Lower the Voting Age

The Campaign To Lower the voting age in the United States from 21 to 18--and thus to involve 12,000,000 young Americans in the most basic process of democracy--appears closer to victory now than at any time since it began in earnest in 1942. For the first time, both the majority and the minority leaders of the U. S. Senate are among 40 members of that body cosponsoring a resolution that calls for a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18. On the other side of Capitol Hill, some 45 similar resolutions were introduced during the past session in the House of Representatives. These proposals have the support of President Johnson, former President Eisenhower, the hierarchies of both major political parties and an array of nationally prominent groups ranging from the National Student Association to the AMVETS. They also are endorsed by most of the country's adult population. Last April, Mr. Gallup seemed almost surprised when he reported that 64 percent of the adults polled by his organization thought that 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds should be permitted to vote, the highest percentage in favor since Gallup first presented the proposition in 1939. Yet with all this high-level and grass-roots support, there is almost no chance that a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age will become a reality any time in the near future. Why?

The answer is that the prospect of 12,000,000 new, allegedly unpredictable voters' being added to the rolls overnight scares the political pants off many of the people whose business it is to win local and state elections for themselves or for members of their party. Obviously, those in Congress who support lowering, like myself, feel this is a false fear. But we cannot pass such an amendment by the required two-thirds vote with our current strength in the Congress and such an amendment cannot become law unless ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states. Unfortunately, success will continue to elude us until the 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds themselves organize to win over key political elements at the Congressional-district and state levels.

There has never been an easy way to expand the electorate, as political leaders have been finding out ever since they attempted to abolish property qualifications for voters in 1789. But the genius of the American political system has been its adaptability. Through the years, our political parties and leaders have always been capable in the end of embracing new ideas and new people. Whether it was the immigrant just off the boat or the native disenfranchised Negro, each group was finally included and its energies, ideas and hopes invariably became a valuable part of our social system. Political leaders and parties who have refused to accept such transfusions have always been left behind.

Now and in the foreseeable future, these "new people" bearing the new ideas will be our own youth. Forty percent of the population is now under 21. By 1970, half of the population will be under 27 and about seven percent will be between 18 and 21. (It is interesting to note that the average age of Americans is swinging back toward the lower 20s now, after climbing upward since the first decades of the last century. America is gradually becoming as "young" in its make-up as it was at the time of the Revolution.) Increasingly, the lives of young people will be affected by Governmental action--in job-training programs; in Federal loans and scholarship programs for all forms of higher education; in matters of war and peace; and, most dramatically, in their personal dealings with the Selective Service System.

Which brings us to the slogan, "If they're old enough to fight, they're old enough to vote." This assertion has always had wide emotional appeal. Proposals to lower the voting age have always (continued on page 176)Lower the Voting Age (continued from page 83) found a favorable response in Congress and in the country at large during times of military action abroad. Congressional resolutions to permit 18-year-olds to vote were first introduced in 1942, when the draft-induction age was lowered to 18. Such resolutions have been introduced in every Congress since that time and one--spurred by President Eisenhower's outspoken support--was actually debated in the Senate shortly after the Korean War. (It fell just five votes short of the two-thirds majority necessary to adopt a constitutional amendment.) The slogan has been a powerful prod to Congressional action--but has not yet been able to produce results.

Despite the emotional appeal of equating eligibility for military service with the right to vote, the argument cannot be taken as conclusive. Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (which would normally have to approve any legislation on the subject), pointed out in a radio debate years ago that the parallel between military service and the franchise is fallacious.

"No such parallel exists," he said. "The abilities to choose, to separate promise from performance, to evaluate on the basis of fact are the prerequisites to good voting. . . . The thing called for in a soldier is uncritical obedience. . . ."

Why, then, reduce the voting age? Many reasons have been advanced through the years. Some stress the fact that 18--21-year-olds are considered adults for many purposes, military duty aside. They can marry and start families, pay taxes, drive cars and carry firearms. They are subject to the same penal code as are those over 21. Other supporters of the cause use the "experience is the best teacher" argument, claiming that if young people receive the right to vote immediately after graduation from high school, they will form the habit of civic responsibility early in life. Senator Mike Mansfield, when he recently introduced a heavily cosponsored resolution to reduce the voting age, presented another pertinent argument to the Senate: "Lowering the voting age to 18 will tend to bring about a better and more equitable balance in the electorate of the nation. As life expectancy rises, the number of older voters increases. A corresponding expansion in the number of younger voters will not only broaden the political base of the Government, it may well provide concurrently a more balanced approach in the nation's general political outlook."

Another argument takes its cue from those of us who fought for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and from the decisions of the Supreme Court in the famous "one man--one vote" ruling. The argument goes like this: Since Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska and Hawaii now allow persons under 21 to vote, those under 21 in all other states are being deprived of their equal rights in not being granted the franchise. This is an interesting legal point--especially since the under-21 voters in those four states do vote for the President and Vice-President every four years--and one that may prove effective in the future. But I do not think it is likely to sway many of those key elements in the state legislatures or the Congress.

The experiences of the four states with under-21 voting are both puzzling and instructive. What is strange is the fact that reform was accomplished in each of the four states with very little debate. The 18-year-old vote in Georgia was introduced by Governor Ellis Arnall in his inauguration address in 1943, passed by both houses and later that year ratified by Georgia voters by a more than two-to-one majority. About the same proportion of Kentucky voters approved that state's 1955 measure lowering the voting age to 18. In Alaska and Hawaii, 19- and 20-year-old voting, respectively, was set at constitutional conventions prior to statehood. In none of the four states, students of the matter agree, was there active, organized support either for or against the measure.

But the easy passage of the proposal in these instances does not justify thinking that younger voting is simply an idea that has reached its time for easy acceptance. Last year, the Oregon senate and the Iowa house rejected amendments to lower the voting age, and the Indiana legislature adjourned without taking action on the matter, as advocates had hoped it would. Attempts to pass similar legislation have failed in recent years in Connecticut, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia. And the fate of the proposal in my own "progressive" New York last year was also discouraging. For the first time in 30 years, the state constitution was being revised and delegates to the constitutional convention were asked to include the 18-year-old vote. The proposal had the active support of Governor Rockefeller, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and myself. There are about 900,000 New Yorkers now between the ages of 18 and 21, compared with about 11,500,000 over 21. Lowering the voting age to 18, therefore, would have increased the potential electorate by eight percent. Many state legislators and delegates to the constitutional convention were not at all sure how these young people would vote, ignoring a Gallup poll of last May that disclosed that as many college-aged Americans considered themselves Republicans as Democrats. (The figures show that 29 percent considered themselves Republicans, the same percentage considered themselves Democrats and 42 percent considered themselves independent.) But no matter what the national figures showed, political leaders in New York, as elsewhere, were worried about what the expanded electorate would do and about the fact that they would have difficulty in reaching these new, young voters. In the end, the convention threw the decision on lowering the voting age back to the legislature; in effect, burying it for the immediate future. The lobbying efforts of student groups lacked the solid, organized support of young people all over the state. Only such support could have persuaded key political leaders of the need to lower the voting age now.

These failures would constitute my reply to readers who are wondering why I have talked of a constitutional amendment at all--since the franchise was extended to young people without fanfare in four states by the states themselves. Winning over two thirds of the states to the constitutional amendment is going to be hard enough, but getting all 50 states to lower the voting age on their own would be all but impossible.

To me, the most compelling reason for lowering the voting age is that American politics needs the transfusion that younger voting would give it. Almost without exception, today's 18-to-21-year-olds--those of college age--are better educated and more highly motivated toward political action than were their fathers and grandfathers. It is essential to our country that their idealism and activism find a genuine release within our established political framework. Unless young people know that they are involved, idealism tends to turn to cynicism. But why 18? Why not 19 or 20?

Any choice would be arbitrary, just as the present "age of responsibility" is arbitrary. As a matter of fact, the present standard is borrowed from ancient English common law, which designated 21 as the minimum age for knighthood. (This was supposed to be the age at which the young man would be strong enough to bear the weight of armor in battle.) Since we are dealing with arbitrary designations, why not choose the age that marks a definite turning point in a person's life--the usual age for graduation from high school?

I am persuaded that it makes sense to grant the franchise as soon as possible after high school, so that the lessons of civics and history are not forgotten, whether a young person goes into the labor force, into military service or on to higher education. Statistics indicate that 21-year-olds are today's most delinquent voters. This can be attributed to many factors, including dislocation due to military service and the frequent changes of jobs and addresses that are characteristic of young adults today. But a major factor, according to the experts, is that a large percentage of 21-year-olds have been out of school for three years. After making sure they are highly motivated in high school, we make them wait three years before letting them use what they have been taught!

Nobody really disputes the fact that today's 18-year-olds are generally better educated in the workings of government than were previous generations. The U. S. Office of Education reports that today 75 percent of our young people graduate from high school and 40 percent will attend college at some point--compared with 45 percent who completed high school in 1940 and 16 percent who then could expect to attend college. In addition, virtually all high school students are now required to attain passing grades in civics and government as well as in American history; while in the days past, only history was required. When 21 was confirmed as the age of voting in the early days of the Republic, the average 18-year-old was lucky to have had more than two or three years of formal schooling; his knowledge of government came principally from regional newspaper accounts and itinerant speakers--neither group known for its accuracy or fairness.

Who can determine the broadening effects of newspapers, radio and television reporting today on this age group? Millions of young people pay closer attention to the national political conventions and campaigns than many adults; young people see and hear detailed reports on legislative, political and governmental matters. Many political and communication theorists claim that television now gives all of us a feeling of immediacy and involvement concerning international and domestic problems--an involvement never before possible. They claim further that TV and radio have been major catalysts in the student movements of the Sixties. For the most part, the 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds today have actually witnessed the important events of our era--from the sometimes violent demonstrations on behalf of civil rights through Congressional hearings on Vietnam to the funeral of a young and vigorous President murdered in the fullness of his youth. Such experiences--coupled with knowledge learned in school--create a desire in young people to be part of national movements, to have a real voice in the decisions affecting them.

The combination of improved education, especially in government and politics, and the feeling of identification with the important social and political currents of our time has made the collegeager a potent force in this country, but a force generally on the outside exerting pressure on the system itself. No one who was part of the struggle to enact laws guaranteeing equal rights to all Americans can forget the effectiveness of the students, Negro and white, who braved insults, arrests and personal injury to awaken the conscience of the nation to the denial of civil rights. More than any other factor, it was the nonviolent, student-led demonstrations of the early 1960s that produced the climate in this country for enactment of the landmark Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, legislation that many of us in Congress had been trying unsuccessfully to pass for decades.

Through the years, young people have been a great help to political parties and candidates--but as helpers, not as voters. My own initial election to the House of Representatives in 1946 is one illustration of this. I had just returned from the War and was relatively unknown in politics. High school and college-aged youngsters in my district in New York City's Washington Heights section rode the elevators and trod the halls of the tall apartment buildings to make my face and program known. Later, the political professionals in New York told me that this extra push--this show of confidence in me by these bright young people with pamphlets in their hands--was a big factor in electing me as the first Republican Congressman from that district in more than two decades. Ever since, young people have played important roles in my campaigns and in my New York and Washington offices. But it is disturbing, to say the least, that these students can be political-science "interns" and volunteers and can persuade others to vote, but cannot vote themselves.

Students form the backbone of the opposition to U. S. policies in Vietnam. They have successfully required the Administration to defend its policies at every turn and have helped provoke a debate on the direction and basic tenets of U. S. foreign policy that may well affect the outcome of this year's Presidential election. But partially because these demonstrations and marches and speeches have all been outside the political system, some demonstrators have felt the need to resort to unlawful acts to make their point. In doing so, they make my point, too; there should be no need for civil disobedience in a political system that meets the needs of the population. In my opinion, the energy, the ingenuity and the idealism of these activists could instill new purpose and new drive in our present political parties, if the college-aged were given the right to vote--the ticket to true involvement in American political life.

There are some easy--and accurate--ways to counter the arguments of the politicians and businessmen who point to the December 1964 demonstrations at Berkeley and ask me whether I want hippies to be able to vote me out in favor of somebody with sandals and a guitar. I could point out that the demonstration at Berkeley began with protest against the very exclusion from decision making that the 21-year-minimum voting laws epitomize. I could also point out that those who acted irresponsibly were a small minority of the protesters--and in many cases were over 21. But the best argument is still that almost all such protests demonstrate exactly the sense of purpose and high idealism that is so often missing from conventional politics. According to a detailed, scholarly article by Berkeley professors Sheldon Wolin and John Schaar, the freshman class at the school is selected from the top 12 percent of California's high school seniors. "This means not only that the students are of high average intelligence, but also that they have worked hard and kept 'clean' throughout their high school years." It would be a mistake to suggest, the professors say, "that the entire crisis was fabricated and dominated by subversives or riffraff. It has been well established that the bulk of the followers was composed of intelligent students who were novices in political action. The sacrifices of many who were willing to place their careers on the line, the spontaneity of their indignation, the warm fellowship of the movement and their unfailing good humor were too real to be explained by subterranean conspiracies."

If the stereotype of the Berkeley student--or even of the Berkeley demonstrator--as a hippie is false, and it is, then the idea that most college students are irresponsible is patently absurd. Tens of thousands of college-age men and women have served remarkably well in the Peace Corps and its domestic equivalent, VISTA. These are jobs that almost always demand the highest measure of individual responsibility. Personally, I'll not forget a chance encounter in an isolated village in Turkey with a 20-year-old Peace Corps girl from the University of Oregon. As chairman of a committee to develop economic cooperation between Greece and Turkey, I was inspecting a possible site for a dam on the border between the two nations when I met this petite young lady surrounded by ten of her students at the Ipsala village school. Her job for the past year had been to teach English to the children, most of whom had never even met a foreigner before. As far as she knew, she was the only American within 75 miles. She admitted to occasional loneliness, but said: "We're making progress now and the children are learning quickly. What more can you ask?" What more! Yet the principal theme of those opposed to lowering the voting age is lack of responsibility and the alleged radicalism of the young.

The establishment of 21 as the age of responsibility in voting has no real relevance in the 20th Century, since we have all shed our suits of armor. But those who want to maintain the status quo demand guarantees of responsible action from those immediately on the other side of this arbitrary line, as if there were some magic to the age of 21. They ignore the fact that nothing in the recent political history of the four states allowing under-21 voting indicates that the college-age vote is irresponsible. Georgia has consistently elected Senator Richard Russell, a conservative who has won universal respect among his colleagues as one of the foremost upholders of the traditions of the Senate. Kentucky, including its 18-year-old voters, has supported Senators Thruston Morton and John Sherman Cooper, two of the mainstays of the moderate wing of the Republican Party and two men noted in the Senate for basing their decisions on fact and logic.

The truth is that those opposed to lowering the age of voting want proof positive that college-aged people will handle their franchise intelligently even before they have ever had an opportunity to vote. The same impossible demand was made by the opponents of female suffrage 50 years ago and by the opponents of equal voting rights for Negroes three years ago. In both cases, the claims were that "they" lacked the experiences to vote intelligently, that "most of them" really didn't want the vote anyway, that "they" would tend to vote in blocs and would be easy prey for demagogs, that such a "volatile" electorate would destroy our institutions and, finally, that "they" were "just not ready" for the franchise--someday, maybe, but not now.

No tragedy occurred on ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 and no catastrophe has befallen the nation since passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. What did happen is that large segments of our population were given a positive role within our political system. They were given the feeling and the substance of being involved in the decisions of our Government. That's the meaning of the word "democracy."

While the struggle to guarantee the Negro full equality at the polls is far from won and too near in time to serve as a gauge, an examination of the suffrage movement provides some interesting insights for those who would lower the voting age. Not only were the ladies characterized as too inexperienced and too unpredictable, just as our college-aged people are today, but, also like our students, they were among the foremost political activists of their era. Suffragettes were the catalysts in nationwide reform movements. They demonstrated to improve the lot of the Negro during and after Reconstruction. They were leaders in efforts to establish the Civil Service, to provide for the direct election of U. S. Senators, to further the rights of labor and to improve public education. And like today's students, their energies and talents before 1920 were spent outside the existing political structure. It is interesting to speculate on just how much scandal and loss of confidence in the Government would have been avoided in the last half of the last century if the energies and talents of a Susan B. Anthony and a Carrie Chapman Catt and their followers had been channeled to the work of reform from within.

Perhaps the most important of the lessons to be learned from the women's suffrage movement is its methods. The movement was supported and led by two national organizations--as well as by many local ones. The ladies and their supporters waged hard battles in state after state. They had the right to vote in 15 states before Congress sent a proposed constitutional amendment to all the states for ratification. They were organized to maintain the pressure for women's rights throughout the country. Scores were arrested after chaining themselves to city-hall doors in demonstrations; but thousands of others worked quietly in state legislatures and county courthouses, slowly and persistently eliciting support for their cause--winning over those "key elements" we've been talking about.

This type of organization and motivation, however, is not apparent now among 18--21-year-olds. (Unlike their suffragette forbears, of course, young people need only wait until they reach 21, when they're given the vote automatically.) The National Student Association, which actively supports lowering the voting age, has conducted polls indicating that between 70 and 80 percent of students on American campuses believe that 18-21-year-olds should be given the right to vote. Yet Congressional mail--usually a barometer of the currents of public thought--fails to indicate this. So does the lack of energetic movements in all but a handful of states. There have been, however, some recent successes sparked by state student organizations. In 1967, the legislatures of Nebraska and North Dakota voted to lower the voting age to 19, subject to approval by the voters in a referendum this year. But elsewhere, as I mentioned earlier, the picture is gloomy.

It is fairly easy for Senators and governors and Presidents, all of whom can command the attention needed to make their positions and records known to the voters, to support lowering the voting age. They know they will be heard by the younger voters added to the rolls by any such legislation. But for members of the House of Representatives, who must stand for re-election every two years, and for members of state legislatures and for other state and local officials, the story is quite different. They find it much harder to get public attention and to make an impact as political personalities. They are therefore more dependent on local political organizations to provide their margins of victory. Theirs is the type of practical political argument difficult to fault--in the absence of aroused demands from youth itself.

An old friend of mine in the House of Representatives told me: "It's all right for you fellows with a state-wide image to talk of lowering the voting age, but what about me? After years in Congress and all the benefits that my seniority can bring to the district, my name is hardly a household word. My usual margin is between 25,000 votes. But what with third parties and all and 15,000 or 18,000 new, young voters coming in who don't know me--they could throw me out in a minute for some professor without the slighted idea of what it's all about."

This is the nub of the "practical political" obstacle to lowering the voting age now. Without assurances from organized college-aged groups that the 18-21-year-olds really want the franchise, and without the crucial assurances that the new voters will support the legislators who make it possible, chances of passage are dim. State and Federal legislators from marginal districts want to be told by the young people themselves--and their parents--that there is a need for lowering the voting age.

In 1967, more resolutions were introduced in Congress to lower the voting age than ever before in history. Many of these were the work of the same men who have been fighting for this cause for years. Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia, for example, was the first to introduce such legislation in 1942, when he was a member of the House. He has introduced similar measures in almost every Congress since then and has championed the cause on the Senate floor on countless occasions. Last year, he joined 38 of us in cosponsoring the bipartisan Mansfield-Dirksen Resolution, while reintroducing his own measure. But the 40 of us--even with the tireless support of men like Senator Randolph--do not, as I said at the outset, come close to being able to muster the two-thirds vote necessary to propose a constitutional amendment. In the House of Representatives, a similar situation exists. Although 45 resolutions were introduced--all but two of them designating 18 as the proposed new voting age--their sponsors do not yet have the support of enough of their colleagues to come close to success. And even if, by some legislative miracle, Congress passed a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age tomorrow, the amendment would still have to be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures.

It is possible to overcome these practical, very real political hurdles. The 18-to-21-year-olds should update the state-by-state strategy used by the suffragettes 50 years ago and should consider making use of the tactics of the civil rights movement to demonstrate the reasonableness and justice of their arguments. There is no way to expand the electorate in this country without the persistent hard work and enthusiastic support of those who want the franchise. The sooner this lesson is learned, the sooner the tattered, outmoded standard of "knighthood at 21" will be relegated to the pages of history, where it belongs.