I have a proposal. However, before I explain it, I need to make something clear.
The right to vote vests with each citizen when they turn 18 years old, thanks to the 26th Amendment. I believe this is wholly appropriate and although I have written in the past about the importance of being an informed voter, I would not condition that right at all.
In the past we have had unfair limitations on voting that have affected the poor, minority groups and women, and it is my hope that we have learned from those mistakes and that we will not repeat them.
So, now that I’ve made that clear, here’s my proposal.
I think that New Hampshire should enact a law that allows anyone who has reached the age of 16, but has not yet reached the age of 18, to vote if that person can demonstrate sufficient knowledge of our system of government by passing a standardized civics test.
Now, this idea may seem strange since it is new, but hear me out.
First, I believe this would be constitutional. The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 4, “The times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof …” and there is a similar provision in Article II, Section 1, that says it is up to the state legislature to determine how presidential electors are selected.
Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution guarantees equal voting rights to all who are 18 or older, but it doesn’t preclude those younger from voting.
So, it looks like our state Legislature has the power to give 16- and 17-year-olds the vote.
So, now that we know we can do it, what would be the rationale for it? I’m glad you asked.
This idea formed in my mind first as a civics teacher. I have many students who fall into the age range being discussed here, and it can be a challenge to get them to buy into the idea that civics is important. I think knowing they will have an opportunity to be part of the system and obtain the vote would motivate at least some of them to embrace learning about civics.
By giving a path to these motivated young people, we may see an increase in their political participation.
It is well established that the 18- to 25-year-old demographic tends to have lower voter turnout. It is also known that people who vote early in life tend to become voters for life.
I think that if a 16- or 17-year-old works hard, and passes a test, they will be more likely to want to use the power they acquired through their hard work, and that might set some of them on a path to habitual participation.
Some might argue that answering questions on a test doesn’t necessarily demonstrate sufficient knowledge. But even if the rigor of the test is only moderate, the students will likely know more than most adult citizens.
I have been teaching a class called “We the People,” which is an honors-level civics class, for over 15 years, and I can tell you that those students know more than most adults about our system of government.
As you probably remember from your high school history class, our revolution was at least in part fueled by anger over taxation without representation. There are many 16-year-olds who work and pay taxes, yet they don’t have a say in who our leadership is.
Perhaps even more important than the tax contribution is the size of the impact that policy has on young people.
A middle-aged guy like me has about 30 years left on the life-expectancy calculator. A 16-year-old should have another 30-plus years on top of that. Young people have arguably a larger stake in the outcomes of government policy because it will affect them longer.
Shouldn’t they have a say about policy that could affect the long-term health of our economy (like the national debt) and the sustainability of government programs like Social Security and the environment (to name just a few)?
There certainly would be some important details to work out. What should the test be and who should create and administer it? (Perhaps the DMV could administer the U.S. Citizenship Test and require a score of 90 or better out of the test’s 100 questions. But I’m open to other proposals.)
We would also need to be sure that we give equal access to this opportunity as well. Currently, there is a law that requires high school students to pass the U.S. Citizenship Test or some equivalent test developed by the school, so we already do have some structure in place to support this.
To me, it seems like the details could be pretty easily worked out.
If you are still skeptical, think about this. After they take a class and pass a test, 16-year-olds in New Hampshire can drive a car. That means we trust them to operate a 1.5-plus-ton hunk of sharp metal at potentially high rates of speed. Would trusting them with the vote be more risky than that?
(Dan Marcus, a one-time lawyer, is a social studies teacher. Dan teaches the civics course and competition “We the People” at John Stark Regional High School in Weare and is a resident of Concord.)