By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the Republican-controlled State Board of Elections’ closure of campus polling places at Western Carolina University, UNC Greensboro, and NC A&T, students now face significant distances to vote. Despite a federal judge rejecting a lawsuit to reopen these sites and election officials downplaying the impact, hundreds of students in North Carolina have organized marches and utilized shuttle services to reach their new, distant polling locations. This situation is viewed by students as part of broader Republican efforts to restrict voting access, echoing historical struggles for civil rights on college campuses.
Read the original article here
The decision by North Carolina Republicans to close campus polling places has prompted a significant undertaking for students seeking to exercise their right to vote. Many students, often without personal vehicles, are now compelled to walk over a mile to reach an alternative polling location. This distance, while seemingly manageable for some, presents a substantial barrier for a population that relies on accessibility and convenience for civic participation. The sheer act of having to travel such a distance, especially when facing academic and other responsibilities, underscores the challenges placed upon these young voters.
A particularly concerning aspect of this situation is the nature of the walk itself. It’s not simply a matter of covering a mile on a well-maintained sidewalk or a pleasant path. Instead, the route reportedly includes stretches along a highway that lacks any pedestrian infrastructure, posing safety concerns and adding to the difficulty of the journey. This detail elevates the inconvenience to a potential hazard, highlighting the deliberate nature of the obstacles being placed in the path of these students. The message seems to be that if one truly wants to vote, they must overcome these significant hurdles, a sentiment that is being met with strong disapproval.
The situation has inevitably drawn comparisons and sparked discussions about fairness and access in the electoral process. Some observers have pointed out the potential hypocrisy, imagining a scenario where similar restrictions were placed on a right more commonly associated with conservative voters, such as gun ownership. The argument is that such a move would likely be met with swift legal challenges, suggesting that the current restrictions on student voting are a calculated attempt to suppress a particular demographic’s participation. This disparity in how access to different rights is treated has fueled outrage and a sense of injustice.
Moreover, there’s a palpable sense that these actions are intended to discourage voting, particularly among younger demographics who are often perceived as leaning towards progressive political views. The fact that these obstacles are being implemented, especially in a college town, points to a strategy aimed at disenfranchising a group that might otherwise contribute to election outcomes. The hope expressed by many is that this very suppression will, in fact, backfire, galvanizing students and others to vote with even greater determination, as a form of protest and a reaffirmation of their commitment to their civic duty.
The resilience of the students, in choosing to undertake this arduous walk rather than forgo their voting rights, has been noted and praised. It demonstrates a strong commitment to democracy and a refusal to be deterred by what many see as deliberate attempts to make voting more difficult. This act of perseverance is being viewed as a powerful statement against voter suppression tactics, underscoring the importance of the franchise even when faced with significant inconvenience and potential danger. The narrative emerging is one of determination in the face of adversity.
There is also a recognition that this isn’t an isolated incident but rather a potential harbinger of broader strategies to impact upcoming elections. The closing of campus polling places is seen as a tactic within a larger framework of election disruption. While some express concern about the federal government’s role, others remain optimistic about legal challenges and the potential for state-level resistance to such measures. The underlying sentiment is that while interference is a real threat, voter turnout remains the ultimate countermeasure.
The notion of walking a mile to vote is being framed by some as a minor inconvenience, with arguments that alternative transportation methods like buses or car sharing are readily available. However, this perspective often overlooks the realities faced by college students, many of whom may not own cars and rely on public transportation that might be inadequate or inconvenient. Furthermore, the context of the walk – along unsafe highways without pedestrian access – significantly changes the nature of the challenge. It transforms a simple distance into a potential hazard, rendering the “just walk a mile” argument disingenuous for many.
The deliberate removal of polling places from college campuses is a clear signal of intent. It’s about erecting barriers to voting for a specific group. This is not merely about logistical adjustments; it’s about influencing election outcomes by making it harder for certain populations to participate. The call for mandatory voting and making the process as easy as possible is a counterpoint, emphasizing a belief that democratic participation should be facilitated, not obstructed, and that overcoming obstacles is not an inherent civic virtue to be tested, but an unnecessary burden.
Ultimately, the situation in North Carolina serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing debates surrounding voter access and the lengths to which political strategies can go to influence electoral participation. The image of students walking over a mile, often along unsafe routes, to cast their ballots is a powerful illustration of both the challenges and the unwavering commitment to democracy that exists within these communities. It’s a narrative that highlights the importance of vigilance and the enduring power of individual action in the face of systemic obstacles.