Trumpesque false information?
A source for your Student Financial Aid Office Counseling?

I could be a ski & fishing bum for a year, not work, pay nothing. Just live here. And it saves me a bundle in starting tuition.

There is no work or tax requirement to get in-state tuition. Not even for a journalism major. See BSU and Idaho residency requirement FAQ or application.

And so what?
Shouldn’t they get a say in their local city if they are expecting to live here for 4 years or more?

Is it really discovering something when lots of other people already know about it? Or is that just a Columbus Day thing?

Changing one’s voter’s registration can have other consequences like resident fishing licenses (& back home) That’s 6months. A 30 day test applies for nonres military fishing in Idaho.

looks like a slippery slope.
Or for people like Rep Giddings, which house one claims legal homeowner’s exemption. Where is your residence can be a tough question, apparently.

Drivers license. Auto insurance. Tax status. Health insurance, etc.
IMO, voter’s registration is just one part of the residency Pandora’s box. Got Guns?

I’m a life-long Boise resident. My concerns – in city elections – are growth management and the cost of living.

Are there any local issues that would serve as a rallying-cry for here-today, gone-tomorrow students? From what I can see, when they’re not in class most of ’em are staring at their phones while riding on their E-scooters. Election, schmelection!

(But on the other hand… that same student housing is in Legislative District 17, which has been “represented” by all Democrats for years. Somebody is voting for those Democrats… who are promptly told to sit quietly in the corner by the GOP honchos, when the Legislature convenes.)

Cost of Living is way beyond influence of the City Council/Mayor, unless you are advocating a government economy like China. Is that your proposal bikeboy?

About the same for growth “management”. Management is one thing, most growthophobes agendas would be prefer prevention.

Lot’s of people advocate Free Markets because it’s a pillar of America, right up until they experience the negative part of free markets: real costs and availability.

Easterner, you’ll be disappointed – I would NEVER advocate for a government economy! Au contraire! I would suggest that over the years government, from local to federal, has assumed many responsibilities that were once the domain of citizens… and increased the tax burden upon those who have the means to pay.

And you’re right – there’s little that a city government can do, now that the cows are out of the barn. HOWEVER… it would be refreshing if they didn’t grab every penny they can legally grab from property taxpayers.

The Trump move is to make something that is not at all about Trump, all about Trump. This headline qualifies.

I don’t agree with the numbers but let’s say it’s true that there are 20,000 student votes up for grabs in District 5.

The Guardian seems to think these 20,000 bodies in our city are not legitimate electors because they are transitory, in that they just arrived and will soon depart. That seems at least a little plausible as a point of view until you ask, “when they go will they vanish into the ether, or will they be replaced?”

Of course they will be replaced. They will be replaced with another 20,000 students who are in the same situation, face the same pressures, and have the same needs, ideals (and idealism) and political perspective as the previous 20,000. These students are a part of our city. They deserve to vote just like the rest of us.

Here is an illustrative side note. A common argument against women’s suffrage was, “what’s the point? they will either double or cancel the votes of their husbands.”

The rejoinder to that argument, and one of the points of sufferage, was that women may have a consensus point of view that men are divided on and, once all of the votes are counted, it would turn out that 75% of the country is united on an issue that appears to be equally split when only the men talk about it. The same is true of students.

My advice to the Guardian is to win them over, not suppress them. Meeting a few of them might be a good first step.

EDITOR NOTE–You TOTALLY misinterpreted my intent. I AGREE students are a force and should be allowed to vote. Council candidates should cater to those votes. My reference to Trump was that he seemingly opposed allowing certain voters to cast ballots, hence claiming the Dems stole the election. FYI, the 20,000 figure was just an estimate based on the number of students at BSU.

How about this as an alternate headline: “Nothing’s changed”

Idaho statute § 34-104 has been in place since 1970.

EDITOR NOTE–Steve, your headline forgets the BIG CHANGE which is local council districts. Boise District 5 candidates are foolish to avoid the electorate potential of BSU students.

Question remains. Were the density census numbers generated during summer break when apartments were empty but the election done when they are full? Sounds like some form of gerrymandering is possible.

EDITOR NOTE–Unknown about timing, but we recall census figures were delayed due to COVID 19.

Since when do students vote? Candidates should be concentrating their efforts on the people who actually vote.

There appears to be at least two Trumpesque (i.e., “stolen election” claim) possibilities here.

Yes, Caeth, Idaho Code 50-707A, sometimes referred to as HB 413, requires cities over 100,000 population (Boise, and now Meridian and Nampa) to establish City Council Districts “based upon the most recent federal decennial census”. In this case, due to COVID, the most recent federal decennial census Boise City could use was 2010. The active word here is DECENNIAL.

Boise City should have used only the 2010 decennial Census numbers as the basis for establishing the Districts. But no, the City had to have their “consultants” also use Census American Community Survey (ACS) data to supplement the 2010 decennial numbers to come up with the Districts. The Lusk St area near BSU would have been a beneficiary of using ACS numbers. ACS numbers are estimates, not decennial numbers. There is no provision in IC 50-707A to use ACS numbers. That’s the first Trumpesque possibility.

The second Trumpesque possibility is the “consultants” also admitted they intentionally underestimated the population in one Council District. You can find that fact on the City’s web site along with at least one really terribly busy map. It also raises the question – why the underestimation?

So we can look forward to a Council District boundary redo sometime before the 2023 City election. Hopefully only 2020 federal decennial census numbers, and only those numbers, will be used. Don’t expect much change though in Council District lines, the powers that be already have decreed there will not be much change from the current boundaries.