California may allow 17-year-olds to vote in state elections
Expanding the opportunity to increase the Democratic powerbase.
Never let it be said that California’s Democratic legislature doesn’t work hard on behalf of…its own interests.
The latest proposal from Sacramento, Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 10, would make the Golden Sate first in the nation to fully allow 17-year-olds to vote in elections.
“We want to expand the opportunity,” said Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), author of the constitutional amendment that would have to be approved by a statewide vote in 2018.
Although other states allow 17-year-old citizens to vote in a primary as long as they will be 18 by the time of the general election, the proposal introduced by Low and a bipartisan group of young legislators would empower younger voters to cast ballots.
However, before our friends in other states get too excited (or concerned), voting rights would not apply to national elections.
The 26th Amendment prohibits states from setting a voting age above 18, but it doesn’t prevent a younger voting age, according to Low’s office. However, David A. Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at UC Berkeley’s School of Law, says 17-year-olds would not be able to vote in national elections.
“The 17-year-old voting age will only apply to state and local elections,” he said via email. “The 26th Amendment only precludes denial by states of the right of citizens who are 18 years of age or older to vote.”
Of course, the bill’s sponsor insists the reason for the measure is purely noble.
“The 17-year-old voting age will only apply to state and local elections,” he said via email. “The 26th Amendment only precludes denial by states of the right of citizens who are 18 years of age or older to vote.”
Research shows that voters who start voting early tend to make going to the polls a lifelong habit, according to Low’s office. California is one of 11 states that allows 16-year-olds to “preregister” to vote, but they still can’t actually vote until they’re 18.
I suspect the true reason is based on the fact that statistic show that voters between the ages of 18 and 34 are more than twice as likely be Democrats rather than Republicans. This is a opportunity to expand…the Democratic Party power-base.
Is there any hope for California to at least have competitive elections so that the Democrats can be effectively challenged in the state’s Assembly or Senate? Probably not in the foreseeable future.
However, there might be a ray of sunshine for the rest of the country in the news that a new fault-line has been identified that could be the epicenter of a major quake:
Scientists uncovered a newly identified fault line that could unleash a magnitude-7.4 earthquake in the region, which other researchers say is already long overdue for a whopper of a temblor along the infamous San Andreas fault.
The concerns are detailed in separate studies that put the quake risks of the USA’s most populous state into much sharper focus.
The newly identified fault line is capable of a powerful quake that would impact 20 million residents of Los Angeles and San Diego, according to a study published Tuesday. The fault runs underwater from San Diego Bay to Seal Beach in Orange County and on land through the Los Angeles basin, researchers found.
Perhaps, a #CalExit in the fullest sense of the word?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
California is lost, so who cares. Just one more powerful argument in favor of the electoral college.
Not to mention that at some point in the future, this will come back to bite them in the ass hard, probably when Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho is elected to be Governor.
In a state with such a one-sided voter base, to what end is this?
I suspect it has less to do with state politics and more to do with establishing a trend. So much of what Democrats across the country promote as good policy tends to be supported by using CA as an example. Even when those policies provably show harm, the argument is always that you “hate” those who benefited. Those 10%, or whatever. And it isn’t limited to social policies, but energy policy, financial policy (they pay out more than they get back!!!), etc.
They won’t vote in national elections? Let’s be serious.
The same state that allows (encourages) millions of non-citizens to vote will actually police the polls to block 17 year olds from voting? Never happen.
And they will allow (force) the 17 year old students to vote while in school. With a little help from the friendly teacher union enforcers.
I’m sure the teachers union would love this. They can spend a week badgering the 17 year old students to vote D. On election day, they can have a “field trip” and drive all the kids to the polls to make sure they vote.
I’m with Ann Coulter. The voting age should be raised to the age they are required to buy their own health insurance. I think that is 26.
Odd that CA would bother to formalize this in law, when the bureaucracy could do it as routine business, just as it’s already doing with illegals. Extend “Motor Voter” to “Highschool Voter”, make sure that they know just how rad the Democrats are for letting them “have a voice”, assure them that they won’t even need the fake IDs they use for alcohol, and turn ’em loose.
Easy peasy. No need to stop at 17, either; there’s no limit to how far CA can extend its imaginary franchise.
What, they won’t be voting in national elections? Obviously, there’s no need to take that claim very seriously.
At 18 you get one vote for breathing, after that you get an additional vote for every $1,000 in Federal taxes you pay.
They can get signed up for Selective Service at the same time they register to vote.
Why not let newborns vote?
And lower the drinking age to 10.
I’m telling you: Under Progressivism, “Age” will be the new “Sex.”
“Maturity” is the new “Gender.”
Where now you can choose your “sex” (read, “gender”), next progressives are going to start eating away at the concept of adulthood, saying that you can be 17, then, 16, then 15, then…. who cares… to be “mature.” After all, we all know of some “old soul” kids who are “mature beyond their years.”
Clearly, maturity is just a social construct that gets in the way of some “old soul” children expressing themselves and being comfortable with “adult” decisions.
Soon under-age sex (see homosexual adult/young-adult relationships) will be a “human right.”
You. Just. Watch…
just think the movie ‘wild in the streets’, think that was the name of it, where 16 year old’s got to vote and not good for senior citizens
just think they won’t let 18 year olds drink, smoke or get a gun permit but they will let them vote
Yes – they’re too dumb to drink and smoke, but they are dumb enough to vote democrat.
Sure, why not? Allowing a few (hundred?) thousand more imbeciles to vote couldn’t possibly make California any worse off than it already is.
the City of Lost Angels is talking about letting children as young as 12 vote in elections for its Neighborhood Councils….
we’re a special kind of stoopid here in #Failifornia
The left has an inordinate number of pedophiles among its ‘members,’ so this fits right in with their scheme to lower the age of sexual consent – to five.
Have they said why they won’t extend this to national elections? They have the constitutional authority to do so, after all, so why wouldn’t they?