Question

After living in Louisiana her entire life, Kira moved to Atlanta, Georgia, after her eighteenth birthday. She kept her Louisiana driver's license and had her mail sent to her parents' address in Louisiana. She found a job as a cook at a restaurant and worked there for three years. During her second year in Atlanta, Kira volunteered for the mayoral campaign of a Democratic candidate. On election day, she was turned away from a polling location and was unable to cast her ballot for Atlanta's mayor.

Which statement BEST explains whether Kira should have been allowed to vote, or not vote?

A.
She should NOT have been allowed to vote because she was not a legal resident of Georgia.

B.
She should have been allowed to vote because she was over eighteen years old.

C.
She should have been allowed to vote because she was employed in Atlanta.

D.
She should NOT have been allowed to vote because she volunteered for a mayoral campaign.

Answer 1

Kira should not have been allowed to vote in Atlanta, Georgia, because she maintained her legal residency in Louisiana and did not meet the legal residency requirement for voting in Georgia.

Step-by-step explanation:

The statement that best explains whether Kira should have been allowed to vote or not is A. She should NOT have been allowed to vote because she was not a legal resident of Georgia. Kira maintained her residency in Louisiana, as indicated by keeping her Louisiana driver's license and having her mail sent to her parents' address there. Regulations for voting vary by state, but typically, a voter must be a resident of the state in which they are voting. Although Kira was of legal voting age and employed in Atlanta, these factors do not confer legal residency for voting purposes. As she did not establish residency in Georgia, she would not meet the qualifications to register and vote in that state's elections.