Some days it seems like the Daily Beast prides itself on being a sounding board for utterly off-the-wall political ideas. Witness contributor Jillian Keenan's argument today that teens old enough to work and pay taxes -- but too young to vote -- should be granted the franchise:
Right now, millions of Americans are disenfranchised by our political process. They can pay taxes and contribute to social security, but they can’t vote. They can be sentenced to life in prison, but they can’t vote. Every day, their bodies, lives and futures are affected by politicians and policies they did not choose. Who am I talking about? Felons? Guess again.
We need to lower the voting age.
This is a prime moment to ask ourselves whether our voting system is yet fully equitable. Last month, Scotland made history when, for the first time in British politics, 16- and 17-year olds were allowed to vote in its independence referendum. Last year, Takoma Park in Maryland took a similar step when it allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in municipal elections. That’s progress, but those steps don’t go far enough. In the forthcoming national midterm elections—and in all elections throughout the United States—teenagers deserve the right to vote. Seriously.
Okay, not all teenagers. Only the ones who can work and pay taxes on their employment—which the Department of Labor says is anyone over the age of 14. (Sorry, 13-year-olds.) Taxes are an obvious benchmark, since right now, employed teenagers are literally subjected to taxation without representation.
Of course, by this logic, 14-year-olds, being old enough to vote and old enough to bear adult responsibility for their crimes, should be old enough to marry without parental consent, should be old enough to enter into legally-binding contracts without parental consent, and should be able to keep and bear firearms -- for personal defense but also possibly for defense of the community as a member of the unorganized militia. After all, teenagers enjoy First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment protections, so why not Second Amendment ones as well?
Only the most purist of libertarians might agree to all those aforementioned suggestions without batting an eyelash, of course, but Ms. Keenan only briefly addresses, and arguably quite inadequately so, why voting is so markedly different from other very grown-up rights and responsibilities:
I know that this argument will seem preposterous to many. And I’m not suggesting that young people should be entitled to all of the same rights and responsibilities as adults. After all, I’m glad that nine-year-olds can’t apply for driver’s licenses or buy cigarettes and whiskey. I also don’t think young teenagers should have the right to sign legal documents, such as marriage or business contracts. But civil rights already come in stages. We currently get the right to drive before the right to vote, and the right to vote before the right to drink alcohol. I’m merely suggesting that the right to vote come at an earlier stage.
We have to draw a line somewhere. So let’s draw it where early American revolutionaries did: No taxation without representation. If we want to treat teenagers as children by denying them the right to vote, then we should be consistent about it and treat them as children for tax and sentencing purposes as well. But if we're going to impose adult responsibilities and consequences on teenagers, then they deserve a voice—and a vote—in politics. It’s only logical.
So 14-year-olds are perfectly equipped to vote for elected officials who will decide all manner of public policy considerations, and to vote on state/local bond issues and referenda questions with enormous financial implications, but they are not equipped to enter into legally-binding contracts? Teenagers who commit certain violent crimes should be held to account for them as adults, but teenagers who breach a contract -- say a cell phone user agreement -- should be shielded from any liability because they are too young -- too immature? -- to give assent to a binding agreement?
Keenan fails to offer her logic for these distinctions even as she presents expanding the franchise as a matter of justice. But if it's unjust to deny full membership in political society via the franchise, is it not equally unjust to disallow the full enjoyment of other rights and privileges adult members of society likewise enjoy?
It's hard not to be cynical as to the real, ulterior motive of Ms. Keenan's proposal. After all, it's undeniable, on paper at least, the potential voting power of a cohort of voter that is immature, impressionable, and subject to roughly thirty hours a week of indoctrination from liberal-leaning public educators on the state payroll.
