voters

This post is by Chris Golden, who is on the Mobilize.org team and a student in DC.

Connecticut voters ratified a state constitutional amendment this week which would grant voting rights to 17 year-olds in party primaries if they will reach the age of 18 by Election Day. The amendment, which would make Connecticut the 19th state to put into law such a measure, was approved by voters by a nearly 2:1 margin.

“This will help encourage lifelong voting habits among young people. This will encourage not only voting, but working on primary campaigns and getting involved in the political process. It shows that with hard work, perseverance and a good idea, we really can amend our constitution to expanding voting rights in Connecticut,” said State Representative James Spallone, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

As an example of what this amendment will mean, if a young voter turned 18 in August 2008, making him eligible to participate in the November election, he would also have been able to vote in the February 2008 primary to select the candidates for the November ballot, even though he would still have been 17 years old at the time.

“With the passage of this constitutional amendment, thousands of 17 year-olds can now participate in the political process sooner and hopefully become lifelong voters. The passage of this amendment was due to the hard work and perseverance of high school students throughout the state of Connecticut who joined forces…we owe them a sincere set of gratitude,” said Secretary of State Susan Bysciewicz.

In an October statement released in support of the Amendment, Bysciewicz argued that if 17-year olds can sign up to serve their country in the military, then they should be able to choose their preferred candidates for office when they will be able to vote. “If our state’s young men and women at 17 years of age can make a decision and commitment of that gravity—knowing there is a great chance that they will be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan—they certainly are capable and mature enough to cast a ballot in primary elections,” she said.

The passage of the amendment holds special significance for Connecticut because it was the first state to ratify the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which lowered the national voting age to 18, in 1971. That Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as not restricting states from setting a voting age below 18 but rather prohibiting them from setting an age above it.

A 1986 Supreme Court decision, Tashjian v. Connecticut, further specified that a state political party has the power to determine who is eligible to vote in their primaries, under their existing legal authority. As Adam Fogel, the Right to Vote Director for Fair Vote, explained in testimony to a Pennsylvania House of Representatives Committee in May 2008, it is in the political party’s interest to extend primary voting rights to 17 year-olds, “Studies show that if a young person votes for one party in three consecutive elections, that person votes with that party for life. Parties should be encouraging participation, not discouraging it—if a young person cares enough to participate and will be eligible to vote in the general election, we should provide them with that opportunity.”

Officials with the Connecticut Office of Secretary of State estimate that the passage of this Amendment could make as many as 10,000 new voters eligible to vote in the next primary elections, scheduled in September 2009 for municipal elections. The office said that it would work with high schools across the state to integrate knowledge of the Amendment into an existing requirement for civics education.

Connecticut joins Alaska, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia and Washington in having a 17-year old primary voting law.

By Chris Golden, Mobilize.org, originally posted on the MoBlog on 11/9/8

From www.juniorpolitics.com

I remember having a conversation months ago with someone on politics in general. I don't remember the exact topic, but it had to do with current events, and eventually also Iraq. In any case, she was mentioning how her parents knew a certain Republican official, and that if he ran for president, her parents would vote for him. And so would she. Naturally, I ask her why. And she can't tell me.

We start to discuss other issues. I bring out all sorts of reasons as to why the Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism in and of itself. She can't counter any of my arguments, as she has no arguments of her own to make. Does this mean she believes in the Iraq war due to false misconceptions and a blind backing of her family? Of course. I'm not saying don't support your family on issues. But come on, even I would want a reason as to why my family thinks a certain way, and if I have to defend that reasoning, I would definitely want to be prepared for it.

I can't stand ignorance. There are people all over the United States who vote for the red candidate just because he's republican or the blue candidate just because he or she (let's face it, when I see a woman running for president on the republican ticket, I'll correct the other side's pronoun) is a democrat. Even if you yourself belong to a particular party, that does not mean you can opt out of knowing why you're voting for that particular side. Yes, belonging to a party and voting for that party's candidate means you are voting for a certain set of values the party always brings with it. But, not all candidates are alike. No one can ever convince me of that. Politics does not produce robots (although some politicians do seem that way). I had better get a clear answer to why you support or do not support a particular candidate, or I do not want you voting.

That brings me to another complaint of mine, not voting. Some who are ignorant choose not to vote. My solution? Read up and vote. Don't just stay ignorant. You have no right to complain about the current state of affairs in America if you never vote. You've basically forfeited your opinion when you do, and you have left your fate in the hands of the rest of the American public. I, for one, could never do that. Quite simply I don't trust anyone else in making the correct decision. I could never give up that kind of control. There are those of you who say it's pointless anyway, and that your vote doesn't really matter. Well, let's see what happens if 200 million people in America choose not to vote on election day. Let's see how much our opinions really don't matter...

Not voting also happens with those who are incredibly opinionated. I'm talking about my generation of course. Those who talk the talk on college campuses and don't actually take their opinions to the polls. This I feel is incredibly hypocritical. As far as I'm concerned, you're not allowed to have any sort of opinion at all if you let America decide its fate for itself. It's like complaining about a current state of affairs and not doing anything about it. It's like complaining that your house is messy and yet you do not bother to clean it. It's like... well I'll stop there. I think everyone gets the point.

So here are some of my suggestions. If you don't know anything about what's going on at all in American politics, learn. Don't spew out some crap that it's not important or pointless, because that's only true with that sort of mindset. If you don't vote, vote. If you have any sort of opinion at all, learn what the other side has to say about the issue, make up your mind, and then go to the polls. Otherwise, I don't want to hear any complaining, and I certainly don't want to hear what you think, because if you don't think it's important enough of an opinion to vote on it, then neither do I.

The youth voters have a lot to bring onto the table, and we could have just as big a voice as any other age group in America. The politics of today will affect us for years and years to come, isn't it about time we do something about it?