?I?ve been kicked out of the dorms in the past,? said Ald. Eli Judge, District 8, whose district is composed primarily of students. ?It?s almost like a cat-and-mouse game with house fellows. For a good cause.?

The ?good cause? that Mr. Judge talked to me about is civic engagement ? participation in our democracy. His district includes eight university residence halls, which totals 4,360 students.  4,360 voters to whom he may never have talked, had he not been skilled at avoiding house fellows. University Housing policies explicitly prohibit door-to-door canvassing. Frankly, the university needs to re-examine these regulations, specifically in the case of registered candidates for local elected office.

When a significant portion of the constituency in city and county elections lives in the dorms, we must question if the current policy prevents students from becoming informed.

According to a house fellow in Ogg Hall I spoke with on the condition of anonymity, ?There?s not much we do here unless someone puts on a program [to educate residents about political issues]. I think it?s all over the place everywhere else. We already overdose on candidate exposure.?

That may be the case when it comes to the current presidential election or even statewide campaigns. But I bet the majority of students (especially those living in university residence halls) don?t even know there will be a county board election this April. This is in part due to current University Housing policy.

The guidelines cite security and privacy concerns in their ban on door-to-door canvassing. I understand the security argument, but I?m not convinced privacy rights should prevent you from meeting a candidate face-to-face. After all, there are virtually no restrictions on knocking on doors in off-campus homes. Why should students living in the dorms be shut off from their candidates?

According to the June 2006 guidelines on campaigning published by the Residence Hall Advisory Board, ?access to individual residents is available via the telephone [and] U.S. mail.?  Right, because candidates for City Council have the money to do a mass mailing to every room in every residence hall.  

But no worries ? if you as a candidate create a Registered Student Organization, housing rules say you can ?engage in political campaigning with limitations.? Ignoring the often agonizingly long wait for RSO approval from the Student Organization Office. The limitations really do cut down one?s options.

Beyond door-to-door canvassing, how does a political candidate meet voters in the dorms? A mailbox stuffer? You have to create an RSO first ? and, even then, you are limited to only one each month. Postering? Well, that has to go through an RSO as well, and you are allowed only a few per hall. Buy a mass e-mail list from the university? Sorry, but that doesn?t target your district. Cafeteria canvassing? Nope, that?s also prohibited. Telephone calls to dorm rooms? Perhaps. But it?s quite expensive, and you need to be at a computer connected to the housing network to access that phonebook. So, go ahead, engage in political campaigning. See how much you?re able to do.

So what are candidates left with, then? Personal advocacy (despite University Housing?s prohibition of it) is a vital way to reach voters. As Mr. Judge stated unequivocally, door-to-door canvassing ?in the dorms is easily the most effective means of campaigning here. I consider it an essential part of any campaign that is ever run on the UW-Madison campus.?

And no, I?m not just taking his word for it. During the 2006 election, I traveled to Milwaukee to campaign against the ban on gay marriage. Our team knocked on several hundred doors and more than half of the people I talked to changed their minds when they heard the issues surrounding the ban being explained face-to-face. The personal interaction allowed me to tailor my conversation to the individual and also to answer questions. That interaction is a necessary component of any election.

A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down a Stratton, N.Y., which made personal advocacy more difficult. Justice John Paul Stevens said in the decision that, ?for over fifty years, [the] Court has invalidated on First Amendment grounds restrictions on door-to-door canvassing.? Even the UW System code, Chapter 18.06, provides that residence halls should ?establish ? procedures assuring that political literature may be distributed and political campaigning may be conducted in state-owned residence halls.?

The bottom line is that candidates, especially those running in local elections, need access to voters, of which a significant proportion live in University Housing. That contact might even encourage students to get out and vote in city and county races. A 2005 Yale University study found, for example, that door-to-door canvassing raises the probability of turnout in local elections among young voters by more than 12 percent.

University residence hall policy on door-to-door canvassing has had, and will continue to have, a negative impact on Madison and Dane County elections.

On April 1 of this year, students will have the opportunity to elect a new Dane County Supervisor. As Wyndham Manning and Conor O?Hagan rev up their campaigns, one major question remains: Will the 3,571 students in the dorms in District 5 have the opportunity to talk to their candidates face-to-face?

Suchita Shah ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in neurobiology.