Bernie Sanders gets a teeny-tiny youth-vote boost in Ohio today, thanks to a court ruling allowing 17-year-olds to vote. An Ohio judge ruled last Friday that young voters who will turn 18 by November 8 may vote in today’s Presidential primary. 16,000 17-year-olds have registered to vote in Ohio, adding maybe 0.2% to the 9,000,000 Ohioans old enough to vote.
21 states allow voters under age 18 to participate in primaries or caucuses. One must be 18 to vote in any South Dakota election, though 17-year-olds can come in and register early if they will be eligible to vote by the next election. Several countries, including Argentina, Austria, and Cuba, allow 16-year olds to vote.
A number of people with less than a high school education turn out to vote (in Michigan, the HS or less demographic preferred Trump and Clinton); how much difference is there between a 40-year-old who didn’t finish high school and a 17-year-old who’s going to finish high school deciding who should be the next President? How low would we dare move the voting age?
If we don’t feel someone is mature enough to serve in the military, purchase a firearm, buy alcohol, smoke cigarettes, get married, or sign a legal contract then I don’t believe they are mature enough to vote.
18 seems just fine and is appropriate. Although it is true that many people younger than 18 are mature enough and are well informed to be able to place a vote for a candidate they believe in, there is also an issue of pressure they may receive from family members who essentially tell them who to vote for. When a child is still dependent upon his or her parents for their food, clothing, and shelter, there is a lot of room for coercion to support the candidate the parent prefers.
Let’s keep voting for adults – and let’s hope that adults take it seriously.
That GOP party Secretary of State got a spanking for his reinterpretation of Ohio’s voting law.
Sorry Craig. These students will be 18 for the November election, so they should have a say in the primary. Voters of any age have pressures to deal with. That’s just part of life.
I think that if we are ok with charging 12 and 13 year olds as adults, we should allow them to vote:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/youngest-children-adults-1st-degree-murder-released/story?id=32644967
Funny how we are looser with age limits on criminal charges than we are with most other legal requirements. I understand the practical need for arbitrary limits. We can identify almost any action, like those Craig lists, for which can pick out kids who could more maturely handle the obligations and consequences better than some adults.
Curious: we can’t do literacy tests to adults as a qualification to vote, but could some legal standard allow us to establish a minimum voting age at which anyone has a right to vote, then extend that right provisionally to underage citizens who can pass a civics test (perhaps the citizenship test)?
No, but I think everything should be made either 18 or 21. If you can die on a battlefield, you can have a beer.
I predict that some day the USA will stop making criminals out of 18 year olds who get caught drinking a beer. With the pace of change that may happen sooner rather than later.
Given SDGOP’s history of voter suppression, I would expect them to fight to keep the 17 year olds in their place regardless of how close their birthday is to the general election.
I’m not certain folks who give Nazi salutes ought to be allowed to vote,regardless of age. Let the 17 year olds vote. Wingnuts will soon force/abuse/cajole/threaten/disgust them into never voting again.
YA CAN QUIT SCHOOL AT 16 SO WHY NOT VOTE?
I wouldn’t care how close they are to their birthday. If you aren’t of age, you aren’t of age. Wait til next year and exercise your voting rights just like everyone else had to wait until they were 18.
I’m with Daniel on this one. So what if you will turn 18 before the general election then by all means vote in the general election.
This is like saying hey… I’m going to turn 18 before the next World Series and I plan to place a bet on the game, so I should be able to legally gamble on the regular season games too. Same situation – you need to wait until you are actually of age and we shouldn’t try to wiggle around it.
Each election is independent. Saying someone should be able to vote in the primary because they will be eligible in the general suggests we should somehow link elections to one another. As is there is nothing preventing someone from voting in the primaries and skipping the general or vice versa. They are independent of one another, and thus eligibility to vote should not be based upon some future event. Eligibility should be based upon what is factual and actual today.
When your old enough to vote you will get to vote.
The Blindman
This is in all reality like the Senate GOP fudging on advise/consent on Obama nomination to the SCOTUS isn’t it?
When your old enough to vote you will get to vote. Ha ha ha,Blindman. You make a funny. There are literally thousands of legal age, registered voters who won’t be allowed to vote in various wingnut states. Wrong color skin,doncha know. Not pukka.
A legitimate reason to support 17 year old voting is to support and encourage young people to engage in our political processes. When young people over 18 don’t show up to vote, this harms our system. It would seem to make sense to encourage them to get excited about the voting process at the earliest age possible so that they would be more likely to stay involved as they grow older.
beerbrat dats right! frends my age are turned off by the crooks in office! need somthin new!
[Kris, I’m not going to keep lowercasing all of your shout-posts. Turn off your caps lock.]
yeah found it! sorry dude!
Several of us in one of Doc Farber’s seminar classes were the first to testify in Pierre in favor of the 18 year old vote. 18 year olds could buy “low-point” beer but could not vote. Thousands were being drafted.
I am not really sure we want high school kids voting. They are too easily influenced by teachers.
bcb- OT- Obama nominates Merrick Garland for Scotus. Wasn’t Merrick the elephant man?
mfi, I think that was Joseph Merrick, not Merrick Garland. Obama appears to be simply making the obstructive Republicans look even more foolish than a mirror would.
beerbrat…geeze:)
joseph carey merick-elephant man. prolly old news but:
“Ted Cruz said he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster anyone named to the Supreme Court by President Obama, no matter who the nominee is.” nydn
otoh: Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: “[The President] shall nominate,….”
hmmm, nothing in beloved constitution about the NEXT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT?? anyway,
“Judicial nominations are forwarded to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which conducts its own review (using its staff and those of its members) of the merits of the nominee. Hearings are held in which the nominee, as well as other persons knowledgeable about the nominee’s qualifications, offer statements and answer questions posed by Committee members. After the hearing, the Judiciary Committee votes on whether to recommend confirmation of the nominee by the full Senate. A nominee who fails to win a majority of Committee votes usually sees his prospects die, unless the Committee chooses to forward the nomination to the full Senate without recommendation. The full Senate, once a nomination is sent to it, will debate the merits of the nominee and schedule a final vote on confirmation.”
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/senateconfirm.html
Kris-how iz it ewe can get ur name spelt rite without it bean all kapitall leterz?