America’s Younger Voice
Article by Irisa Teng, TPT Staff Writer
In 1828, Maryland passed a law that allowed white men with differing religions (Jewish men) to vote.
In 1868, the 14th Amendment allowed formerly enslaved men to vote.
In 1920, the 19th Amendment allowed women to vote.
In 1947, the court case Trujillo v. Garley allowed Native Americans in New Mexico to vote.
In 1952, the McCarran-Walter Act, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, allowed people of Asian ancestry to vote.
In the next few years, will Congress allow 16-year olds to vote?
The US has a history of fighting long battles on when to give enfranchisement and to who. From Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birmingham address to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to disenfranchisement to voter suppression, the question of who can vote and how has been an important debate contested quietly. Decisions made in the state legislatures on redistricting can have everlasting effects on who gets into Congress, restructuring the party makeup of the Senate or the House of Representatives. “Which political candidate is influential enough” is actually not the most important question during an election--it’s “which group of voters can be motivated or manipulated enough to enact change?”
There are three ways to motivate or manipulate the voting pool.
The most obvious way is through enfranchisement. Enfranchisement is who, legally, can cast their vote into the ballot box.
The second way is through changing the timing, location, or method of voting. This changes who actually has the ability to vote, which is different from enfranchisement, because a group of people can be enfranchised but still unable to vote due to logistics. Many low-income families may not be able to afford the time or cost of transporting to a specific polling location, and especially less so if that location is only open during weekdays.
The last way is by gerrymandering. Although gerrymandering does not affect who can vote, the way a state is districted can impact who wants to vote. A Republican voter in a traditionally blue state may lose voter motivation, knowing that that state’s overall vote may never be swayed, and vice versa. Gerrymandering, although seemingly criminal in its effects, is actually legal. The landmark Supreme Court case, Shaw v. Reno (1993), clarified that gerrymandering couldn’t be done if based by race, but was allowed if based by party.
Now, as it is the year of the upcoming 2024 presidential election, and many citizens are asking themselves whether they want an 81-year-old or a 77-year-old in office, it is time to question the role of age in politics.
Upon turning 35, any American-born citizen can run for president, yet it seems that most of the candidates are miles over 65. According to a study published on Statista, in 2022, over 64.91% of the US population falls into the age range from 15-64, while only 17.13% were over 65 years old. For the political stage to truly represent the wishes of its constituents, these statistics should reflect in the ages of its top candidates as well.
How do we fix this? There are two options.
The first option is to change the age limits of presidential candidates in the Constitution itself. The minimum age could be lowered, or a maximum installed. However, with a divided government, this amendment bill would have to be strongly bipartisan. There are so many ages to choose from, and with the age difference between Trump and Biden being only a minuscule 4 years, the specific maximum limit can end up being powerfully and politically divisive. So, this option is likely null.
The second option is to expand the constituency--enfranchise more people. While this won’t change who can run as a candidate, it will make a profound impact on each candidate’s ideology, as they have to consider the values of a newly rising pool of voters. While the candidates may still be old, their policies may reflect the beliefs of the youth, theoretically nullifying outdated values.
Vote 16 USA is a “national campaign… that supports efforts to extend voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds.” Besides the obvious chant of “no taxation without representation,” as 16-year-olds in the US can both vote and be taxed with income tax, Vote 16 USA proclaims that allowing older teens to vote can also uptick trends in voting. According to the Pew Research Center, “most Americans are not consistent voters.” In 2022, 64% of voters were over 50, and 64% of nonvoters were under ages 18-49.
Evidently, the current American voting system does not encourage newer voters to vote. Allowing older teens to vote, at a time where they are highly motivated and politically involved in US civics courses in high school, could create consistent voting habits throughout adulthood. This would raise the overall voter turnout rate in America, instead of the embarrassing 62.8% “voting-age population turnout rate” in 2020, compared to Uruguay’s 94.9% in 2019.
One of the main arguments against allowing older teens to vote is that they “aren’t educated enough.” However, according to the Pew Research Center, already a whopping 56% of voters in 2022 only had some college education or less, regardless of age. At every age, there will be “uneducated” people. The point of allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote is to motivate them to keep learning, to stay politically involved as they grow older.
Besides, the rate of uneducated voters only reflects the health of America as a country. If America’s voice becomes characterized by a defined experience, then America’s politics should reflect that experience, and work to improve it.
Sources