About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Is It Constitutional To Allow 17 Year Olds The Right To Vote? Tell The Supreme Court

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 16:10:34 PM EDT


( - promoted by Laura Clawson)

In another Blog post on this topic, there have been some excellent comments about whether to allow 17 year olds the right to vote in the September state primaries and the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of the legislation that would allow that right for 17 year olds.

All of us -- you, me, Democrats, Republicans, anyone -- are invited to offer typewritten memoranda on any of the questions presented below.  Comments have to be offered by May 7th.  Your "original" plus eight copies must be filed with the Supreme Court:  Eileen Fox, New Hampshire Supreme Court, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, NH 03301.

This is citizen empowerment at its best.  For or against, go for it!  

Rep. Jim Splaine :: Is It Constitutional To Allow 17 Year Olds The Right To Vote? Tell The Supreme Court
Open Invitation From The Supreme Court:

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2008-0292, Request for an Opinion of the Justices (Voting Age in Primary Elections), the court on April 24, 2008, issued the following order:

The following request of the house for an opinion of the justices was adopted on April 23, 2008, and filed with the supreme court on April 24, 2008:
HOUSE RESOLUTION 32

Whereas, Senate Bill 436, "An act enabling certain persons to vote in primaries prior to turning 18 years of age," is presently pending in the house of representatives; and

Whereas, Senate Bill 436 would provide that a person who is 17 years of age and who otherwise meets voter eligibility requirements may participate in a party's presidential primary and state primary election, provided that such person will be 18 years of age by the time of the next state general election; and

Whereas, Part I, Article 11 of the Constitution of New Hampshire states: "every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election," N.H.CONST. pt. I, art. 11; and

Whereas, a question has arisen as to the constitutionality of the bill: and

Whereas, it is important that those constitutional questions be settled before the bill is enacted; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the justices of the supreme court be respectfully requested to give their opinion upon the following questions of law:

1.  Would enactment of Senate Bill 436 to allow voting in a presidential primary and state primary election be 17-year-old persons who will be 18 years of age at the next state general election, violate Part I, Article 11 of the Constitution of New Hampshire?

2.  Would enactment of Senate Bill 436 which places specific responsibilities upon local supervisors of the checklist regarding the registration, voting, and maintenance of the voter checklists involved in allowing voting in a presidential primary and state primary election by 17-year-old persons who will be 18 years of age at the next state general election, violate Part I, Article 28-a, of the Constitution of New Hampshire?

That the clerk of the house of representatives transmit copies of this  resolution and Senate Bill 436 to the Justices of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Typewritten memoranda on the questions presented by the request may be furnished by any legislator, attorney, organization, interested party, or member of the public on or before May 7, 2008.  An original and eight copies of any memorandum must be filed with the clerk's office.

This order is entered by a single justice (Broderick, C. J.).  See Rule 21(7).

 Eileen Fox, Clerk  

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The areas of concern: (0.00 / 0)
Here's the state Constitution.

The relevant portion of Part 1 Article 11 is:


Art. 11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.] All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election.

Does the legislature dilute the "equal right to vote" of those 18 and older by allowing others to participate by simple legislation?

28-a is the "unfunded mandate" amendment approved in 1984. It reads:

Art. 28-a. [Mandated Programs.] The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision.

Does the additional cost of managing the special class of 17-year-olds on the checklist - probably negligible, but not zero - constitute an unfunded mandate?


My take: (0.00 / 0)
Article 11 was intended to nail down a simple principle: the state cannot set up tests for voting such as "Do you pay property tax?" or "Are you a Baptist?" or "are you Caucasian?"  (It also very clearly sets a low threshold that allows college kids to vote here: argue about their official residences all you want - they are "inhabitants.") The legislature cannot create new barriers to voting - including raising the age - without a new amendment.

What about the "equal right" provision - doesn't adding in a new group of voters dilute the vote of those guaranteed a vote by the Constitution? Yes, it dilutes the vote - but No, that doesn't make the vote of anyone 18+ unequal to other 18+ voters. It dilutes all votes equally. That may be good or bad policy but it is not prohibited. The "equal right" issue is a red herring.

On unfunded mandates: I don't know case history on 28-a. Maintaining a slightly more complicated list - or even simply enfranchising more people to register - will add some cost to the towns and cities. It may be only $100 statewide, but there is some extra work and cost involved. It seems reasonable to read 28-a as flatly prohibiting that without local buy-in. But that reading would also prohibit just about every other state action that involved local administration, including minor changes in traffic laws.


[ Parent ]
Isn't this legislation only aimed at Primary Elections? (0.00 / 0)
Doesn't this essentially apply only to those individuals that at the Primary election they are 17 years old and will be 18 years old when the General election occurs?

Thus, if I read this properly, it is designed so that "legal" voters at the later general election are NOT forced to select a candidate that they were NOT permitted to vote on during the preceding primary election process. In this new legislation they would be permitted to be part of the primary process which leads to their legal general election vote.

It makes perfect sense to me if you think of the Primary as part of the General Election. They are tied together as the process our candidates follow to get elected.

Simply saying,
Wynter



Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox