CA voting age should be lowered to 16, Stanislaus scholarship winner says

If the right to participate in government through voting is so celebrated, why has the issue of lowering the voting age become so contentious?

Enfranchising new groups of people has been a slow battle in the United States, despite the Constitution’s shining legacy. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson’s famous words “all men are created equal” fell short of affecting many segments of society. From the beginning, the U.S. has deserved criticism for disallowing women, people of color, and poor men to vote.

Women in 1920, the year the 19th Amendment was ratified, participated in the U.S. economy in a limited manner, but they deserved a voice in government, so they organized to demand change. Young people may not be oppressed, but they still deserve the right to vote for their representatives. Young people are people, too.

The federal government strictly regulates the hours minors can work if they are under 16, and such workers also pay taxes. Women and people of color previously took issue with joining the labor force and paying taxes while remaining disenfranchised. The same logic must extend to 16-year-old contributors to society.

Some say the entitled young generation cannot be compared to voting movements of women and people of color; the latter’s struggle for the right to vote resulted in lynchings and violence. Young people cannot be denied the right to vote based on how hard the journey was for others.

By 1971, the U.S. was shipping 18-year-olds halfway across the globe to Vietnam under the direction of a commander in chief they had no say in electing. Protests sprang up and the reward was the 26th Amendment, (which lowered the voting age to 18).

States such as California allow young people to vote in some local elections like positions for school board which have a direct effect on 16- and 17-year-olds. To deny them the right to vote in federal elections would be to argue that congressional and presidential positions have an insignificant impact on these people.

A resurgence of youthful interest in politics has been sparked, in large part, by worry for the painfully partisan issue of climate change. The specter of a degrading environment has struck a chord with teens, and rightfully so. The consensus among teens is that older-generation legislators dismiss a future they will not live to see, whereas 16- and 17-year-olds will have to endure the effects of climate change.

The United Nations Children’s Fund states that “every person under the age of 18 has the right to participate in the decision-making processes that impact them.” As one of UNICEF’s largest partners, the United States has a duty to uphold their mission statements by hearing the voices of younger generations. Extending voting rights would empower young people to express opinions on how the climate crisis should be handled.

Some right-wing politicians claim that extending the right to vote to younger people would unfairly favor the Democratic Party. The same argument was made before the ratification of the 26th Amendment, but the opposite proved true when Nixon won over the younger generation for the Republican Party in 1972.

Legislators cannot restrict the right to vote on the basis of something unpredictable like the political leanings of the disenfranchised. Such should be dismissed in the discussion of enfranchising any group in the name of the freedom that America has so closely been associated with.

Women have leaned toward the Democratic Party for several decades. A demographic’s preference cannot influence the decision to include them in the voter base; it would have been a violation of the freedom of expression to have struck down the 19th Amendment in 1920 as a precaution against empowering the Democratic Party. How could it be wrong to call the further expansion of democracy a mistake?

The crux of the opposition argument falls upon the abstract concept of “maturity.” Many say young people are just not mature enough to make good decisions. However, in California, a court ruling says that people under the age of 16 cannot be tried as adults. This line drawn in the criminal justice system pushes 16-year-olds into adulthood without granting them the right to help elect leaders.

The American Psychological Association released a study asserting that people reach adult levels of maturity far before assumed by earlier experts. The study claims that 16-year-olds are capable of logical reasoning.

Any notion of opposing the expansion of democracy based on maturity can be put to rest. Both government and science say 16-year-olds have the mental capability of handling responsibility. The right to vote should follow.

The United States has embraced the voices of passionate youth who have taken to the streets to call for action from their government. Enfranchising a younger population will be a win for the future of the nation. In a country riddled with oppression, violence and anguish, there is always room to improve.

But what do I know? I’m just a kid.

This story was originally published December 13, 2020 at 4:00 AM.