Progressives say High Schoolers Have a Right to Vote, but Democrats, not Republicans, have more to fear
The British Labor government plans to extend voting rights to those who have reached the age of sixteen, and 125 congressional Democrats voted to do likewise during the waning days of the Joe Biden Administration. If Democrats capture control of the national government in 2029, they may, like the British Left, try to consolidate long-term control by adding adolescents to the electorate. But the enfranchisement of the young could backfire. Young progressives could capture power in primary contests, leaving the party with unelectable candidates in the November election. Democrats would be well-advised to experiment at the state level before leaping, in, head over heels, nationwide.
Wikimedia Commons: NYRA Berkeley Voting Age Protest
Extending the franchise is an all-or-nothing deal in Britain, as Parliament concedes very little to lower tiers of government. But the U. S. Constitution gives states authority to set the voting rules. Women voted in Oregon, California and 13 other states prior to passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Democratic leaders might find it beneficial to follow that example.
States legislatures have unquestioned authority to lower the voting age in both state and federal elections. According to the Constitution, “the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature.” States have long set eligibility requirement for state and national elections. For congressional and presidential elections, Congress may override state eligibility rules but, according to a 1970 Supreme Court ruling, it cannot alter voting rights for state elections. . It took a constitutional amendment to establish 18 as the voting age in all elections nationwide. For that reason the legislation proposed by Massachusetts Representative Ayanna Pressley gives 16-year-olds the right to vote in congressional and presidential elections. If the bill should become law, state and federal ballots will need to be cast separately.
Lowering the voting age is more likely to complicate Democratic primaries than help the Donkey party win in November. Enfranchisement of younger voters would not have much impact on the outcome of presidential elections. The two cohorts aged 16 and 17 would constitute only 3 percent of the electorate, and Kamela Harris ran just 5 percentage points better among those aged 18-25 than she did among the voters in general. If the new voters cast their ballots in the same way as other young voters, their eligibility would lift the Democratic candidate’s share of the vote by less than two-tenths of one percentage point.
Democratic primaries are quite another matter. Progressive socialist Zohran Mamdani, age 33, easily won the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City this past June, capturing 54 percent of the vote, as compared to 46 per cent for second-place Andrew Cuomo. Analysts attribute Mamdani’s success to mobilization of a large, early youth vote.
If blue states grant the vote to those aged 16 and also allow ballots to be cast at school, high school seniors, juniors, and some sophomores could be mobilized by a Mamdani-style campaign, perhaps led by high school civics teachers committed to activist learning and left-wing reforms. Just as the college campus proved to be a fertile proving ground for Bernie Sanders, high schools could become a focal point for his political prodigy.
Most adults lack the time or energy to vote twice in one year. In the competitive Illinois Democratic primary held on Super Tuesday in 2016, only 25 percent of the voting age population cast ballots. Even in the intensely contested mayoral battle in New York City, with an incumbent mayor, a former governor, and a rising progressive star in the race, only a third of the registered electorate bothered to go to the polls. A hefty youth turnout at the school ballot box could prove decisive in a tight race for a limited number of votes.
The battle between Democratic Socialists and party regulars at the Democratic convention in Minnesota last July highlights the rapidity with which the split within the party is accelerating. Younger partisans, aghast at party acquiescence to Biden’s insistence he be the standard bearer, are turning away from Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and other aging party leaders. An organizer of an upstart progressive caucus, “Run for Something,” claims to know “half a dozen young people” planning primary runs against “old Democratic incumbents” in 2026. Youthful, ambitious, left-leaning Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) aspires for the presidency. An enlarged youth electorate could be decisive for her candidacy. But AOC or any other progressive presidential candidate may struggle to defend their positions in the fall contest.
An enlarged youth vote poses much less of a problem for the Elephant party. Young Republicans, compared to young Democrats, report less readiness to sign petitions, participate in boycotts, or post political comments on social media. More moderate than older Republicans, they are more inclined to allow abortion, grant legal standing to immigrants, and favor policies design to reduce carbon emissions. Right-wing populism may be attracting young voters in Europe, but they are not the age cohort joining Moms for Liberty, Parents Defending Education, or most other activist groups on the right. Young men are moving rightward, but right-wing youth lack the clout exercised by Democratic Socialists.
“From gun violence, to immigration reform, to climate change, to the future of work – our young people are organizing, mobilizing and calling us to action. They . . . have earned inclusion in our democracy,” says Pressley. She has a point, but many of her fellow Democratic officeholders quiver at the thought.
__________________________________________________________________
Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and a professor of government at Harvard University.