Re: AP story of 3/8/04 by Jim Wasserman (on SFGate.com) -- “California lawmakers propose lowering voting age to 14 for state elections” -- wherein California State Senator John Vasconcellos says that 16-year-olds should be allowed 1/2-votes and 14-year-olds should be allowed 1/4-votes in state elections; he’s introduced a state constitutional amendment to this effect.
The question pops up: why only 1/2-votes and 1/4-votes? Why not allow everyone their full rights? Isn’t a partial-vote the mark of a “second-class citizen”? Judges today would be open to the argument that the (federal or state) constitution demands a full vote for every eligible voter.
I don’t see why the reasoning can’t be extended; 14 is an unusual age, here: shouldn’t the more logical age be 12 -- the “age of consent” in traditional societies? Undoubtedly, a progressive understanding of the sacred rights of every person will lead to 12 as the voting age.
But then, isn’t it true that persons younger than 12 are impacted by the political issues of the day as much as anyone else? Just because they cannot understand everything, does that mean that they aren’t a part of society? Are their rights judged to be less important because they don’t have the power to assert them?
In truth, the right to vote should -- ideally -- be extended to all people down to the moment of birth. While such elections seem impractical at first, there are ways to overcome this ---
Those too young to read could be given “proxy” votes by the government: court judges would make decisions as to how infants and young children would vote if they could -- taking into account the “needs” and “concerns” of these voters for better day-care, better educational opportunities, better health-care, more equitable wealth distribution policies, and so on.
Since American judges might be partisans in these decisions, it might be even better to have a neutral party handle this -- perhaps an official commission at the UN.
The commission could report to the US authorities for each election; giving information on how the infants and children “voted” -- based on international law and the consensus of the international community. This would improve American relations with the multi-cultural world and eliminate the regressive practice of having “unilateral” US elections (wherein only Americans vote).
The only thing I don’t understand about Senator Vasconcellos’ proposal is: why is he bothering with a state constitutional amendment?
This could all be set in motion by a few judges from Massachusetts!
Following that, enlightened mayors throughout the country could declare their understanding of the US or state constitution, and how it allows for the new proxy-votes process. Why be delayed by the old-fashioned, bourgeois notion of the rule of law?
Isn’t it about high time that we COUNT ALL THE VOTES?!
Posted by Rick Penner at March 10, 2004 12:16 AM