The Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee voted 10-1 today to approve HJ-21, a resolution that would allow thousands of 17 year-olds to vote in a primary election, so long as they turn 18 before the general election. The resolution now heads to the House floor for consideration.
“Today, Connecticut moved one step closer to being among the national leaders when it comes to voting rights,” said Sec. of State Susan Bysiewicz.”Now it is up to all members of the General Assembly, Democrats and Republicans, to take a stand and enfranchise nearly 10,000 young men and women in this state.”
House Joint Resolution No. 21 states, “That article fourteenth of the amendments to the Constitution of the State be amended to authorize seventeen-year-old persons who pre-register to vote and who will attain the age of eighteen years on or before the day of a regular election to vote in a primary for such regular election.”
“This generation continues to prove that they are not only interested in politics, but passionate about making positive change,” said Rep. James Spallone, co-chairman of the GAE Committee. “Allowing our 17-year-olds to vote in primary elections, as long as they will be eligible to do so in the fall, makes sense and will aid in our goal of creating more lifelong voters.”
He’s right. In my “other life” as a business writer I’m working on a piece about marketing to Millennials and they’re considered the most civic-minded generation since WWII.
In the past several years nine other states in the nation have passed measures that allow 17 year-olds to vote in primaries so long as they turn 18 by the general election. The states are; Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. Currently, several state legislatures including Arizona, Illinois, and New Hampshire are considering proposals that would allow 17 year-olds to vote in primaries.
There are two ways an amendment can be made to the Connecticut Constitution. One option is that three quarters of the House and Senate approve the amendment and then it goes onto the ballot in the next general election that falls on an even numbered year. The other option is for a simple majority in both the House and Senate to approve the measure in two separate legislative sessions. If that happened, it would then go onto the ballot in the next general election that falls on an even numbered year.
Last year a similar resolution won wide support in the General Assembly but fell 9 votes short of having the support of three quarters of the House. The resolution was not raised in the Senate.
17 responses so far ↓
1 gmr // Mar 10, 2008 at 4:41 pm ·
+2
In the past several years nine other states in the nation have passed measures that allow 17 year-olds to vote in primaries so long as they turn 18 by the general election. The states are; Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.
I voted when I was 17 in the Virginia primaries. That was in 1988, or 20 years ago, so Virginia has had that system for at least that long.
2 CtRoadrunner // Mar 10, 2008 at 4:53 pm ·
+1
If ( Millennials) or also known as generation Y are considered 1980-90 babies They can already vote. You must be referring the offspring of Millennials.
3 Headless Horseman // Mar 10, 2008 at 6:34 pm ·
+1
If you are going to be able to vote in the general election, you should be able tovote in the preceding primary… it’s that simple.
4 gerardw // Mar 10, 2008 at 6:48 pm ·
+1
Yes, but will they be able to drive themselves to the polls?
5 Headless Horseman // Mar 10, 2008 at 7:03 pm ·
+2
I say we let eleven year-olds vote too. I definitely want to see the resultant Democratic ticket of Peter Pan & Count Chocula.
6 Headless Horseman // Mar 10, 2008 at 7:04 pm ·
+1
PAN CHOCULA ‘12!
7 El Kabong // Mar 10, 2008 at 8:39 pm ·
+2
Headless Horseman said:
Elmo for President!
8 saramerica // Mar 11, 2008 at 7:12 am ·
+0
Definitions vary but generally Millennial generation considered born between 1982 -2000. Therefore not all are of voting age.
It’s an interesting group to research. I’m enjoying the work on this piece.
9 saramerica // Mar 11, 2008 at 7:14 am ·
+0
No way! Speaking for chocoholics everywhere, I think the Count should head the ticket.
10 Headless Horseman // Mar 11, 2008 at 8:49 am ·
+2
saramerica said:
No way. Pan is a veteran. From the CPT Hook wars.
Chocula is a hack. He and Boo Berry never got a single thing passed.
11 Quod Felix // Mar 11, 2008 at 11:46 am ·
+0
The logic of allowing 17 year-olds to vote in primaries still eludes me. If they are wise and responsible enough to vote in a primary, why can’t they vote in a general election? Why isn’t anyone proposing that we lower the voting age for other elections to 17?
I think 18 is a logical point at which to mark “adulthood” in our society. It’s not perfect (there are plenty of folks older than 18 who are not “wise and responsible”), but at least it is consistent with other benchmarks.
12 Dal90 // Mar 11, 2008 at 12:50 pm ·
--1
The logic of allowing 18 year-old illiterates to vote in elections still eludes me, so I won’t even attempt to phathom the feel-good politicians who put forward proposals like this.
13 saramerica // Mar 11, 2008 at 1:15 pm ·
+0
My 14 year old reads Time and US News and World Report and is more politically aware than many adults of voting age.
And research on the Millenials shows that they are the most civil minded generation since WWII. There are 78 million of these kids out there. Don’t underestimate them.
14 Quod Felix // Mar 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm ·
+1
We can’t use literacy tests any more as a test of voter suitability, unless we repeal that 20th century amendment. There used to be property requirements to be a voter (until the Jacksonian era, for the most part). The thinking was that since government exists to protect people and their property, property owners ought to be the ones who determine who will be in their government. What about making the criteria for voting whether or not you pay taxes OR reach the age of 18? I remember how much more I wanted to understand government when I saw a significant portion of my earnings taken from my check. I’m NOT advocating that unemployed individuals be disenfranchised, merely that voters under 18 could rightly be regarded as responsible stakeholders when they start to have taxes withheld, and therefore might be considered as having a better claim to the franchise.
15 CtRoadrunner // Mar 11, 2008 at 2:59 pm ·
+0
i lack faith in the y generation maybe because its considered the rudest and most spoiled we have had.
todays teens lack total respect for authority
comparing todays teens to the hundreds of thousands who volunteered to fight tyranny, seems a little presumptuous.
16 J. Bailey // Mar 11, 2008 at 4:01 pm ·
+0
Hey- the Millennials are already here! We’ve been here since 2000 (2002 in my case).
As someone on the edge of Generations Y and X, I think I began to see the difference around 2000. When I arrived in high school (1998), my classmates ahead of me were not digital natives, many of them acquired technological literacy during adolescence.
The kids who began to arrive in 2000 were real digital natives: they were the first group with cellphones and the first group that entered high school familiar with instant messenger and other products.
Unfortunately, they did not treat their computers with the same respect that their predecessors did. The year they started, the number of problems spiked dramatically. Many of them were caused by reckless downloading of games and music of questionable origin.
The other thing that I noticed is that the ways they socialized were profoundly different. They were the first group of recreational gamers— something that actually caused the implementation of filtering software.
Although, I would be hesitant to make the kind of blanket statements that Roadrunner has, I would agree that kids 5-10 year my junior tend to be far more spoiled. Much of this has to do with parents who have put professional advancement ahead of family trying to make up for their inattention with material goods.
I do think that can be overcome, but it won’t until they face the real world.
17 tigergrrl74 // Mar 13, 2008 at 4:19 am ·
+0
Allowing 17 year olds to vote? Why not? Sure, there’s many out
there who have no idea what’s happening in the world but there’s ALSO
many out there who are aware of the world situation and politically
aware, and question the issues of the day.
Believe me I’d love to have voted at age 17! Of course, had to wait
until age 18 (and in time for the ‘92 election!!)!
You must log in to post a comment.