Give West Virginia residents in-state tuition.

https://www.athensnews.com/news/campus/ohio-university-of...

Back in the '60s, some states in the southeast and southwest charged $0 tuition for in-state students. Arizona and California were two of those states. At one point I was planning to go to Arizona, spend a year living with my uncle to establish residence, and then go to Arizona State tuition-free and try to make its baseball team as a walk-on.

Youngstown State has been doing that with PA residents for years. I never quite understood the logic behind in state and out of state pricing. I guess if you have all you need from in state, the rest is gravy, so why not gouge? The switch has flipped.

+ I agree this should have been done a long time ago. Years ago Marshall started offering in-state tuition for residents of some Ohio river counties on this side of the border. I'm not totally sure if this is still in place or not, but I think it is. But, regardless, this is a great move on OHIO's part. It shows me that President Sherman has the right instincts and will make smart decisions that will help our university. [Decisive bold action -- a trait of another Sherman, if you get my drift . . . ]

If they would had in-state tuition available to West Virginia since the 1970's there would be a stronger alumni network in the state today. With that said it gives West Virginia residents a way to "go away" to college instead of attending whatever college is in their metros. Charleston metro if you want something further away than Marshall.

I knew a congressman from Indiana who maintained his voting residence there but lived in Virginia for six years while working in DC. He resided there for 10-11 months a year, paid Virginia income and property taxes (some of the income tax might've gone back to Indiana), and his son went to Jr. and Sr. High in Virginia. So when his son was accepted at William and Mary, they charged him out-of-state tuition, because of the voting residency. But of course that was before college enrollments began tanking.

Didn't this congressman violate the Constitution? Isn't residency in the state you represent required? I believe that the actual wording of the Constitution is that your have to be "an inhabitant of the state" that you represent. Note that it doesn't say you have to live in the district you represent, which is kind of a quirk. Somehow, to me, "voting resident" doesn't exactly cut it. Has this issue ever been adjudicated?

Each state has its own laws regarding residency. He owned property in his district and stayed there long enough each year to establish legal residency in the district under state law. He would go back to the district just about every weekend for town halls, parades, festivals, fundraisers, etc. and stay in his house. Just about every member of Congress has a similar arrangement. It's one reason why Congress's session weeks usually start Monday afternoon and wind up by noon Friday so members can commute back to their districts for the weekend.

Thanks for the clarification that he did indeed stay in the state long enough each year to establish legal residency. Again, note, he does not have to constitutionally establish residency in his district, though for political reasons it's usually a wise idea. We have had representatives who lived in a district they didn't actually live in. Usually -- but not always -- this was a result of changing district lines after a reapportionment.

Edit: I guess my hang-up initially with the term "voting resident" is that when I was in the Navy I maintained "voting residence" in Ohio, but I really didn't have to set foot in the state during that period to maintain that status. I thought maybe the congressman had figured out a way to maintain voting residence without actually complying with the state's requirements that applied to other citizens not in military service.