The campaigns surrounding Proposition 200 were some of the most bitter, drawn-out battles I've seen.
One side seemed convinced that illegal immigrants were destroying the integrity of our electoral process; the other disagreed.
Of course, neither side was completely right.
However, by framing the discussion of Prop. 200 around the ever-popular issue of immigration, another group affected by the new voting requirements of Prop. 200 was ignored: students.
Given the history of the voting rights of students in the United States, the new obstacles put in place in Arizona shouldn't be too surprising.
While discrimination and disenfranchisement have not been as bold-faced and widespread as the denial of votes along racial lines, residency laws and other subtle means which prevent youth voting have targeted students.
This isn't to say that Proposition 200 purposely aims at preventing students from voting, but the identification requirements may have that effect.
The law requires that a voter provide one of several forms of identification. One such option is an Arizona driver's license issued after 1996, or a driver's license from another state that proves United States citizenship.
I called the Maricopa County Recorder's office to find out if any other state has a license that proves citizenship by their standards. The woman I spoke with told me that no other state's license was accepted.
When I pointed out that the application process for many other licenses seemed just as rigorous as Arizona's, she wouldn't elaborate on why only Arizona licenses were adequate proof.
Other options include a copy of your birth certificate or passport. Fortunately, I still have a copy of my birth certificate.
What about students who aren't so lucky? Should they be penalized because their parents misplaced something?
The recourse of an Arizona driver's license remains, but the license does cost money.
Practically speaking, that would seem to make it equivalent to a poll tax, which has been illegal since Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
In some places, lawmakers have said that students should not be allowed to vote because they are essentially transient.
Even if that were an acceptable reason to deny someone a vote, such a claim is completely out of touch with today's mobile society, where plenty of people move around fairly frequently.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant if students don't vote anyway.
Though the presidential election in 2004 saw an impressive increase in young voters at the polls, it won't matter if we don't keep it up.
As evidence for how little legislators fear the student vote, I offer the fact that the Legislature has historically under-funded their commitment to financial aid.
More money has sometimes come out of our tuition for financial aid than the Legislature was willing to commit.
And now, there are proposals on the national level that will decrease the money available for student loans by $12.7 billion.
Tempe City Council elections are coming up in March, and this November promises to be an important one.
Aside from the usual offices up for election, it's also looking like there will be plenty of new propositions to weigh in on.
If our voice is going to be counted, we have to start somewhere. Why not start in March?
Ben Horowitz is journalism junior. Reach him at Benjamin.horowitz@asu.edu.
