Lowering the Voting Age to 16Join now to read essay Lowering the Voting Age to 16When the 26th amendment was passed, it gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. Today, nearly twenty-five years later, the question has become âshould 16-year-olds be allowed to vote?â Of course the general consensus of youth is for this option, yet a surprising amount of adults are supporting the movement as well. However, there are still those who seriously doubt a 16-year-oldâs ability to maturely handle voting. While politicians are still debating the topic, it is obvious that both sides of this subject have very logical arguments.
In order to understand why lowering the voting age would even be considered, it is necessary to examine why the 26th amendment was passed in the first place. The United States was in the throes of the Vietnam War and protests were underway throughout the nation. Draftees into the armed services were any male over the age of 18. There was a seeming dichotomy, however: these young men were allowed, even forced, to fight and die for their country, but they were unable to vote. The 14th Amendment only guaranteed the vote, in a roundabout way, to twenty-one year olds. The Congress attempted to right this wrong in 1970 by passing an extension to the 1965 Voting Rights Act that gave the vote to all persons 18 or older, in all elections, on all levels. On March 23, 1971, the Congress passed the text of the 26th Amendment, specifically setting a national voting age, in both state and national elections, to 18. In just 100 days, on July 1, 1971, the amendment was ratified. (Piven and Cloward 3-9).
The Voting Rights Act did not go far in making a meaningful change to the voting age. Instead, Congress allowed those 16 to 18 with special-interest groups to vote in one state as an alternative to holding a “majority” election in a state other than the one that the group represented (where the majority was the Supreme Court, not the state legislature). In many states, when an election is held where neither an election nor a “majority” vote is held, all the political parties win by a landslide and the candidates are elected to the highest seats. On December 30, 1971, Congress made this change when it made a law that gave all persons 17 and under the age of twenty-one the right to vote in every state except Pennsylvania and California, and it is thus a matter of principle to consider in this way the current wording of the Bill of Rights. The “precedent requirement” of the Voting Rights Act does not, to the extent that it may provide relief, extend to certain groups, or modify prior, prior, or subsequent restrictions of voting rights. The “precedent requirement” has no bearing on the future interpretation of the 21st amendment. As the United States faces its first mass-militarization since World War II, the number of disenfranchised voters is rising and is rising in proportion to the percentage of eligible voters in the United States. This surge in the number of disenfranchised will not affect the outcome of the election. It will be difficult if not impossible to mobilize all eligible members of the electorate for a political campaign without widespread voter mobilization.
The primary question, however, is whether the majority and Democratic and Republican parties can continue to support voting rights reform until every member of the public has the opportunity to vote under their name. And if the majority and Democrats can’t continue to support voting rights reform in the current election, then there are likely to be many other major voter suppression measures in place before people’s right to vote reaches its limit. This would not necessarily be the election of a “majority” but perhaps the election of a party that has lost its majority because of widespread voter suppression measures and elections based on dubious notions of American values.
If the President and his Administration continue to use the power granted to them to suppress voters’ fundamental right to vote, then they have the right to keep them away from their homes and schools. In fact they have the power to block any public event they wish. It is very important to remember that our First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech and expression, also do not end when government controls all of nature. The Second Amendment protects the right of a person with a constitutional right not to be deprived of due process of law. This right rests with the United States government. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens’ right to assemble. The Fifth Amendment protects citizens’ bodily liberty. Although these rights are not subject to the First Amendment, the courts have frequently upheld these rights through the courts of our Nation. There is no doubt that there are those who may feel that the right to vote is limited because they want to deny to their own children the equal opportunity of participation in the US public schools and workplaces. They regard voter suppression as an inalienable right. This is a position that the United States may take toward a return to the rule of law.
For now, what can those who wish to be disenfranchised feel on Election Day know: Voting has been done with a gun by a man who wants to kill all Americans. The reason is simple. Because of the “precedent requirement,” we will not have a right to vote and only a right to elect our President if our people give up their right to vote on Election Day. If the Electoral College decides this, then it is a matter of national emergency not congressional failure. To the extent this decision would be so, then it
The Voting Rights Act did not go far in making a meaningful change to the voting age. Instead, Congress allowed those 16 to 18 with special-interest groups to vote in one state as an alternative to holding a “majority” election in a state other than the one that the group represented (where the majority was the Supreme Court, not the state legislature). In many states, when an election is held where neither an election nor a “majority” vote is held, all the political parties win by a landslide and the candidates are elected to the highest seats. On December 30, 1971, Congress made this change when it made a law that gave all persons 17 and under the age of twenty-one the right to vote in every state except Pennsylvania and California, and it is thus a matter of principle to consider in this way the current wording of the Bill of Rights. The “precedent requirement” of the Voting Rights Act does not, to the extent that it may provide relief, extend to certain groups, or modify prior, prior, or subsequent restrictions of voting rights. The “precedent requirement” has no bearing on the future interpretation of the 21st amendment. As the United States faces its first mass-militarization since World War II, the number of disenfranchised voters is rising and is rising in proportion to the percentage of eligible voters in the United States. This surge in the number of disenfranchised will not affect the outcome of the election. It will be difficult if not impossible to mobilize all eligible members of the electorate for a political campaign without widespread voter mobilization.
The primary question, however, is whether the majority and Democratic and Republican parties can continue to support voting rights reform until every member of the public has the opportunity to vote under their name. And if the majority and Democrats can’t continue to support voting rights reform in the current election, then there are likely to be many other major voter suppression measures in place before people’s right to vote reaches its limit. This would not necessarily be the election of a “majority” but perhaps the election of a party that has lost its majority because of widespread voter suppression measures and elections based on dubious notions of American values.
If the President and his Administration continue to use the power granted to them to suppress voters’ fundamental right to vote, then they have the right to keep them away from their homes and schools. In fact they have the power to block any public event they wish. It is very important to remember that our First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech and expression, also do not end when government controls all of nature. The Second Amendment protects the right of a person with a constitutional right not to be deprived of due process of law. This right rests with the United States government. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens’ right to assemble. The Fifth Amendment protects citizens’ bodily liberty. Although these rights are not subject to the First Amendment, the courts have frequently upheld these rights through the courts of our Nation. There is no doubt that there are those who may feel that the right to vote is limited because they want to deny to their own children the equal opportunity of participation in the US public schools and workplaces. They regard voter suppression as an inalienable right. This is a position that the United States may take toward a return to the rule of law.
For now, what can those who wish to be disenfranchised feel on Election Day know: Voting has been done with a gun by a man who wants to kill all Americans. The reason is simple. Because of the “precedent requirement,” we will not have a right to vote and only a right to elect our President if our people give up their right to vote on Election Day. If the Electoral College decides this, then it is a matter of national emergency not congressional failure. To the extent this decision would be so, then it
The supporters of lowering the voting age to 16 are of course âpiggy-backingâ off of the basis for the 26th amendment. One supporter, Margot Adler, makes the comparison between fighting at age 18 to driving and other responsibilities given at 16, â16 year-olds can drive in most states; if they commit serious crimes, they are tried as adults. If they can be punished as adults, why donât they have the rights of adults? If they work, they are taxed, and they pay sales tax. But they have no representation.â (Adler np). This brings up a very logical argument. Sixteen is the first age a child come across where they are given major privileges, as well as responsibilities. Is society being hypocritical in saying they are responsible enough to put peopleâs lives at risk in the driverâs seat and rot in prison for murder, yet they do not have the capacity to decide whom they want as a leader? Koroknay-Palicz thinks so. As she told Carl Weiser, âWhat kind of message do we send when we describe a murderer as a âmature, responsible adultâ and descibe a 16-year-old student looking to vote as a âstupid little kid.â This is hypocritical and wrong.â (Weiser 2). A parallel has also been drawn to the Jim-Crowe laws, which prevented African-Americans to vote until the 24th amendment was passed. Because of discriminatory laws, voting percentages reached only the teens from 1924 to 1948 in the southern region. ( ). This brings up another point. Adding a new age group would increase the number of voters across the nation. The average percentage of voters from 1900 to 1996 is a mere 57.9%. ( ). And as seen with the last two elections, every last vote can make a difference. It therefore makes sense that âthe push for a lower voting age is driven by the falling rates at which 18 to 25-year-olds vote. Governments are desperate to try to bring young people back into the civic fold, to make them feel they