Give high schoolers the right to vote — young people need a voice in government

Political and social activism is surging in America. Protest groups are springing up across the country. Concerned citizens are marching in the streets to support science, women's rights, justice and immigration. Congressional offices are flooded with calls from constituents.

And much of the renewed political and social activity is being carried out by high school students — many of them committed and informed activists, yet still too young to vote.

That’s the goal of the New York Young Voter Act, a bill the Youth Progressive Policy Group is pushing with the support of Assemblyman Robert Carroll (D–Brooklyn) and State Sen. Brad Hoylman (D–Manhattan). The bill — A.6839/S.5646, if you want to look it up — would lower the voting age in New York State to 17 in all local and statewide elections. It would also improve the high school curriculum by bolstering nuts-and-bolts civic education with lessons on the history and meaning of the Constitution, plus more intense focus on "genocide, slavery, the Holocaust, and the mass starvation in Ireland," according to the bill.

As a practical matter, the bill would also provide all high school students with the opportunity to register in their classrooms so they’re eligible in time for the next Election Day.

Opponents may contend that 17 year olds are not emotionally or intellectually ready for the responsibility of voting. But American 17 year olds already shoulder many of the responsibilities of adulthood: They can join the military (with parental consent), they can drop out of high school and work to support themselves and their families (80% of American high school students will hold jobs and pay taxes before they graduate), and, of course, they can drive a motor vehicle — one of their most dangerous responsibilities.

Still, these 17 year olds are left with no say in public affairs; they have no say in how their tax dollars are spent, how their public schools are run, how the criminal justice system is administered, and how legislators set their agendas.

Beyond enshrining the adult responsibilities and maturity of most 17 year olds, setting the voting age at 17 would expand and improve dismally low levels of democratic participation and civic engagement. In Austria, Brazil, Argentina, Scotland and one Maryland city, civic engagement soared when lawmakers lowered the voting age to 16. For example, the voter turnout by newly eligible 16- and 17-year olds in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 was 75% — far higher than the 54% turnout by 18- to 24-year olds.

John Adams to James Sullivan
on women, the poor, and voting rights

May 26, 1776

[Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW]

It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?

But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…

I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.

Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.

The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…

Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.

John Adams

http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/adams-to-sullivan.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.