevent engaged students from voting. Over the past several days, I have had a large number of conversations with classmates who were prevented by voting due to problems with enumeration, unclear guidelines on which riding they should vote in, lack of access to information, and inconsistent application of the rules. Bear in mind that these are informed, politically-engaged law students. Many of them are members of political parties and/or have political aspirations. If these students are having trouble voting, we must infer that a “typical” student will experience even greater difficulty.

Transience and Invisibility

As a group, students tend to be more transient in terms of residency than the general population and this makes them invisible to the electoral machinery. Many students have two or more addresses: a permanent home address, a temporary school address, and possibly others. For example, in April of 2008 I simultaneously had three mailing addresses. Since students often live away from home and typically change their temporary residence once every 12 months (or more, especially in the case of students living in on-campus residences), problems arise in terms of enumeration and eligibility to vote in a particular riding.

Enumeration is an issue for many students and youth. Some have been employed previously (or at least not in the “official” economy), and therefore do not have a social insurance number. Those who are on the voters list prior to the election are likely to be registered in the riding of their permanent address rather than where they are living while studying. Of course, for students to vote in their home riding often means having to vote by mail (this is what I did). This process requires that the student take active and often time-consuming steps several weeks before the election to complete the paperwork. Students are also unlikely to be registered during door-to-door enumeration since (for obvious reasons) students are typically not in their homes during business hours. While students can take steps to register themselves in their temporary riding, this again requires deliberate, active, and time-consuming participation on the student’s part. Few positive rights require this much effort on the part of the rights holder.

Even if students are registered to vote, many do not know which riding they should vote in: their home riding or their temporary riding. In my case, I could make a good legal argument that I was actually eligible to vote in three different ridings (London-Fanshawe, Winnipeg-South, and Saint Boniface). As I have already noted, voting in a home riding often means that the student must vote by mail, which is a time-consuming process. Students can also vote in the riding where they live temporarily while in school, but this also requires deliberate planning and action by the student.

Lack of Access to Information and Moving Goal Posts

There are significant problems related to a student’s capacity to register to vote on election day. Typically, a voter can show up at a polling station and produce documentation proving residency in the riding in order to cast a ballot. Unfortunately, information regarding the specific guidelines is not readily accessible to many students and the rules are often applied inconsistently. Moreover, students face systemic barriers in meeting the guidelines that are in place.

Several of my classmates were unable to produce documentation to prove that they live in Winnipeg. Some pay rent “under the table” or simply do not have a written tenancy contract, others do not have utility bills because it is included in their rent, others have their bills sent to their permanent address to be forwarded by family. In many cases, students cannot produce any “official” mail sent to their temporary address.

One of my classmates attempted to vote by bringing several rejection letters from law firms that were sent to his temporary address in Winnipeg. At first, the returning officer refused to let him vote. After some arguing, my friend was finally allowed to cast a ballot.

The guidelines in place are often difficult to meet and are inconsistently applied. Moreover, the government’s attempts to publicize the guidelines are grossly inadequate. The burden often falls to students’ unions and other organizations to attempt to educate students about the voter registration rules.

Conclusions

The disenfranchisement of students and youth is not deliberate, but there are systemic factors that adversely impact on students’ democratic rights in this country. The government must put more resources into education and enumeration in order to ensure that students can participate in free and democratic elections. Greater attention must be given to the guidelines for on-site registration and the guidelines must be applied with consistency. Finally, the government should adopt policies that err on the side of inclusivity rather than running the risk of denying democratic rights to an already marginalized group within society.

Note: This entry is cross-posted at devinjohnston.ca.