Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

The kids are all right

To vote, that is

Rocky Mountain News

Published September 8, 2008 at 9:02 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

It’s been 37 years since the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. Since then, many states have reduced the minimum age to sit in the legislature — 14 actually allow 18-year-olds to serve in the state House or Senate.

In Colorado, the minimum age for legislative service has been stuck at 25 since statehood. And according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, that makes us a bit of an oddity; 25 is the nation’s oldest minimum, shared with five states. A handful of others set a higher limit to sit in the Senate (either 27 or 30), but the notion that there should be a seven-year gap between earning the right to vote and sitting in the legislature isn’t widely shared.

Nor should it be. Enter Proposition L, placed on the November ballot by the 2007 General Assembly. It would reduce the minimum age for service in either legislative body to 21.

The arguments against Prop L basically amount to a lack of trust in youth. It’s misplaced, particularly since the community expects 21-year-olds to be fully responsible adults and take on consequential responsibilities. They can (for starters) drive, marry, raise families, serve in the military, own homes, start businesses, consume alcohol. Why shouldn’t they also be given the opportunity to run for the state legislature if that’s their desire?

So do we really want the legislature overwhelmed with 20-somethings? Of course not. Knowledge of how the world works tends to increase with age (at least for a while). But should Prop L become part of the state constitution, powerful forces will minimize the chance of a wholesale election of unqualified greenhorns to the legislature. Those forces are called voters.

Legislative candidates aren’t awarded their seats by simply filing for office. They must survive party caucuses and primaries and then general elections. A 22-year-old who seems callow or ignorant will have little chance.

Sure, it’s possible that some mega-rich 21-year-old might launch a political career by investing large amounts of his own money in a campaign. But such self-financed races are often unsuccessful even when instigated by more seasoned adults. The track record for young candidates is likely to be worse.

Anyone in his early 20s with enough moxie to win a legislative election is probably a special person indeed. A young adult that mature and persuasive should not be denied the opportunity to serve.

Nor have we seen any indication of especially reckless lawmaking from the 14 states allowing teen lawmakers — let alone the 30 others that let residents younger than 25 win legislative races. Give more 20-somethings a chance. Vote yes on Prop L.

Comments

  • September 8, 2008

    4:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    I agree 100%.

  • September 8, 2008

    4:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brockage writes:

    We must be chatting up a different set of kids - the ones I know support a candidate whose positions they don't even know - they just know what they like - talk about the cult of personality.

  • September 8, 2008

    10:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    sschow writes:

    I understand the argument that only a well thought out campaign will win regardless of age.

    However, I find it harmful to implant the idea that running for political office is a viable career. By keeping the age at 25, young adults who attend college can focus on learning valuable and marketable skills, not mastering the lofty rhetoric they undoubtedly receive from their professors. If, after a year or two of being completely on their own (let's not act like college is the "real world") they decide that politics is the path they want to follow, then so be it.

    But don't create a self-fulfilling prophecy by allowing it during the most formidable years of their lives.

  • September 25, 2008

    6:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    The reasoning behind this prop is flawed, a 21 year old 25 years ago was more mature, better educated than now. Standards have been lowered for them to get by. Same reasoning as the people who say drinking age should be 18, they're doing it anyway kind of thinking. Some states have raised the driving age to 18, shows the kids have failed to show responsible behavior behind the wheel. Shows how the age of maturity has been steadily rising in age. kids are dumber now, fact of life.

  • September 30, 2008

    1:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    duketg writes:

    I belive it is a fact of life that kids are always dumber than they were 25 years ago. It's a wonder humans ever ever made it out of the fertile crescent.