[EL] A 16 year old voted?

Fri Nov 13 09:57:38 PST 2015

This seems to speak more to arbitrary nature of the age of consent laws rather than the wisdom of allowing 16- and 17-year olds to vote. So the tension could be easily resolved by lowering the age of consent laws to 16 (as a plurality of states have already done).

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of George Waters
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:29 PM
To: Green, Rebecca; law-election at uci.edu
Cc: Hamilton, Vivian E
Subject: Re: [EL] A 16 year old voted?

In California, the age of consent to sexual intercourse is 18.  Allowing 16- and 17-year olds to vote would seem to create a tension with the statutory rape law.

Best,

George Waters

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Green, Rebecca
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 6:41 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Cc: Hamilton, Vivian E
Subject: Re: [EL] A 16 year old voted?

My colleague at William & Mary Law School, Vivian Hamilton, has written thoughtfully on this issue. See, Vivian Hamilton, "Democratic Inclusion, Cognitive Development, and the Age of Electoral Majority," 77 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1 (2012), available here<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2086875>. She sets voting age norms in a global context; reviews neuroscience literature's contribution to cognitive competencies of mid-adolescents; and concludes that, absent other legitimate bases for exclusion, the democratic presumption of inclusion obliges a downward adjustment to the age of electoral majority.

Best,

Rebecca

________________________________
Rebecca Green
Professor of Practice
Co-Director, Election Law Program
William & Mary Law School
757-221-3851

From: <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of Josh Douglas <joshuadouglas at uky.edu<mailto:joshuadouglas at uky.edu>>
Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 12:22 AM
To: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org<mailto:rr at fairvote.org>>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] A 16 year old voted?

Spurred by this conversation, and the fact that I am guest blogging on PrawfsBlawg this month, I just posted some initial thoughts from my research into this question of municipalities lowering the voting age, and local ordinances on the right to vote more generally.  You can find it here<http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2015/11/should-16-and-17-year-olds-be-allowed-to-vote.html>.

In particular, the post highlights the main thesis of this work-in-progress:  "localism is perhaps the best path for broader change on voting rights, given that historically, expansion of the right to vote has come through piecemeal, local rules.  Therefore, municipalities should enact local laws expanding the franchise, which will have a significant effect in the long run in both securing voting rights for more people and making our democracy stronger nationwide."

Josh

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org<mailto:rr at fairvote.org>> wrote:
FairVote collects various resources on the issue here, including links to info from other groups working on it. It includes good evidence about how 16 is a better age for a "first vote" than 18 or 19 due to greater likelihood of the citizen being in a community they know and supportive environment (school, family, peers). It also has a link to an important report from Scotland about its introduction there in the independence referendum that looks at the evidence rigorously and contributed to both Scotland voting unanimously to extend it to all elections and the UK seemingly heading toward 16-year-olds voting in the referendum on the EU. See
http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/right-to-vote-amendment/lowering-the-voting-age/

Note that some studies suggest that someone who can first vote when exactly 18 is more likely to vote than someone who can first vote when 18 and a month, and so on with decreasing rates for several years -- this underscores the point about having a lower voting age will increase turnout in "first vote opportunities" and studies show that this in turn contributes toward greater likelihood to vote over time.

Some folks may be interested to know many states allow citizens who have relatively recently turned 17 to help choose our next president in primaries. See states with 17-year-old primary voting here.
http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/universal-voter-registration/17-year-old-primary-voting-2/

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Josh Douglas <joshuadouglas at uky.edu<mailto:joshuadouglas at uky.edu>> wrote:
Prior to the discussion on this list serv, I had began a new project on the "local right to vote," looking at various franchise-enhancing measures that have passed at the municipal level.  This follows on my work on the U.S. constitutional right to vote<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1079895> and state constitutional right to vote<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2234762>.  My research so far is preliminary, and it will look at 16- and 17-year old voting, non-citizen voting, and the like.  I have not found any legal scholarship on the topic, but there have been various news stories about the two Maryland towns that have lowered the voting age, as well as a few cities (including San Francisco) debating the issue.  Here are some relevant links:

Maryland towns:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/us/politics/students-in-maryland-test-civic-participation-and-win-right-to-vote.html?_r=0

Proposal in San Francisco:  http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/youths-seek-to-lower-voting-age-to-16-in-sf/Content?oid=2916012

But won't be on ballot until at least 2016:  http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Plan-to-allow-16-year-olds-to-vote-won-t-be-on-6314581.php

DC proposal to allow 16-year-olds to vote in presidential elections:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/16-year-olds-in-dc-could-vote-for-president-in-2016-under-proposal/2015/11/03/3175fede-825d-11e5-8ba6-cec48b74b2a7_story.html

There is also some scholarship among family scholars about allowing "children" to vote, but no systematic analysis on voting and elections, as far as I can tell.  (I don't know if there are any political science studies on the topic.)

Give me a few months and I'll have something more advanced for you!

Josh

--
Joshua A. Douglas
Robert G. Lawson & William H. Fortune Associate Professor of Law
University of Kentucky College of Law
620 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40506
(859) 257-4935<tel:%28859%29%20257-4935>
joshuadouglas at uky.edu<mailto:joshuadouglas at uky.edu>

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:04 PM, David Adamany <adamany at temple.edu<mailto:adamany at temple.edu>> wrote:

I was not aware until today's postings of serious discussion to lower the voting age to 16.   Can anyone point me to a reliable summary of the activities and arguments surrounding this issue?

My initial reaction is to wonder about the political atmosphere for such a change.   When Congress voted to submit the 26th Amendment to the states we have a very large number of veterans who had gone to war when there was a draft.   (Some veterans volunteered of course, but most, I believe, were draftees.)   Those would have been veterans of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the war in Viet Nam.   And my rough estimate of their number (subject to correction by more knowledgeable readers) was between 21 and 24 million.   A great many would have been under 21 years of age at the time they were drafted or volunteered (but all would have been over 18).  Hence, the argument: old enough to fight, old enough to vote.

What might be the constituency for a 16-year old vote that would have the natural appeal to Congress and the public?

And has anyone given thought to just how many people would be added to the electorate and how many to the actual vote by such a change.    My initial reaction was that parents who vote regularly would be most likely to facilitate the registration of their 16 and 17 year old children.   On second thought, it occurred to me that voter registration among that age cohort might be much larger than at 18 years old because registration would be very likely to occur in high schools.

A final thought:  If registration were quite high, for the reason above, would voting also be considerably higher than among 18 to 22 year olds?   The latter group are often on the move residentially and hence do not register to vote.   The younger cohort, by contrast, are more likely to be residentially stable and hence not to be disqualified from voting by various registration requirements.    Moreover, to the extent that school buildings are still the site of polling places in many communities, 16 and 17 year olds might have a quite high turnout rate as compared to those slightly older.   If these many surmises are correct, there would be increased potential for changed election results.

I am utterly devoid of evidence on these matters, but the thought of a 16 old vote rule certainly provokes my speculative tendencies.

Can anyone suggest some serious study of any of those issues: the seriousness of the prospects for such a change, the effect on voter registration  and turnout, and the potential impact on election outcomes?  I'm sure that members of state legislatures and Congress will be alert to such implications and will, at the same time, not be faced with the "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" pressures that surrounded the 26th Amendment.

David Adamany
Laura Carnell Professor of Law
and Political Science, and
Chancellor
1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-9278<tel:%28215%29%20204-9278>

David Adamany
Laura Carnell Professor of Law
and Political Science, and
Chancellor
1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-9278<tel:%28215%29%20204-9278>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org<mailto:rr at fairvote.org>  (301) 270-4616<tel:%28301%29%20270-4616>  http://www.fairvote.org
FairVote Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>   FairVote Twitter<https://twitter.com/fairvote>   My Twitter<https://twitter.com/rob_richie>

Thank you for considering a donation<http://www.fairvote.org/donate> <http://www.fairvote.org/donate> to support our reform vision<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U50uJohIw4c>.
(Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)

--
Joshua A. Douglas
Robert G. Lawson & William H. Fortune Associate Professor of Law
University of Kentucky College of Law
620 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40506
(859) 257-4935<tel:%28859%29%20257-4935>
joshuadouglas at uky.edu<mailto:joshuadouglas at uky.edu>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151113/c4cdddf7/attachment.html>