September 15, 2008

Should We Reduce the Voting Age?

Posted by Sarah Burris at 9:46AM

• Comment Now
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
• Share

This week the National Youth Rights Association released this ad via YouTube and began spreading it across the internet.

I've written about the reduction of the voting age before, yet I still remain fascinated by this topic that still garners so much criticism among the youth movement.

They present a strong argument on DailyKos, but it's quickly met with harsh criticism in the comments section.

Most 16 year olds work and pay taxes, but with no say at all in how their tax money is spent.

Teens will be most effected by issues like education and environment, but have no voice that counts.

16 is a BETTER age to start voting than 18. 16 year olds are more tied to their communities (they are more likely to live at home with their parents). Many 18 year olds are moving to brand new communities to which they have no ties and feel less of a vested interest.

16 year olds can put the government and politics courses they are learning into action, making such coursework more effective and increasing their interest in voting.

Even the government agrees that 16 year olds are presumed to have enough knowledge to vote. In fact the voting rights act of 1965 that anyone with a 6th grade education is presumed to have the "literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in any election." 42 U.S.C. 1971 (c). If a sixth grade education is enough, which shouldn't high schoolers who have completed 9th or 10th grade be able to cast a ballot?

Another solid argument is that there have been tens of thousands of young people under the age of 18 who -- our judicial system has decided -- are adult enough to stand trial as adults.

When I posed this as evidence that our government already considers these youth as adults to some in the youth movement, it was met with urgency to reform the judicial system instead, and spend more time on issues that matter more.

Another argument not included is the high school drop out age. Some states like New Hampshire have raised the age to 18, but in many states in the south it remains at 16.

The age to get married in the US is usually 18, but most states allow it if there is parental consent for those 16 or over. If you're pregnant parental consent is waved in many states.

Recently, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin announced her 17 year old daughter was both pregnant and getting married, but Bristol does not get to vote for her mother this year.

Had Bristol chosen a different alternative to having her child, she could have had an abortion without her mother's consent, since Alaska laws do not require parental consent if you are seventeen or older. But she still would not be allowed to vote for laws allowing or banning such procedures within her state.

In the end, there is a lot of hypocrisy around these laws, many of which go back and forth on what states consider to be old enough. I think this presents an interesting double standard and I certainly wish their movement luck. The most disheartening statement from youth movement advocates against this is when they say that we should push for laws that increase turnout rather than decreasing voting age.

I don't see this as a "youth movement" issue or an issue that is designed to get more young voters. I see this as more of a rights issue that is more about the individuals themselves and a basic right being denied to them while they are affected by laws that shouldn't take effect until they are 18. At this point we have such an overwhelming number of laws and statues in many different states that I don't think we can undo them to abide by the 18 rule. Thus, the only real equality is to reduce the voting age.