Lowering the Voting Age to 16

When the 26th amendment was passed, it gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. Today, nearly twenty-five years later, the question has become "should 16-year-olds be allowed to vote?" Of course the general consensus of youth is for this option, yet a surprising amount of adults are supporting the movement as well. However, there are still those who seriously doubt a 16-year-old's ability to maturely handle voting. While politicians are still debating the topic, it is obvious that both sides of this subject have very logical arguments.

In order to understand why lowering the voting age would even be considered, it is necessary to examine why the 26th amendment was passed in the first place. The United States was in the throes of the Vietnam War and protests were underway throughout the nation. Draftees into the armed services were any male over the age of 18. There was a seeming dichotomy, however: these young men were allowed, even forced, to fight and die for their country, but they were unable to vote. The 14th Amendment only guaranteed the vote, in a roundabout way, to twenty-one year olds. The Congress attempted to right this wrong in 1970 by passing an extension to the 1965 Voting Rights Act that gave the vote to all persons 18 or older, in all elections, on all levels. On March 23, 1971, the Congress passed the text of the 26th Amendment, specifically setting a national voting age, in both state and national elections, to 18. In just 100 days, on July 1, 1971, the amendment was ratified. (Piven and Cloward 3-9).

The supporters of lowering the voting age to 16 are of course "piggy-backing" off of the basis for the 26th amendment. One supporter, Margot Adler, makes the comparison between fighting at age 18 to driving and other responsibilities given at 16, "16 year-olds can drive in most states; if they commit serious crimes, they are tried as adults. If they can be punished as adults, why don't they have the rights of adults? If they work, they are taxed, and they pay sales tax. But they have no representation." (Adler np). This brings up a very logical argument. Sixteen is the first age a child come across where they are given major privileges, as well as responsibilities. Is society being hypocritical in saying they are responsible enough to put people's lives at risk in the driver's seat and rot in prison for murder, yet they do not have the capacity to decide whom they want as a leader? Koroknay-Palicz thinks so. As she told Carl Weiser, "What kind of message do we send when we describe a murderer as a 'mature, responsible adult' and descibe a 16-year-old student looking to vote as a 'stupid little kid.' This is hypocritical and wrong." (Weiser 2). A parallel has also been drawn to the Jim-Crowe laws, which prevented African-Americans to vote until the 24th amendment was passed. Because of discriminatory laws, voting percentages reached only the teens from 1924 to 1948 in the southern region. ( ). This brings up another point. Adding a new age group would increase the number of voters across the nation. The average percentage of voters from 1900 to 1996 is a mere 57.9%. ( ). And as seen with the last two elections, every last vote can make a difference. It therefore makes sense that "the push for a lower voting age is driven by the falling rates at which 18 to 25-year-olds vote. Governments are desperate to try to bring young people back into the civic fold, to make them feel they have a stake in their countries."