David Yepsen Can't Let it Go (or, Bad Ideas for Reforming the Iowa Caucuses)

Regular readers of this site will remember that in December of last year, we went to bat pretty hard against both the Clinton/Biden/Dodd/Richardson campaigns, and David Yepsen, "the Dean of Iowa Political Reporting," for suggesting that university students in Iowa did not have a right to participate in the caucuses. I think we did a pretty good job (in partnership with a number of youth organizations) pushing against that message, earning retractions from all of the Democratic campaigns, garnering front page coverage on Daily Kos, and getting other organizations involved and on-message. By the end of the year, thanks to our work here and that of organizations like the Student PIRGs, Rock the Vote, YDA, and Young Voter PAC, the New York Times even ran an op-ed sympathetic to our point of view.

We all know what happened after that - despite much fretting about a youth-based field strategy on the part of the media and old-school party hacks, students turned out in record numbers and launched Barack Obama's campaign to the front of the pack.

So it's disturbing to see that, once the glare of the media is gone from Iowa, David Yepsen is back to his old tricks. In a column dedicated to the reformation of the Iowa Caucus, Yepsen takes aim at Election Day Registration:

Ban same-day registration

Allowing someone to just show up, claim residence in the precinct and participate is an invitation to fraud. There were allegations that happened in this year's caucuses.

It's one thing - and probably a good thing - to allow same-day registration on an election day. If there is a question about someone's residence, a provisional ballot can be cast and counted or rejected once the residence issue is settled. There isn't time for that on caucus night.

So, Iowa should cut off voter registrations for caucus participation a week or two before the events are held. That way, those officials or activists trying to run the caucuses can have a fresh list from the county election office of just who is eligible to participate.

Yes, there were allegations of fraud by people with a political interest in claiming so, and who fought the idea of student participation for months because it was a constituency disproportionately lined up against their candidacy.

The fact is, Yepsen, and others who share his opinion, are worried about a hypothetical, unproven problem that may occur in some future place and time. I'm worried about the actual problem we have now: that young people participate in our elections in lower numbers than other groups because they face larger barriers to voting than do older voters.

If we want to see more young people participate - a universal good, recognized even by those who lament "youth apathy" - than we need to make the system more accommodating to the life circumstances of young people.

When it comes to the Iowa Caucus, young people face a number of hurdles that older voters do not:

• Their transience - young people typically need to re-register every time they move. Students tend to move every single year.
• The school calendar means that students typically are not in-state during the caucuses.
• Student schedules and workloads tend to be heaviest when the caucuses are just coming onto the national radar.
• Universities do very little (if anything) to promote student participation in local elections.

All of these are contributing factors to lower voting rates among students, and Election Day Registration is a solution to all of these extra hurdles that students face. Absent any proof of fraud at a massive - election changing - level, it's hard to see how Yepsen can justify making it harder for any constituency to participate in the Democratic process.

We wouldn't put a polling place on the 11th floor of a building with no elevator access and no nearby public transportation and then wonder why elderly and handicapped people don't vote. We recognize that polling places should be handicap accessible and centrally located to address the needs of certain demographics who will use it. Absent any solid proof of fraud, how is a law that addresses the special hurdles that students face any different?