2020 Proposition 18: The Right to Vote for 17-Year-Olds
This week and next I’m hoping to give readers a glimpse of what to expect with the dozen proposals on the November statewide ballot.
Later on in the season I’ll post more materials on the higher profile measures under consideration.
As has been true with elections since 2012, I’ll endeavor to research and post about as many propositions and local elections as I can. I have no schedule, other than to say it will be done when it’s done.
One thing we can know for sure, tons of money will be spent to support or oppose the various propositions. Where that money comes from is, to me, more important than what the messages being pushed are. I’ll get around to more specifics on funding as the election approaches.
Here’s where we are:
Monday, July 13: Proposition 14, which asks Californians to continue to support stem cell research funding via bond sales.
Tuesday, July 14: Proposition 15, which seeks to amend the property tax structure so commercial land isn’t taking advantage of a law passed with protecting elders from excessive increases.
Wednesday, July 15: Proposition 16, which seeks to undo the state’s ban on affirmative action.
Thursday, July 16: Proposition 17, expanding voting rights to include parolees.
California Proposition 18, Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment (2020)
For: Asm. Kevin Mullin (D-22) introduced the constitutional amendment as Assembly Concurrent Resolution 4 (ACA 4) during the 2019 legislative session.
Against: There is no formal group opposing this proposition. However, The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. submitted an argument in opposition to the constitutional amendment, which said,
"17-year-olds are legal minors. Under that definition, they are still considered children. They are almost all still living at home and under the strong influence of their parents.
This is not conducive to independent thought and voting without undue pressure from their immediate superiors... 17-year-olds will almost always still be in high school, and under the strong influence of their teachers. This again makes it less likely that they would be expressing their own, independently thought-out choices were they to be allowed to vote."
Why: The ballot measure would allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections
How: This constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by the Legislature. Two thirds majority was required for its passage.
In the State Senate, 29 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted to support the measure. 7 Republicans voted against it, and there were 2 GOP members who were not present for the vote.
In the State Assembly, 55 Democrats and 1 Republican supported the measure. 1 Democrat and 12 Republicans voted against it. Not present for the vote were: 5 Democrats, 4 Republicans and 1 Independent.
The Rest of the Story:
The movement to lower the voting age to either 16 or 17 is ascendent. However, if public opinion polling is any measure, this change will be slower to come than its advocates desire. The Constitution restricts voting to those 18 years and up in federal elections; some localities are allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in local elections,
Recent polling found that 75% of registered voters opposed letting 17-year-olds vote, and 84% opposed it for 16-year-olds. California Democratic legislators have tried to do this six times before; this is the first to make the ballot.
Congress member Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts proposed a 16-year-old voting age amendment to House Democrats’ sweeping voting rights bill earlier this year. It failed 126 to 305, with almost half the Democrats voting against it and only one Republican in support.
From the New York Times:
This argument has been gaining some traction in liberal pockets of the country, but nationwide, it is not popular. Among Republicans, a common reaction to Ms. Pressley’s amendment was that it was a ploy to add Democrats to the electorate: Generation Z, which includes today’s 16- and 17-year-olds, leans much more liberal than older generations, especially on social issues.
A broader objection concerns maturity.
“We don’t allow a 16-year-old to buy a beer, and the decision making is because of their ability to reason at that age,” Representative Mark E. Green, Republican of Tennessee, said on the House floor in March. “And now the other side wants to grant a 16-year-old the ability to decide the future of the country. I think this is foolish.”
According to data compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures, 23 states have similar laws on the books. Supporters of the proposal argue that more of these new voters will get engaged with issues if they can participate in a full election cycle.
Currently, an 18-year-old Californian whose birthday was after the March 3 presidential primary missed out on the chance to pick some candidates and now gets to vote only for those who made it to the November 3 ballot.
The active participation and leadership of younger people in both the Black Lives Matter and environmental movements makes a powerful argument for letting them vote.
Adam Eichen & Joshua A Douglas at, Commonwealth Magazine, writing about the movement to lower the voting age in Massachusetts elections, covered this issue succinctly:
Voting is a learned experience. Those who vote are more likely to do so again. Conversely, missing the first election in which one is eligible lessens the likelihood of that person becoming a habitual voter. Allowing people to experience the franchise at an earlier age—one in which there is more stability in their lives—can encourage their participation and increase the probability of their continued activation later on.
Arguments against lowering the voting age are hardly persuasive. Many worry, for instance, that parents will unduly influence voting decisions. But anyone who interacts with a teenager should know that the likelihood of them listening to a parent is rather slim.
Others lambast the intelligence of 16 and 17 year olds. Not only is this argument offensive to the millions of bright teenagers across the country, but we do not hold intelligence as a qualification for voting in any other regard, nor should we. Opponents of lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 made the same arguments. So did opponents of women’s suffrage. In any event, science shows that 16 year olds are intellectually mature enough to vote.
Hey, the kids are alright. Let them vote.
Voter Guide – You’ve Voted for President, what’s next?
I’ll be writing about many ballot measures and candidates between now and the end of September. That work will be condensed into an handy-dandy voter guide just in time for your mail-in ballots to arrive. I’m the guy who coordinated San Diego Free Press’s Voter Guides over the past decade, so this won’t be my first effort. Stay tuned.
Hey folks! Be sure to like/follow Words & Deeds on Facebook. If you’d like to have each post mailed to you check out the simple subscription form and the right side of the front page.
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com