With respect to residency, as in the case of literacy, it can be argued that long-term residency requirements for voting, at least in presidential elections, would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, even if Congress does nothing. According to this argument, the stakes in the presidential elections are national and the requirements of extended residency do not serve any significant state interest. Moreover, such requirements would violate a distinct constitutional right, the right to move freely from one state to another. George M. Montross of Detroit sent the letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Emanuel Celller to express outrage at the decision to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. He questioned the legality of the action, saying the Constitution had been violated “deliberately and flagrantly” by those who had sworn to protect it. Senator Birch Bayh`s Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments began its hearings in 1968 on extending the right to vote to 18-year-olds. [29] Congress` power to legislate in the area of eligibility to vote is strengthened by the Supreme Court`s privileged position on voting rights. In numerous decisions throughout its history, the Court has recognized the importance of the right to vote in our constitutional democracy and has made it clear that any alleged violation of the law must be carefully and carefully considered. As the Court of Justice only ruled last June in its Kramer v.

The Union School District stated: In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that the Fourteenth Amendment`s equality clause itself prohibits certain unreasonable state restrictions on the right to vote. In Carrington v. Rash in 1965, the court ruled that a state could not deny residents the right to vote simply because they were members of the armed forces. In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections in 1966, the Court ruled that a state could not impose a voting tax as a condition of voting. And in Kramer v. Union School District in 1969, the court ruled that a state could not deny residents the right to vote in school district elections simply because they did not own property or had children attending district schools. James J. Kilpatrick, a political columnist, claimed that states had been “blackmailed” into ratifying the Twenty-sixth Amendment. [27] In his article, he argues that by passing the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1970, Congress effectively forced states to ratify the amendment so that they would not be forced to financially and bureaucratically manage the maintenance of two voters` lists. Gallup also mentions the cost of enrollment in his paper, which shows the percentages that support or oppose change, and he particularly points to lower support rates among adults aged 30 to 49 and over 50 (57% and 52%, respectively) compared to those aged 18 to 20 and 21 to 29 (84% and 73%, respectively). [28] While a state may have the primary power to determine eligibility to vote under Article I of the Constitution, it has long been clear that it does not have the power to condition the right to vote on qualifications prohibited by other provisions of the Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment.

No one believes, for example, that a state can deny a person the right to vote because of his race or religion. On March 10, 1971, the Senate voted 94-0 to propose a constitutional amendment to ensure that the minimum voting age would not exceed 18. [33] [34] On March 23, 1971, the House of Representatives voted 401 to 19 in favor of the proposed amendment. [35] Fourth, our current experience with voting by those under the age of 21 warrants extending it across the country. By lowering the voting age, we will improve the overall quality of our electorate and truly make it more representative of our society. By adding our young people to the electorate, we will gain a group of enthusiastic, sensitive, idealistic and energetic new voters. Despite the progress we have made, there are still differences in voter turnout between younger voters and their older counterparts. We can and must do more to deliver on the promise of the 26th Amendment.