Barriers to Youth Voter Engagement: Why On-Campus Voting Matters
DownloadIntroduction
College students are among the largest and fastest-growing segment of the American electorate, yet they continue to face significant barriers to voting. Young voters have historically played an important role in pivotal movements for women’s rights, racial justice, immigrants’ rights, worker’s rights, climate justice, and more, and are critical to the future of democracy. Despite the fact that 89 percent of young people are willing to vote, only 47 percent of young people voted in 2024. The question is then, what is causing this gap between youth interest in participating in democracy and voter turnout?
For millions of students, the ordinary realities of college life—living away from home, establishing residency, balancing academic and work responsibilities, and relying on limited transportation—can transform what should be a straightforward practice of voting into a complex and burdensome process.1 On-campus voting is one of the simplest ways to close the gap between the right to vote and the practical ability to exercise it. Opening and establishing polling places in communities where students already live and study removes multiple barriers, and research suggests that doing so can increase student turnout.Yet access to on-campus voting remains limited, and in several states, the infrastructure students have relied upon to exercise that right is now being restricted, relocated, or eliminated.
Why On-Campus Voting Matters
To understand why on-campus voting is so important, first consider what students face when the nearest polling location is far removed from campus: an otherwise straightforward act can turn into a logistical hurdle, layering transportation, scheduling, geographic, and financial barriers onto a population that is particularly likely to feel their effects.
Transportation is often the first hurdle. Younger adults are significantly less likely to own cars, with a substantial portion of traditional college-aged individuals lacking driver’s licenses. Even students with access to a vehicle may be constrained by institutional policies that restrict freshmen and sophomores from bringing vehicles to campus or by limited and costly campus parking. When a polling place is miles away, those realities can mean relying on infrequent public transportation, paying for a rideshare, coordinating car pools, or simply having to walk miles; turning what should be a 10 minute trip across campus lawns into a nearly hour long trek along busy public roads.
Transportation is only one part of the equation. College students often have little control over their daily schedules, moving between classes, labs, work shifts, internships, extracurricular activities, and other obligations that cannot easily be rearranged around Election Day. Many eligible student voters are also relatively new to their college communities and unfamiliar with the local streets, public transportation, and surrounding areas. Each additional hurdle creates another opportunity for an eligible voter to decide that voting simply cannot fit into their already busy day.
On-campus voting is not a luxury. It is a practical response to a predictable problem and an efficient, targeted solution to address student-specific structural barriers.
On-campus voting dismantles these barriers at their source. It’s not just a matter of convenience, but a meaningful way to locate the ballot box where students already live, study, and work. For this demographic of voters, proximity can make the difference between a right that exists on paper and one that can be realistically exercised.
The data also point to this commonsense conclusion—when voting is easier to reach, students are more likely to participate. Early voting sites on college campuses increase student voter turnout by up to 13.5 percent. Individual case studies point toward the same result. The Andrew Goodman Foundation partnered with 17 colleges and universities to establish and study on-campus polling places. At Arizona State University, where early voting and Election Day polling locations were established for the 2020 election, voter turnout increased by 7.5 percentage points compared with 2016. At Western Carolina University, when an on-campus early voting site was established for the 2016 election, voter turnout increased by 12.6 percentage points compared with 2012. These cases do not establish that every campus would experience the same increase, but they illustrate a broader point: when practical barriers to the ballot are removed, more students vote.
On-campus voting is not a luxury. It is a practical response to a predictable problem and an efficient, targeted solution to address student-specific structural barriers. A centrally located polling place can serve thousands of eligible voters while reducing the transportation, scheduling, and geographic burdens that make voting harder for students. Students are not asking for preferential access to the ballot, but simply asking whether our election infrastructure should impose undue burdens when a clear pathway to voting exists.
The Legal Landscape of Attacks on On-Campus Voting
The legal landscape governing student voting is highly fragmented. State and local election laws differ widely with respect to polling place access, voter identification requirements, residency rules, district boundaries, and absentee voting procedures—creating uneven barriers for students depending on where they attend school. For instance, Florida attempted to mandate a minimum number of open parking spaces for polling places which threatened on-campus polling place eligibility. Because on-campus polling can eliminate several logistical barriers created by students’ unique living and working circumstances, policies that restrict or eliminate campus polling locations can have an outsized effect on youth voters.
Despite its demonstrated benefits, on-campus voting remains the exception rather than the norm. More troubling, in several states current access to on-campus voting is being targeted.
In 2020, 74 percent of college campuses did not offer an in-person voting option on campus, either on Election Day or during early voting, and 90 percent offered no early voting option. In practical terms, roughly 6.6 million students, 54 percent of eligible college students, did not have an opportunity to vote on their campus. For millions of students living on-campus, then, exercising their right to vote required leaving the place they lived and independently overcoming the logistical barriers that on-campus voting can substantially reduce—if they voted locally. For many others, voting required that they navigate absentee voting processes and mail systems. But the challenge is no longer simply that too few campuses offer voting. In several states, disputes have emerged over whether existing campus polling locations should remain available at all, while lawmakers and election officials continue to pursue measures that would restrict, relocate, or eliminate them entirely. The battles unfolding in North Carolina, Florida, and Texas are instructive for how these disputes have played.
1. North Carolina
North Carolina A&T State University (“NC A&T”), the largest public Historically Black College or University (“HBCU”) in the nation, successfully maintained an on-campus early voting site in past election cycles, with 71 percent of their youth voters casting ballots in 2020, which led to easier voting access for many students. Two years later, however, local election boards eliminated that voting site as well as those at two other North Carolina colleges, forcing students to walk miles to off-campus polling locations to cast their ballots, illustrating how the presence or absence of a campus polling place can directly impact a community’s ability to vote.
Students at NC A&T responded to the elimination of early voting sites with organized resistance. Dozens of students marched through the streets of Greensboro to reach distant off-campus polling sites, demonstrating their determination to access the ballot despite the added administrative barriers. Other students raised thousands of dollars to charter buses that transported NC A&T’s youth voters to the new polling sites. Students in the state’s mountain region at Western Carolina University (WCU) were forced to navigate unnecessary burdens simply to reach the nearest ballot box. Students without personal transportation at WCU were forced to walk along a high-speed, four-lane highway to reach the nearest polling place after their traditional campus polling site was eliminated by the State Board of Elections.
These barriers have repercussions. In past elections, counties across North Carolina, including those with a predominately Black population that lost early-voting locations, saw declines in early-voting participation by up to 85 percent. Having too few early voting sites available can also compound the problem by concentrating voters at remaining locations, increasing lines to vote and straining election resources.
The fight over on-campus voting has also moved into the courts. In early 2026, students from three universities sued the North Carolina State Board of Elections after it eliminated early-voting sites on their campuses and declined to consider proposed campus locations at others. The three universities represented by students in the lawsuit serve more than 40,000 students. Their challenge puts the practical importance of on-campus voting squarely at issue. The student plaintiffs argue that the “closures intentionally target the rights of young voters.”
The experience in North Carolina makes clear why access cannot be measured simply by whether a polling place exists somewhere within reach. For students, the practical question is whether they can realistically get there. Keeping voting on-campus removes many of the obstacles we’ve named, while also adding capacity for communities with thousands of eligible voters concentrated in a single location.
2. Florida
In Florida, the fight over on-campus voting demonstrates how state election rules can determine whether local officials are able to address the practical barriers students face in reaching the polls. For years, Florida’s Secretary of State interpreted its early-voting statute to categorically exclude college and university facilities from serving as early-voting locations. The restriction applied regardless of whether a campus facility was otherwise suitable or whether local election officials believed it would best serve their communities.
Students and voting rights organizations challenged the Secretary of State’s exclusionary interpretation of the law. In 2018, a federal court blocked the policy, finding that it likely violated the Constitution’s 26th Amendment, which grants all U.S. citizens ages 18 and older the right to vote and protects against age-based voting discrimination. Florida’s restrictive interpretation treated college students differently from other voters – nearly 830,000 students attended Florida’s public colleges and universities, yet none could have an early-voting site on campus under the state’s policy. Importantly, the court did not require colleges to host polling places. It simply said the state could not categorically exclude campuses from consideration. Florida later issued new guidance allowing local election officials to use qualifying college and university facilities as early-voting sites.
Students’ victory yielded immediate benefits. In the state’s 2018 midterm elections, nearly 60,000 voters cast ballots at 12 on-campus locations in nine Florida counties. 56 percent of ballots at these voting sites were cast by 18-29 year olds and there was an increase in the turnout of 20-22 year old voters who were newly given the opportunity to vote early in-person. Voter turnout increased to 92,344 voters at 11 on-campus locations in the 2020 election. And for early voting in the 2024 elections, 142,085 voters cast ballots at 16 on-campus early-voting sites across the state, with a quarter of those ballots being cast at three campuses in Miami-Dade County alone. Furthermore, voters from each major political persuasion—Republican, Democratic, and independent/unaffiliated—equally used the on-campus early voting.
Florida therefore illustrates why the rules governing polling-place locations matter and how state and local elected officials can play a major role in youth access to voting. A campus polling place is not guaranteed simply because state law permits one. However, when the law, or a state official’s interpretation of the law, outright prohibits the use of college campuses for early voting, students lose an accessible voting option before local election officials can even consider whether their campus needs it.
3. Texas
Texas provides a particularly stark example of how restrictions to on-campus voting can compound barriers students already face. In 2025, lawmakers introduced H.B. 3144, which would prohibit polling places on school or college campuses unless the campus were closed to students on Election Day—effectively forcing schools to choose between remaining open or ceasing all academic operations for the day to provide students with convenient access to the ballot. That proposal followed an earlier controversy in Brazos County, where officials removed Texas A&M University’s student center as an early voting location, despite its popularity as the second most utilized early voting location in the county. These measures demonstrate how quickly access can move in the wrong direction. Even where students have successfully relied on campus polling places, state and local officials can relocate, restrict, or eliminate them.
Disparities in Access to On-Campus Voting
The debate over on-campus voting is also a question of equity. Between 2012 and 2020, predominantly white institutions (“PWIs”) were more likely than predominantly non-white institutions, such as HBCUs and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), to host on-campus polling places. Additionally, students attending two-year colleges had less access to on-campus polling locations than those attending four-year institutions. Over one third, 36 percent, of Black undergraduate students attend two-year colleges, and historically, community colleges enroll Black students at higher rates than other demographic groups. The inequity in on-campus voting therefore does not arise in isolation, but risks layering a new barrier to political participation onto longstanding inequities in educational opportunity.
Resources as Access: Poll Workers, Long Wait Times, and University Institutional Support
Even when campuses serve as polling locations, chronic underfunding, limited poll workers, low numbers of voting machines, and long lines can create challenges. Meaningful access to voting not only depends on where polling places are located but also depends on whether these locations possess the resources, such as adequate voting machines, sufficient space, and fully trained poll workers, needed to handle massive surges in student turnout. When these resources are not adequately supplied, the physical proximity of on-campus polling places turns into an illusion of access when wait times and lines become prohibitive for students with busy schedules.
Polling locations serving student populations have unique behavioral trends, like going early in the day or later in the day around classes and showing up in groups, that can contribute to extended wait times especially when compounded with a lack of well trained poll workers and voting machines. Because college enrollees are also disproportionately first-time voters or newcomers to the local jurisdiction, navigating unfamiliar state ballots and complex check-in procedures can demand more time per voter.
Importantly, when high volume on-campus polling locations are not equipped with sufficient funding, staff, and equipment, lines can stretch for blocks and wait times can become prohibitive for students juggling tight academic schedules. Studies show that a lack of sufficient poll workers with adequate training and voting machines lead to longer lines at polling locations. The impact of underinvestment can be seen on college campuses. During the 2022 general election, students at the University of Michigan reported waiting three to four hours to vote due to technical challenges with voting software and a lack of sufficient clerks. Similar reports emerged during the 2024 election from polling locations serving Lehigh University, Villanova University, the University of Pennsylvania, Lafayette College, and the University of Pittsburgh. At Lehigh, this wait time was due in part to a limited number of voting machines and technical difficulties, but at other Pennsylvania schools, these long wait times persist despite efforts to bring extra voting machines and poll workers to voting sites. Research further indicates that every additional hour a voter waits in line decreases the probability they will vote in the next election by one percent, which could translate to the loss of hundreds of thousands of voters.
Policy Recommendations for Students, Schools, and Policymakers
The following recommendations address the responsibilities of universities, state governments, and the federal government in making on-campus voting reality.
- How Schools Can Support On-Campus Voting:
- Cancel classes and testing on Election Day. Beyond hosting early voting, universities can reduce barriers through their own policies. In 2024, at least 86 colleges cancelled Election Day classes, an approach 45 percent of students said would help them vote, while 34 percent of students reported that avoiding tests and assignments on Election Day would make voting easier. These measures are most effective when paired with on-campus polling and voter education: freeing students’ time matters only if they also have a convenient and accessible place to cast their ballots.
- Provide transportation to off-campus voting where allowed. Where on-campus polling is not possible, universities can provide transportation to off-campus sites in compliance with state law. Cornell University, for example, partnered with the Andrew Goodman Foundation to offer students free Election Day transportation, helping mitigate the barriers created by off-campus voting.
- Promote voter registration, early voting, and all voting options. Schools should also make students aware of the voting options available to them and encourage early voting where possible to reduce last minute challenges encountered on Election Day.
- How States Can Expand On-Campus Voting:
- Expand on-campus voting to public institutions. State lawmakers can expand on-campus voting by mandating polling places at public colleges and universities. Illinois, for example, requires early voting and same-day registration at public universities. Five other states, including California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wyoming, require or encourage campuses to be available or used as polling places.
- Sufficiently staff on-campus voting locations. States should also ensure that polling locations on college campuses are adequately resourced and staffed to handle a high influx of first time voters and students managing busy schedules. Working closely with universities hosting polling locations can help states maximize ideal polling locations on campus, recruit student poll workers, and educate students about on-campus voting logistics.
- How Federal Policy Can Enhance On-Campus Voting:
- Pass the Youth Voting Rights Act (YVRA). Federal lawmakers can increase access to on-campus voting through bills such as the YVRA, introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Nikema Williams, which, amongst other things, would ensure the availability of polling places on university campuses.
- Pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (John Lewis VRAA). Broader federal voting rights protections can also support the goal of protecting on-campus voting such as the John Lewis VRAA, introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin and Rep. Terri Sewell, which would mandate that any changes to voting rules that could discriminate against voters based on race or background are federally reviewed. Federal review mechanisms can help ensure that decisions to relocate, eliminate, or otherwise restrict polling locations do not disproportionately impede students of color and other protected groups.
For millions of youth voters, meaningful access to the ballot begins on their campus. Young people’s right to vote can mean little if they lack reasonable access to the ballot box. Making well-resourced polling places a regular part of campus life removes several practical barriers to voting and gives students the opportunity to make their voices heard. Young people are essential to the future of democracy in the United States, and helping them build good civic engagement habits, like voting, by establishing on-campus polling places, helps ensure that future is fulfilled.
- According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “Students have the right to establish voting residency in the place they consider their principal home, whether that be their current school address or at a previous address (such as parents’ address) that they still consider to be ‘home.’” See Brennan Center for Justice, “50-State Student Voting Guide” for additional state-by-state guidelines. ↩︎
