54 Comments - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 11:52 am: Absolutely. One good reason is that it makes voter registration in high schools easier. Actually, 16 year old voting makes more sense, because then first-time applicants for drivers licenses can also register to vote. - Fight for Justice - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 11:59 am: It’s worth debating. If we want young people to participate in the process of self-government, why not give them more of a sayso? How about half a vote for 16-year olds? - Leroy - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:04 pm: This will come in handy when all those school referenda are on the table: “Want new lights for the football field? Get out and VOTE!” - downhereforyears - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:04 pm: Why not? Might be easier to teach the constitution if they actually have a role in deciding our leaders. Regardless I think 17 is a fine age to be given the right to help decide our future. I do not support 16 as Mr. Weinberger suggests - Trafficmatt - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:05 pm: I would say no. Generally, I would support all the benefits in the world for the military, but I think this is a slippery slope. The commentor above makes a case for 16 year olds. If we give this right to military, what about those training for police duty? What about the handicapped? The two issues of voting and military service are separate issues. I think they should remain separate issues. If someone that cannot vote decides to join the military, that is their business. It should not be a justification to change voting laws. Studies have shown that young voters do not vote in high percentages. I would also question how educated on the positions the average 17 year voter would be. - Patrick Kelly - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:07 pm: I think 17 is a step in the right direction. But I agree with DJW that the voting age should actually be 16. If you can hold a job, pay income taxes, drive, serve in the military and get married, you should be able to vote. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:07 pm: I’d hate to ask someone to vote who couldn’t anesthetize with a couple of belts first. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:15 pm: I have a 17 year old who will turn 18 by the general election. I would bet that he’s as fully informed on the candidates in this election as most of the people on this board, let alone the general population. I would support his voting (although he’ll still have to ask me for the car to get to the polling place!) - Learning the Ropes - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:28 pm: I’m for the lowering. Voting has always been an arena where limits and hurdles are seen as a good thing, a sort of control. I like the idea of 16 year olds registering via the DMV. Of course I also support same day registration. The girlfriend and I both sent in our registration in the same envelope, but at the polling place I was on the list and she was not. We were told they never received hers… Anyways, if we could encourage teens to vote while in highschool, I would assume they would be more likely to vote after graduation as well. Start them early and have them follow in classes. Create a generation of more educated voters. - Lower the voting age - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:29 pm: I agree completely that 16 year olds should vote. If they are actually allowed to vote at that age, it will coincide with their civics or government classes in high school and they might actually get more involved in the political process as adults. There are many instances when we treat 16 year olds as adults, so they should be able to vote like adults too. - Cogito - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:38 pm: Then they get to drink when they are 16 and get tried as adults? As mentioned above, beware the slippery slope. - Bill - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:43 pm: Why not? Can they do any worse than adults have done choosing elected officials? - Chicago Law Studen - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:45 pm: I would be willing to guess that everyone that comments here would have given an informed vote when they were 16 or even 14. I would also be willing to guess that there are a ton of 16 year olds now who would have a more considerate and informed vote than many people who are over the age of 18, or even 40. So I guess I would ask: what is the rationale to not lower the voting age? We have no requirement that votes be considered or based on any type of knowledge of thought, so I see no reason to think that a young person’s vote will be worth less than an adults vote. Of course, I was the kid in class who participated in mock presidential debates in the 4th grade (I played Dan Quayle), so maybe my view is a tad skewed. - Angry Chicagoan - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:46 pm: I think it would boost civic involvement and possibly also civic investment in the community. Where I lived in Minnesota they recently had a very close vote on an excess operating levy for the school district. A very strong voter mobilization effort by the “yes” campaign at the local community college put them over the top. The precinct containing the college and most student housing more than provided the referendum’s margin of victory. A neighboring school district that also had an excess operating levy on the ballot and really needed it even more saw its levy go down to a decisive defeat. But that district’s older demographics and lack of a local college made all the difference; people of a given age voted pretty much the same way in both districts. - Kevin Fanning - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:48 pm: Chicago Law Student- Did you spell Potato right? - What the heck... - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:50 pm: In our area, and I believe as a requirement for graduation, high school seniors take a government class. Why not allow voter registration at that time or at least encourage it as part of the process; they are mostly 17 and 18 years olds anyway. While they are engaged in learning how the process works and what it’s all about - let them participate. It just might help the younger generation develop good habits regarding the importance of being involved and knowledgable when it comes to voting. - Crimefighter - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:51 pm: If you’re gonna make an arguement to lower the voting age because they can drive, work and serve in the military…the same arguement can be made to lower the drinking and smoking age. The reason why kids don’t get to vote is that they are very apathetic about government until they are outta school. - Bill - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:52 pm: Kevin, You forgot the E. - Ramsin - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:58 pm: The more people who can vote who are less able to influence politicians with cash or favors the better! I started paying income taxes when I was fifteen–I bet more and more kids are like that. Who has a bigger stake in the near future than seventeen (and sixteen) year olds? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:58 pm: LOL. Ah, Bill, you’re so witty. - Lower the voting age - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 12:59 pm: Crimefighter- Perhaps kids are apathetic about government because they have no voice in the process. If they were allowed to vote, then maybe they wouldn’t be so apathetic. Lowering the drinking and smoking age is very different from voting. Voting isn’t damaging to your health. (unless you vote Republican) - Chicago Law Student - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:00 pm: I hate to say this crimefighter, but we’ve been breaking records this year at 40% voter turnout. Adults are apathetic about voting just as much as kids are. As for smoking and drinking ages, I would say they are different because, at least in theory, we don’t want to encourage drinking and smoking, whereas we do want to encourage voting. (I spelled potato right, but apparently, I couldn’t spell “student” right in my last post.) - Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:02 pm: Only if they serve in the military. - Dan S, a Voter - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:05 pm: If our kids are old enough to enter the military and put their lives on the line for us they should darn well be old enough to vote for the people who could make the decision to send them to war. - John Ruberry - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:18 pm: Young people tend to vote the least, and even younger ones won’t vote more. - ZC - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:25 pm: Such a good idea, for the reasons DJW proposed. One legal question I’ve wondered about (this is in hypothetical la-la land, I recognize): could Chicago just go ahead and do this on its own, for purely local (mayoral, ward, etc.) elections? It’s got home rule, right? There would be procedural / overlapping jurisdiction problems and cost concerns that might make this a no-go, and so I agree that a statewide constitutional amendment is the right way to proceed here. But just as a thought example. If Illinois statewide isn’t ready for it yet, how about let 17-year olds in Chicago vote for mayor in 2011? - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:27 pm: Age should not be a factor for voting. If you are not a dependant, then you should be able to vote. If you have four dependants, then you should be allowed to vote for each of them, giving you five votes total. Voting is a responsibility for those who choose to live responsibly. Age should not be a factor. - Downstate weed chewing hick - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:33 pm: With all due respect, the argument that they won’t vote in high numbers or won’t be fully informed is poor justification, given the pathetic turnout we see in most elections and the lack of substantive debate on real issues we see now. 16 and 17-year-olds have to pay income taxes, so they deserve representation. I am fully aware of the slippery slope, but we have had an 18 suffrage age and 21 drinking age for a long time without the world coming to an end. But I don’t see how we can objectively justify imposing a tax liability on someone but deny that same person a vote. That said, the reality is that a lower age will most certainly translate into more votes for Democrats and Green party candidates. It will require a lot of effort for Republicans to reach out to these new voters. - IDTYT - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:33 pm: Let’s lower the age for concealed carry too. Only those who vote can pack - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:34 pm: “Seventeen-year-olds can serve in the military, drive cars and hold down jobs.” And they can also be tried and sentenced as adults — Since they can do big-boy time, they should be able to vote. “If you have four dependants, then you should be allowed to vote for each of them, giving you five votes total. Voting is a responsibility for those who choose to live responsibly.” Which is it? Are you talking about responsible people or people who have four kids? – SCAM - RBD - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:35 pm: I’m all for voting while a teenager; it’s the serving in the military that should be prohibited. (And before you accuse me of being anti-military I will point out I lived in that world for 18 years.) - SpfldPolitico - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:48 pm: I feel that if you can go to war for your country, you should be able to vote for the politicians that vote to send you there! - Dependent No More - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:49 pm: Does it really matter if teenagers would vote? In fairness to the youth of America, there should be some kind of consistency in regards to when people are considered adults. If you can serve you should be able to vote. For anyone that attended college (or even high school), do you really think people under 21 really have a hard time getting a drink? You can get into bars at U of I when you are 19. - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:54 pm: Good legal question ZC (are you related to Jay-Z?) as to whether a home rule municipality can permit 16 and 17 year olds to vote. I know that home rule municipalities do not need to follow state statute when it comes to how they run their elections (there is an Attorney General Opinion on that point from a few years back asking about instant runoff voting and cumulative voting, and basically home rule municipalities can set up whatever election system they want as long as the voters approve it — that’s how the City of Springfield set up ranked ballots for overseas voters in April). But since Representative Lang has filed a constitutional amendment, and the constitution creates an 18 year old voting age, I suspect that a home rule municipality is bound by the constitution. Maybe we should ask for another Attorney General Opinion on the topic. It’s a great idea JC. - Sir Reel - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 1:59 pm: One of the reasons the voting age was lowered in ‘71 was that the draft was still in effect and a lot of young men were being drafted, and fighting and dying in Viet Nam. The argument back then was stronger than now - you didn’t have a choice about serving. But I agree that if 17-year olds are treated as adults in other aspects, they deserve to vote. - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 2:08 pm: What, is this some kind of joke??? No, 17 year olds should NOT be allowed to vote. Nor should they be allowed to risk their lives in the military. Nor should they be allowed to risk the lives of others by driving. As if things aren’t bad enough with the clowns uninformed and naive ADULTS vote into office, now we’re going to allow kids to vote Fiddy Cent into a governor’s seat? Rich, I note that you didn’t say that 17 year olds are allowed to drink alcohol. So, are we saying, “Well, they’re not old enough to trust with a can of beer, but I guess they’re old enough to choose who leads our country into oblivion?” When the voting age was changed to 18, a good number of 18 year olds were living on their own, many even starting their own families. Times have changed. An 25 year old of today often doesn’t possess the maturity level of an 18 year old from 1971, and a good number of them still haven’t even left mom & dad’s basement. Give 17 year olds the right to vote, and we’ll not just have an Obama in every office, but Fiddy Cent and half the cast of High School Musical. Check me later … gotta go see where my skin just crawled off to … - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 2:09 pm: Fourteen or Fight! -Max Frost and the Storm Troopers From the cult classic, “Wild in the Streets”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_in_the_Streets - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 2:14 pm: Hmmm … another little problem. A 17 year old can’t even sign a contract. 17 year olds get it, THEN argument starts, “Well, 15 is only a few years off 17, and some states DO allow 15 year olds to get learner’s permits to drive, SOOOO …” Methinks some 30-40ish politicians are trying to position themselves to grab a group of impressionable “voters” when they’re really young and malleable, so that they’ll be a core of voting support for these people when they decide to retire by dying in office at 90. - Legal Eagle - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 2:15 pm: Sometimes I think we ought to raise the voting age to 30! Polls consistently show that even fewer 17 year-olds can find Iraq on a map, know who we fought in WW II, or compose a complete English sentence, without using the word “like” three or four times! Didn’t Lao-Tse write that young men make the best soldiers precisely because they don’t think to much?! - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 2:30 pm: Where is Max Frost when we need him? Or Christopher Jones, while I’m thinking of it? Seriously, some of the above comments point out an “involvement gap” that is as wide as any other “gap” in this country. There are people like JakeCP who are more informed at under 18 than most people 3x his age, and I’ll bet he could find Iraq on a world map. OTOH, there are 21 year olds whose world consists of consuming pop culture and working at Kroger or Wal-Mart who likely will not be able to find Iraq on the world map at age 40. And an alarming % of the uninvolved are, or will be, college graduates. As a guy who was working FT and living away from home at age 17, and paying my bills and taxes, I say “why not?” But the world has changed a lot since then, and we are simultaneously coddling our youth to an extended age with a high percentage of over-20’s still living at home, while bombarding them from their pre-teens with sex, credit card offers, and other worldly things that they were once sheltered from in an earlier era. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 3:23 pm: People should be afforded the privilege of voting when they have attained their majority and, therefore, their independence. At this point, that age is 18, and that should remain the voting age. - jerry 101 - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 3:43 pm: young people don’t vote because candidates don’t engage them, perhaps because they think young people don’t vote. when young people are engaged by a campaign that speaks to them, such as with the Obama campaign, they do vote. To say that young people are apathetic as your reason to deny them the vote is completely misguided. Some are apathetic, many are very engaged in their community however. We should encourage that engagement and grant them the franchise at a young age. 16 is not unreasonable. Teachers will have the opportunity to help get teenagers engaged in politics as well. What civics teacher wouldn’t give a kid a few points of extra credit if he or she brings in their “I voted!” slip? Kids today have things like mock UN, student government, and community service oriented organizations. Why not grant them the franchise and encourage them to vote. I’d be willing to bet that a lot of 16 year olds are more knowledgable about the issues and more knowledgable about the candidates than their overworked, burnt out parents are. They just need an incentive to vote. Politicians reaching out to them combined with extra credit for voting can get them involved and establish a hopefully lifelong habit of voting. - Liberal Louisa - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 3:45 pm: six degrees had some good points. I think the age should be lowered because there’s that, if I can vote then I don’t have a say, why should I be involved mindset. What I do have to disagree with on a lot of the arguments is the level of sophistication of some today’s kids. More might be living at home due to financial reasons than immaturity. They have access to much more information upon which to base their decisions. So young people who become delegates(like the college junior in Wisconsin)and post meaningful dialogue on blogs could become less of an anomaly, I hope. It seems like people say, oh we want more young people in government but then don’t do anything to further that goal - Levois - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 4:01 pm: I don’t think it’s too unreasonable to give a 17 year old the right to vote if he/she comes of age during an election year. If they are not 18 before the primary or indeed before the general there is no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Let’s not lower the bar any lower however. - pickles!! - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 4:08 pm: Yes, vote young and vote often - Little Egypt - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 4:20 pm: I think a 17 year old who is about to graduate from high school, has no idea what he/she wants to do, and is seriously considering the military, or even worse, the national guard (who still lures them in on the pretense of one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer for 6 years and a free college education) now clearly knows where Iraq is since that could be their first stop after boot camp. I’m with Lou Lang on this one - let them vote. - Centrino - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 4:53 pm: What is the point? 18-30 year olds have the right and they don’t exercise it, with the exception being if they are married. All this will result in is the Lang campaign busing high school kids to the polls on election day. - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 4:58 pm: Centrino: BINGO!!! - Justice - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 5:03 pm: The Idea of our youth voting is great!! I’m all for the age limit being reduced to 17 as long as they have served in public service in a productive fashion, have served in the military, or are in or have graduated high school. The key here is responsibility. At age 18, they can do as they choose. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 5:04 pm: ===18-30 year olds have the right and they don’t exercise it,=== Have you not been paying attention to the primary turnout this year? - Anon for a good reason - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 5:17 pm: Usually nobody checks your age when you register, which is how a relative of mine voted at age 17. He really cared, tried to register, and — voila — they sent him a registration card. - 23 Year Old - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 6:47 pm: Let them vote. Give them a reason to learn the issues. Besides, in a free country you don’t need a reason to make something legal, you need a reason to make it illegal. And in response to this statement: “An 25 year old of today often doesn’t possess the maturity level of an 18 year old from 1971, and a good number of them still haven’t even left mom & dad’s basement.” I would appreciate it if the board would stop speculating on the intelligence and maturity of my generation. It is insulting. There are any number of reasons, for instance, that a 25 year old would be living at home. Maybe it’s because of student debt, since state funding for higher education has decreased by almost 18 percent in only the last 10 years. Why not redirect your contempt for my generation at someone else. Instead of blaming the “uninformed,” look at your generation, who was supposed to educate us. Look at your generation, which has managed this state and this country in such a way that at best leaves us uninspired, and at worst leaves us up a creek without a paddle. A structural deficit, an ever-increasing national debt, and a war that will require a presence in Iraq for years (to name a few things). Could having more voices in the national dialogue really hurt? - Wumpus - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 10:13 pm: yes, they deserve it. No, there are already enough democrats in office without children voting - Porter McNeil - Tuesday, Feb 19, 08 @ 11:21 pm: Makes sense, let’s do it. Anything to help inspire and encourage young people to take more responsibility for the society they will someday be called upon to lead. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.