March 9, 1971

The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution (S.J, Res. 7) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States extending the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, does the senator from Indiana have the floor at this time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GAMBRELL). The Senator from Indiana is correct.

Mr. BAYH. I certainly appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, today we begin an important-and historic-debate on Senate Joint Resolution 7, the proposed amendment to the Constitution which would lower the voting age to 18 for all elections, Federal, State, and local. I look forward to a thorough and spirited debate. I hope that the Senateand the House-will pass this measure and send it to the States-because it is the right thing to do. I do not make such a recommendation casually. After spending more than 8 years as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, and as a result of our efforts to secure passage of the 25th amendment, Mr. President, I am acutely aware that amending the Constitution is an awesome years. responsibility. It is a responsibility I do not take lightly. I think our Founding Fathers were correct in requiring twothirds of both Houses and three-fourths of the State legislatures to join in concurrence before a major change could be made in the bedrock constitutional law of the land.

No constitutional change should be proposed by this body until there has been thorough study and thought, both in the Congress and in the rest of the country. I firmly believe that there has been such study and thought, and that we have achieved a nationwide political consensus favoring such a change in the voting age.

Last week the subcommittee ordered Senate Joint Resolution 7 reported to the full committee. The vote was unanimous. Last Thursday, the full committee met and ordered this measure reported to the full Senate for consideration on the floor. There, too, the vote was unanimous. Now it is time for each of us to consider this issue and decide how to vote. I plan to support this joint resolution because I believe that there is a solid series of arguments supporting an extension of the franchise to younger voters.

First, these younger citizens are fully mature enough to vote. There is no magic to the age of 21. The 21-year age of maturity is derived only from historical accident. In the 11th century 21 was the age at which most males were physically capable of carrying armor. But the physical ability to carry armor in the 11th century clearly has no relation to the intellectuall8lld emotional qualification to vote in 20th century America. And even if physical maturity were the crucial determinant of the right to vote, 18-yerar olds would deserve that right: Dr. Margaret Mead and others have shown that the age of physical maturity of American youth has dropped more than 3 years since the 18th century. As Vice President Agnew said recently in endorsing a lowered voting age:

Young people today a.re better educated and they mature physically much sooner than . they did even 50 years ago.

The simple fact is that our younger citizens today are mentally and emotionally capable of full participation in our democratic form of Government. Today more than half of the 18- to 21-year-olds are receiving some type of higher education. Today nearly 80 percent of these young people are high school graduates. It is interesting to compare these recent statistics with some from 1920, when less than 10 percent went on to college and less than 20 percent of our youngsters actually graduated from high school.

Second, our 18-year-old citizens have earned the right to vote because they bear all or most of an adult citizen's responsibilities. Of the nearly 11 million 18- to 21-year-olds today, about half are married and more than 1 million of them are responsible for raising families. Another 1,400,000 are serving their country-serving all of us--in the Armed Forces. And tens of thousands of young people have paid the supreme sacrifice in the Indochina War over the past 5 Today more than 3 million young people, ages 18 to 21, are full-time employees and taxpayers. As former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has pointed out:

We subject 1(}-12 million young citizens between 17 and 21 years of age to taxation without representation. This is four times the population of the Colonies the night the tea was dumped in Boston harbor . It exceeds the population of all but several of the States of the Union.

In 26 States, persons at the age of 18 can make wills. In 49 States, they are treated as adults in criminal courts of law. Can we justify holding a person to be legally responsible for his or her actions in a criminal court of law when we continue to refuse to consider that same person responsible enough to take action in a polling booth? Surely a citizen's rights in our society ought to be commensurate with his responsibilities. Our younger citizens have willingly shouldered the responsibilities we have put on them, and it is morally wrong to deprive these citizens of the vote. By their actions, they clearly have earned the right to vote.

Third, these younger voters should be given the right to full participation in our political system because they will contribute a great deal to our society. :Although some of the student unrest of recent years has led to deplorable violence and intolerance, much of the unrest is healthy. It reflects the interest and concern of today's youth over the important issues of our day. The deep commitment of those 18 to 21 year olds is often the idealism which Senator BARRY GoLDWATER has said:

Is exactly what we need more of in this country ... more citizens who are concerned enough to pose high social and moral goals for the nation.

As Prof. Paul Freund of the Harvard Law School recently wrote:

I believe that the student movement around the world is nothing less than the herald of an intellectual and moral revolution, which can portend anew enlightenment and a wider fraternity, or if repulsed and repressed. can lead to a new cynicism and even deeper cleavages. The student generation, disillusioned with absolutist slogans and utopian dogmas, has long since marked the end of ideology; wars of competing isms are as intolerable to them as wars of religion became centuries ago. Youth turned to pragmatism, to the setting of specific ma.na.geable tasks and getting them done. But that has proved altogether too uninspiring, and youth has been restless for a new vision, a new set of ideals to supplant the discarded ideologies.

We must channel these energies into our political system and give young people the real opportunity to influence our society in a peaceful and constructive manner. The President's Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence explored the relationships between campus unrest and the ability of our younger citizens to take a constructive part in the political process:

The nation cannot afford to ignore lawlessness . It is no less permissible for our nation to ignore the legitimate needs and desires of the young .

.•. We have seen the dedication and conviction they brought to the Civil Rights movement and the skill and enthusiasm they have infused into the political process. even though they lack the vote.

The anachronistic voting-age limitation tends to alienate them from systematic political processes and to drive them into a search for an alternative, sometimes violent, means to express their frustrations over the gap between the nation's ideals and actions. Lowering the voting age will provide them with a direct, constructive and democratic channel for making their views felt and for giving them a. responsible stake in the future of the nation.

I believe that the time has come to extend the vote to 18-yea.r-olds in all elections; because they are mature enough in every way to exercise the franchise; because they have earned the right to vote by bearing the responsibilities of citizenship; and because our society has so much to gain by bringing the force of their idealism and concern and energy into the constructive mechanism of elective government.

HEARINGS

The testimony presented at recent hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments also provides strong and persuasive support for lowering the voting age. The subcommittee held a series of comprehensive hearings on May 14, 15, and 16 of 1968 in the 90th Congress, and on February 16 and 17 and March 9 and 10 of 1970, in the 91st Congress. At both sets of hearings we heard support for a lowered voting age from witnesses representing all parts of the political spectrum, as well as from representatives of a great variety of organizations.

Senator RANDoLPH was the first witness at the hearings in the 9lst Congress. He described his efforts since 1943 on behalf of granting 18-year-olds the vote. ' He said that allowing participation by these younger voters would have the beneficial results of forcing us all to take a "fresh look" at our political system. He pointed out that the history of this country has to a great extent been a history of efforts to expand the franchise and to expand the political base of our democratic processes. He said:

We should extend our base by giving to young people not only the opportunity, but I repeat again and again, the responsibility for this active, this full participation. The future in large part belongs to young people. It is imperative that they have the opportunity to help set the course of that future. Former presidential assistant Theodore Sorensen brought to the subcommittee's attention the conclusion of the Cox commission which studied the student disruptions at Columbia University. That commission called the present generation "the most intelligent," the "most idealistic," the "most sensitive to public issues:• and with a "higher level of social conscience than preceding generations." Sorensen described the question of whether to lower the voting age as raising a "moral issue." He said:

For the very essence of democracy requires that its electoral base be as broad as the standards of fairness and logic permit.

Dr. W. Walter Menninger testified in support of lowering the voting age as a representative of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. He pointed out that the commission in its final report had recommended a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18.

Dr. Menninger also reminded us about the statement Senator Mansfield had made during the subcommittee's 1968 hearings:

The age of 21 is not simply the automatic chronological door to the sound judgment and wisdom that is needed to exercise the franchise of the ballot.

He went on to point out that it is at 18 that young people traditionally "try it on their own," and "become responsible for · themselves and others." It is at 18 that "the citizen has fresher knowledge and a more enthusiastic interest in government processes."

Dr. Menninger explored the experiences other jurisdictions have had with lowering the voting age. He said that: Nothing in the recent history of states which allow those under 21 to vote has indicated that the college-age vote is irresponsible or "radical."

And he pointed out that, according to the studies of the 1963 Commission on Voting, "where 18-year-olds were allowed to vote, they voted in larger proportions than the remainder of the population." He believed that this evidence supported his thesis that lowering the voting age would allow the younger voters to take an active part in the system when they are still subject to the "stimulation" of courses in citizenship and American history and reverse the presently poor turnout of voters in the 21-to-30 category. Dr. S. I. Hayakawa, the president of San Francisco State University, stated that:

Lowering of the voting age is just one of many measures that are necessary to involve young men and women from 18 years onward more and more into the life of government, of business, of the world of work in general, so that they have decisions to make that count in the world.

He said that the vote, aside from its role in the democratic process, had a "symbolic meaning." For the young citizen, voting is “like an initiation rite, acknowledging adulthood."

Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst conveyed President Nixon's views about the wisdom of lowering the voting age. He said:

America's 10 million young people between the ages of 18 and 21 are better equipped today than ever in the past to be entrusted with all of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. Their well-informed intelligence, enthusiastic interest , and desire to participate dn public affairs at all levels exemplifies the highest qualities of mature citizenship.

Kleindienst also pointed out to the subcommittee that those States that have had experience with voting at 18 have found that “their experience with young voters has been constructive and positive."

Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark urged speedy enactment of a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age. He pointed out that while the United States has allowed more citizens to participate in the democratic process over the years, it has done so only "slowly, ineffectively, and begrudgingly." He thought that the amendment should be passed "in the name of fairness and justice." And he added:

But there is a more urgent reason. That reason is need, and that need is to involve the young people in our processes and to learn the message that they have to tell us. Mr. Clark believes that by letting young people vote soon after high school we can "involve them in our system" and "keep them in meaningful participation in the system." Senator GoLDWATER appeared and told us that as a result of his repeated travels to universities in every part of the country over the past few years, he is convinced that "this generation of young people is the finest generation that has ever come along." He said:

To give a direct answer, I see no reason, from the point of judgment, why our young people should not be allowed to vote, and I am talking about 18-year-olds, in State as well as Presidential elections . . . have I confidence in these people.

Senator EDWARD M. KENNEDY said in his testimony that:

I believe the time has come to lower the voting age in the United States, and thereby to bring American youth into the mainstream of our political process. To me, this is the most important single principle we can pursue as a nation if we are to succeed in bringing our youth into full and lasting participation in our institutions of democratic government.

Dr. Margaret Mead, the noted anthropologist, appeared before the subcommittee and particularly emphasized the fact that today's young people:

Are not only the best educated generation that we have ever had, and the segment of the population that is better educated than any other group, but also they are more mature than young people in the past.

Testimony was heard and statements were received from individuals representing countless organizations, including: Youth Franchise Coalition; National Education Association; American Federation of Teachers; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; American Civil Liberties Union; the American Jewish Committee; and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

OREGON AGAINST Mri'CHELL

On March 13, 1970, 3 days after the hearings were concluded, the Senate passed the Voting Rights Act of 1970, which contained a provision lowering the voting age to 18 in all elections by statute. In its meeting of July 28, 1970, the subcommittee reported the 18-yearold vote constitutional proposals to the full Judiciary Committee, with the understanding that they would remain in the full committee pending the outcome of the Supreme Court test.

Although the constitutionality of lowering the voting age by statute had been explored at length in hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and on the floor of both Houses, some substantial doubt remained, and the act provided for a rapid determination by the Supreme Court. On December 21, 1970, the Supreme Court ruled in Oregon against Mitchell that title III of the Voting Rights Act of 1970 is constitutional ' insofar as it applies to Federal elections, but that the Congress lacks power under the Constitution w lower the voting age by Federal statute in State and local elections. The Supreme Court's decision came too late in the Congress to allow action by either House before the end of the session.

The results of the Court's decision were immediately criticized by election officials and others, not merely because of the apparent inconsistency, but because it would require a dual-age system of registration and voting said to be expensive, confusing, and subject to other serious problems.

In response to these comments, I started preparing a report which would explore the scope and magnitude of these criticisms, collect and summarize the background material on the effort to lower the voting age, and survey the problems arising across the country as a result of Oregon against Mitchell. I sent telegrams to the chief election officials of each of the 50 States and election officials from some 35 major cities and counties, asking them to estimate the cost, confusion, and other problems they anticipated as a result of the dualage voting, Newspaper reports of responses to the Court's decision were surveyed from across the country. The possibility of prompt State action to lower the voting age was analyzed for every State, and compared to the possibility of prompt ratification of a Federal constitutional amendment.

THE REPORT

In preparing that report I found that as a result of the decision in Oregon against Mitchell, 47 States face the possibilitary of having to administer the 1972 election under a system of dual-age voting-voting at age 18 in Federal elections and at a greater age in State and local elections. It is my belief that such a system of dual-age voting is morally indefensible and patently illogical; how can we deny younger voters a voice in local affairs when we allow them the right to participate in the selection of the Nation's highest officials? Moreover, according to the election officials I corresponded with, dual-age voting may also be dangerously complicated and inordinately expensive as well. These officials estimated costs amounting to at least $10 million to $20 million. Last year Congress declared that every American over the age of 18 should be entitled to vote in all elections. It is my hope that the fact that dual-age voting is devoid of principle, and the fear that it may be unworkable in practice, will encourage the Congress to reaffirm that fundamental policy judgment by prompt passage of a Federal constitutional amendment for ratification by the States.

There is no basis whatsoever, in logic, in policy or in practice, for denying 18· year-olds the right to vote in State and local elections when they may vote in Federal elections. All of the arguments advanced in favor of lowering the voting age apply with equal force to State and local elections and to Federal elections. Indeed, many of the areas in which young people have expressed the greatest interest---for example, the quality of education and the State of the environment---are primarily matters of local concern. In a time of increasing interest in the decentralization of Government programs and resources, there is simply no justification whatsoever for excluding young people from participation in State and local elective politics when we permit them full participation on the Federal level.

The administrative problems of creating and maintaining a system of dualage voting have led election officials to raise the danger of profound confusion and delay in the election process. In the 47 States which have not yet extended the franchise to 18-year-olds, separate systems of registration and voting must be established for nearly 10 percent of the previous voting age population-more than 10 million young people. The attorney general of Oregon has characterized the result as "an intolerable administrative burden on the States." John D. Rockefeller IV, secretary of state of West Virginia, has said that the situation at the polling places on election day may amount to "a jumble of confusion." Louisiana State Attorney General Jack Gremillion fears "chaos and confusion" in the next general election. And a memorandum prepared for the secretary of state of Minnesota predicts "a nightmare at best" in the process of instructing voters in the 1972 elections.

I found that some jurisdictions expect to meet the problem primarily by the purchase of new voting machines. However, such a solution can create what one election official referred to as a "suffocating expense." And there is substantial doubt as to whether a sufficient number of machines could be ordered, financed, and delivered in time for the 1972 elections. Other jurisdictions expect to resolve the problem by the use of lockout devices on voting machines-where feasible--or the use of separate paper ballots. Both of these approaches will require a substantial increase in manpower either to perform and supervise the lock- out function or to administer the paper ballots. Moreover, the use of paper ballots-a possibility being considered by many jurisdictions, including the States of Michigan, Montana and North Dakota and the city of Chicago-raise the possi-' bility and the temptation of vote fraud 000. often associated with the use of paper ballots.

Whatever approach individual jurisdictions take to meet the problem, many electiOn officials fear that the confusion and complications of dual-age voting will lead to delay at the polls. James C. Kirkpatrick, the secretary of state of Missouri has suggested that "probably most im- portant of all" the consequences of dualage voting is the possibility that "the confusion may well result in long lines at the polling places on election day," caus-

CXVII-346-Part 5 ing voters "to decide against voting rather than be forced to stand in line for a long time-especially in bad weather." It would be ironic indeed if in this manner the Voting Right Act discouraged the exercise of the franchise.

Based on · the estimates of election officials, the total cost of implementing a system of dual-age voting appears to be no less than 10 to 20 million dollarsand may amount to substantially more. Such estimates vary widely among jurisdictions. Moreover, some State and local officials are just beginning to analyze the problems involved in depth and to canvass the possible solutions. In jurisdictions contemplating the use of separate voting machines, at a cost of approximately $2,000 apiece, the initial cost would be staggering-$1.3 million in Connecticut, $3.5 million in New York City. In jurisdictions choosing to use voting machine "lock-out" where possible, or paper ballots, the costs are harder to estimate because they involve primarily ~ the use of additional personnel; but election officials are nevertheless concerned about the magnitude of the expense required. A few examples of responses from election officials follow:

Paul Maraton, Recorder of Maricopa County-including Phoenix-Arizona, predicted a possible expense on the order of $60,000 resulting from dual-age voting.

California State Assemblyman John Briggs reported that, according to the California Secretary of State, it would cost more than 1.5 million dollars to implement dual-age voting in California. The Registrar-Recorder of Los Angeles County has estimated that "dual-age voting will cost approximately $400,000 to $500,000 additional" in the county. Mrs. Gloria Schaffer, the Secretary of State of Connecticut, has estimated that the State may have to spend $1,300,000 on voting machines alone to implement dual-age voting.

In Illinois, Secretary of State John W. Lewis estimated that there would be a 40 to 50 percent increase in election costs because of the need to keep two sets of registration books, two sets of ballots, and the like. The cha.irma.n of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners puts the extra cost for his city alone at between $150,000 and $200,000. The Indiana State Election Board has predicted that it will cost $170,000 for separate registration facilities, and for the printing and casting of paper ballots.

In Iowa, dual-age voting could cost $125,- 000 to $150,000, but Secretary of State Melvin D. Synhorst added that if voting machines had to be purchased, this figure "could rise considerably higher."

According to Allen J. Beerman, . n, the Secretary of State of Nebraska, the implementation of Oregon D. Mitchell could easily result in a. 30 percent increase in election costs-an additional $300,000.

New Mexico Secretary of State Betty Fiorina expects the cost of implementing dual-age voting to total approximately $200,- Maurice J. O'Rourke, the President of the New York City Board of Elections has stated that such a dual-age voting procedure "would cost the city $5,000,000 minimally. We would need 1,500 new voting ma.chines, which cost $2,000 each, and we would have to spend at least $2,000,000 for additional permanent personnel to set up and maintain the two sets of registration books necessary for two categories of voters."

Ward Fowler, of Oklahoma's State Election Board, has predicted extra costs arising from dual-age voting of $50,000 to $150,000 per election year."

Rhode Island relies heavily on voting machines, and as a result Secretary of State August P. LaFrance expects that additional expenses could total nearly "two million dollars."

Director of Elections Jack M. Perry of Shelby County Tennessee, which includes Memphis, has made a "rough estimate" that the extra expenses of dual-age voting would amount to "around $800,000."

A. Ludlow Kramer, Washington's Secretary of state, gave a careful estimate of all the expenses that dual-age voting would entail and conclud-ed that it would cost the State $425,000, a. “suffocating expense,” especially when his State is "desperately struggling to avoid bankruptcy."

The difficulty of determining just what constitutes a Federal election may lead to substantial disruption of State political party organization and prolonged confusion and delay in the courts. Oregon against Mitchell grants the right to vote in all Federal primary elections to all18-year-old voters. However, in many States the selection of nominees for Federal office is not performed in a primary but by delegates elected to State conventions. Unless young voters are able to vote for these delegates, they will have no voice in the selection of the Federal nominees who will represent their party. However, many of these elected delegates also choose nominees for statewide office and perform other State functions and 18-year-olds are precluded by law in 47 of the 50 States from voting for State officials. If excluded from party elections which affect-directly or indirectly-the choice of Federal officials, 18-year-old voters are certain to challenge their exclusion in court, and very substantial disruption and delay may result before the numerous separate and differing problems across the country are resolved.

POSSmiLITY OF LOWERING THE VOTING AGE

A Federal constitutional amendment offers the only realistic hope in most States for 18-year-old voting before the 1972 elections. Of the 47 States having voting age in excess of 18, only eight have reported that it would be possible to lower their voting age by State action before the 1972 general election without resorting to some extraordinary procedure, such as a special statewide election. Most of the remaining States face delays that would preclude final action lowering the voting age before that date. Ratification of a Federal constitutional amendment, on the other hand, appears to be a realistic possibility by 1972. At the present time it seems likely that at least 40 State legislatures will be meeting f? 1972 alone, in the absence of any special sessiOns, and the reapportionment required by the 1970 census is likely to make the fall of 1971 and the spring of 1972 an active period for special sessions. The three amendments proposed by Congress in the 1960's-the 23d, 24th, and 25th-were ratified in an average time of approximately 15 months; an amendment lowering the voting age to 18 would stand an excellent chance of ratification within a similar period.

CONCLUSION

I have long been concerned with the need to extend the franchise to include our younger citizens. After chairing two sets of subcommittee hearings on this issue and after preparing this report, I am now convinced-more firmly than ever before--that the time has come to lower the voting age to 18 in every election across the land-because it is right. And if the many problems of dual-age voting force us to confront the question more promptly, so much the better. Low­ vote. ering the voting age is sound principle, sound policy, and sound practice. The Congress should complete its action at the earliest possible date, and send the amendment to the States for ratification. Mr. President, I consider it a privilege to open the debate which I hope will lead to final ratification of one of the most important constitutional amendments ever to be presented to this body.

I refer, of course, to the matter which is the pending order of business, Senate Joint Resolution 7, the proposed constitutional amendment which would lower the voting age for all elections to 18.

The principal sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 7 is the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), who has been involved in this effort since 1942. Senate Joint Resolution 7 is also cospon s ored by 86 other Members of the Senate. This matter has been of great concern to the Senator from Indiana since his first days in the Indiana State Legislature back i n 1955.

I think it is critical today that young Americans who are asked to bear the responsibilities of citizenship have some voice in determining what national policy shall be.

The inequity existing in the disenfranchisement of 18-, 19-, and 20-yearolds can be documented at length. But it • seems to me that the most glaring inequity is manifest in the casualty lists which have been compiled over the years in Vietnam. The casualty lists disclose the tragic circumstance that half the young men who have made the supreme sacrifice for their country over the years by following the policy of their country in South Vietnam-! repeat, one-half, Mr. President, of those who died on the battlefields of Vietnam-were not old enough to vote for the public officials who sent them there.

I do not know how we can, in good conscience, continue to tolerate such a travesty. But, Mr. President, the reasons for lowering the voting age go beyond the equality that should be accorded 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old citizens.

It is the judgment of the Senator from Indiana that the country will benefit · by the active inclusion in the body politic of those now kept without.

Having had the opportunity of conversing at length on our campuses, in our cities and in our factories with young people of all ages, I believe that our younger citizens are today qualified to vote as they never have been before. There are a few young people who, by their acts and deeds, have shown they are not qualified to vote. But is there anyone here who can say that the same is not true of some of those who are older?

Young people have their weaknesses and their strengths, just as older people do.

One other aspect of this problem that I think the REcORD should contain came to light at · the hearings which were held by the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.

Interestingly enough some of the most radical youth org · organizations refused to 1 testify in support of the 18-!Year-old At first it was difficult for me to understand that. However, on closer examination, it became obvious why these organizations would not want to see the voting age lowered.

The main rallying cry of these groups is that we should destroy our democratic system. I say democratic system with a small "d" out of deference to the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. ScHWEIKER) . They say that we should destroy our system, because there is no place in it for young people today. They use this as a rallying cry on the campuses and in youth clubs. They say:

We will destroy the system , tear it down, and build a new and better utopian one , and you as young people have a piece of the action.

How devastating it would be to the main rallying cry of those groups if the very system they say is sterile and unresponsive to change proves that it can change, and purges itself of inequities. No other one piece of legislation can do as much to convince the younger 'people that there is a place for them within the system; nothing else can do more to give them an opportunity to work their will within the system than the measure which is now before the Senate.

Mr. President, perhaps a brief note on history should be interjected here so that the RECORD will be consistent.

All of use are aware that title m of the 1970 Voting Rights Act contained a provision similar to that which is now before the Senate. The Senator from Montana, the Senator from Massachusetts, and other Senators joined in introducing the amendment to the 1970 Voting Rights Act which, by statute, said that 18-yearolds should be given the franchise.

On December 21, 1970, in Oregon against Mitchell, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the authority to establish the voting age for Federal elections only. Thus, the result of the Supreme Court decision was to enfranchise the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds to vote for tiny. the President, Vice President, Senators, and Congressmen.

I think it would be rather kind to suggest that there is an inconsistency involved in a voting criteria that says that young people are qualified to vote for a President, but not qualified to vote for school board members, are qualified to vote for a U.S. Senator, but are not qualified to vote for a State Senator.

We now have an opportunity-to amend the Constitution of the United States to establish by constitutional amendment what we could not do by statute.

If there is any level of participation where young people need to feel involved, it seems to me it is at the State and local level. Young people never have the opportunity to meet their President, never know their Senators, and perhaps do not know their Congressmen. However, they come in touch day by day with their school board members, their mayor, and their local officials.

I think it is important for us to put our house in order. A comprehensive and thorough report prepared by my subcommittee on constitutional amendments--for which Mr. Peter W. Coogan and Mr. P. J. Mode did an excellent job of research--contains data from the prime election official in every State. That report carefully documents the difficulties and confusion which will result if we are not successful with this constitutional amendment.

Each election official in the country will have to compile two sets of listsone set for those who are qualified to vote for President, Vice President, Senators, and Congressmen-including the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds--and another list of those who are qualified to vote for all other offices. Of course this latter list will exclude the 18- , 19-, and 20-year-olds. With all its ramifications, dual-age voting is estimated to cost between $10 and $20 million. Election officials have predicted untold confusion on election day in almost every precinct in America.

I hope that the Senate will act quickly. I hope that the House will soon follow suit. We just barely have time to refer this to the State legislatures so that we can get the necessary 38 legislatures to ratify this and make it effective before the 1972 election.

I would just like to :finish with one last thought, if I may, Mr. President. A13 I have had the opportunity to travel around the country, I have been deeply disturbed at the number of people who have begun to lose faith in their country and in our democratic processes. I fear that many of them are losing faith in themselves.

Faith can be very strong medicine for some of the problems that confront us today. I know of no one act that can do more to shore up faith in our system, particularly as far as young people are concerned, than passing this constitutional amendment.

I do not hold it out as a panacea for all ills that confront us. However, if democracy means anything, it means the capacity, the ability, and the opportunity for people to determine their own desBy acting favorably on this constitutional amendment, we will be saying to the some 11.5 million young Americans who are now treated as second-class citizens and required to bear the burdens of citizenship but not given the opportunity to develop and participate in the governmental processes, "Have faith, because this system is going to make itself available to you."

Then, Mr. President, it will be up to them to use it justly and wisely. I believe that these younger voters will help us deal more effectively with the problems that confront us now, and those which will confront yet unborn generations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several statistical, technical, and historical articles not included in .,_ the record of hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, and excerpts from my report entitled "Lowering the Voting Age to 18, a 50-State Survey of the Costs and Other Problems of Dual-Age Voting," be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

LoWERING THE VOTING AGE TO 18: A 50-STATE SURVEY OF THE COSTS AND OTHER PROBLEMS OF DuAL-AGE VoTING INTRODUCTION

Lowering the voting age to 18 has in recent years gained broad, national support from all segments of the political and ideological spectrum. Encouraging and responding to this emerging consensus, the 91st Congress enacted Title III of the Voting Rights Act of 1970, lowering the voting age to 18 in all Federal, State, and local elections, primary and general.

Although the constitutionality of lowering the voting age by statute had been explored at length in hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and on the floor of both Houses, some substantial doubt remained, and the Act provided for a rapid determination by the supreme Court. On December 21, 1970, the Supreme Court ruled in Oregon v. Mitchell that Title ill of the Voting Rights Act of 1970 is constitutional insofar as it applies to Federal elections, but that the Congress lacks power under the Constitution to lower the voting age by Federal statute in State and local elections. The results of the Court's decision were immediately criticized by election officials aDd others, not merely because of the apparent inconsistency, but because it would require a dual-age system of registration and voting said to be expensive, confusing, and subject to other serious problems.

This report was undertaken to explore the scope and magnitude of these criticisms, to collect and summarize the background material on the effort to lower the voting age, and to survey the problems arising across the country as a result of Oregon v. Mitchell. The chief election officials of each of the 50 States-and election officials from some 35 major cities and counties-were asked to estimate the cost, confusion, and other problems they anticipated as a result of the dualage voting. Newspaper reports of responses to the Court's decision were surveyed from across the country. The possibility of prompt State action to lower the voting age was analyzed for every State, and compared to the possibility of prompt ratification of a Federal constitutional amendment.

This report is presented in the hope tha.t it will speed Congressional action to a.dopt a proposed constitutional amendment lowering the voting age to 18 in all electionsFederal, State, and local-which can then be sent promptly to the States for ratification.

THE CASE FOR 18-YEAR-OLD VOTING

In recent years, we have achieved a nationwide political consensus favoring a lowering of the voting age to 18. In the extensive hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments in the 91st Congress, the objective was agreed to by Senator Barry Goldwater and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, by Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This consensus has emerged from a solid series of arguments supporting an extension of the franchise to younger voters.

First, these younger citizens are fully mature enough to vote. There is no magic to the age of 21. The 21 year age o! maturity ts derived only from historical accident. In the eleventh century 21 was the age at which most males were physically capable o! carrying armor. But the physical ability to carry armor tn the eleventh century clearly has no relation to the intellectual and emotional qualifications to vote in twentieth century America. And even if physical maturity were the crucial determinant of the right to vote, 18-yearolds would deserve that right: Dr. Margaret Mea.d and others have shown that the age of physical maturity of American youth has dropped more than three years since the eighteenth century. As Vice President Agnew said recently in endorsing a lowered voting age, "young people today are better educated and they mature physically much sooner than they did even 50 years ago."

The simple fact is that our younger citizens today are mentally and emotionally capable of full participation in our democratic form of government. Today more than half of the 18- to 21-year olds are receiving some type of higher education. Today nearly 80 percent of these young people are high school graduates. It is interesting to compare these recent statistics with some from 1920, when less than 10 percent went on to college and less than 20 percent of our youngsters actually graduated from high school.

Second, our 18-year-old citizens have earned the right to vote because they bear all or most of an adult citizen's responsibilities. Of the nearly 11 million 18-to-21-yearolds today, about half are married and more than 1 million of them are responsible for raising families. Another 1,400,000 are serving their country, serving all of us, in the Armed Forces. And tens of thousands of young people have paid the supreme sacrifice in the Indochina War over the past five years. Today more than 3 million young people, ages 18 to 21, are full-time employees and taxpayers. As former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has pointed out:

"We subject 10-12 million young citizens between 17 and 21 years of age to taxation Without representation. This is four times the population of the Colonies the night the tea was dumped in Boston harbor .... It exceeds the population of all but several of the States of the Union."

In 26 States, persons at the age of 18 can make wills. In 49 States, they are treated as adults in criminal courts of law. Can we justify holding a person to be legally responsible for his or her actions 1n a criminal court of law when we continue to refuse to consider that same person responsible enough to take action in a polling booth? Surely a citizen's rights in our society ought to be commensurate With his responsibilities. Our younger citizens have Willingly shouldered the responsibilities we have put on them, and it is morally wrong to deprive these citizens of the vote. By their actions, they clearly have earned the right to vote.

Third, these younger voters should be given the right to full participation in our political system because they Will contribute a great deal to our society. Although some of the student unrest of recent years has led to deplorable violence and intolerance, much of this unrest is healthy. It re­ :flects the interest and concern of today's youth over the important issues of our day. The deep commitment of those 18 to 21 years old is often the idealism which Senator Barry Goldwater has said "is exactly what we need more of tn the country more citizens who are concerned enough to pose high social and moral goals for the nation. As Professor Paul Freund of the Harvard Law SChool recently wrote:

"I believe that the student movement around the world ls nothing less than the herald of an intellectual and moral revolution, which can portend a new enlightenment and a wider fraternity, or if repulsed and repressed can lead to a new cynicism and even deeper cleavages. The student generation, disillusioned with absolutist slogans and utopian dogmas, has long since marked the end of ideology: wars of competing isms are as intolerable to them as wars of religion became centuries ago. Youth turned to pragmatism to the setting of specific manageable tasks and getting them done. But that has proved altogether too uninspiring, and youth has been restless for a new vision, a new set of ideals to supplant the discarded ideologies."

We must channel these energies into our political system and give young people the real opportunity to influence our society in a peaceful and constructive manner. The President's Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence explored the relationships between campus unrest and the ability of our younger citizens to take a constructive part in the political process:

"The nation cannot afford to ignore lawlessness. . . . It is no less permissible for our nation to ignore the legitimate needs and desires of the young. . . .

" ... We have seen the dedication and conviction they brought to the Civil Rights movement and the skill and enthusiasm they have infused into the political process, even though they lack the vote.

"The anachronistic voting-age limitation tends to alienate them from systematic political processes and to drive them into a search for an alternative, sometimes violent, means to express their frustrations over the gap between the nation's ideals and actions. Lowering the voting age will provide them with a direct, constructive and democratic channel for making their views felt and for giving them a responsible stake in the future of the nation."

Thus the time has come to extend the vote to 18-year-olds in all elections: because they are mature enough in every way to exercise the franchise; because they have earned the right to vote by bearing the responsibilities of citizenship; and because our society has so much to gain by bringh : .g the force of their idealism and concern and energy into the constructive mechanism of elective government.

HISTORY OF EFFORTS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE

A. Action by the States

N i ne States now have voting ages under 21 although only three of these have reduced the voting age to 18. Georgia was the first to act; in 1943 its voters ratified an 18-year-old voting amendment by more than a two to one margin. In 1955 the voters of Kentucky approved a referendum-by almost a two to one margin-which lowered that State's voting age to 18. Hawaii joined the Union in 1959 and carried with it its 1950 constitution, which allowed its residents to vote once they became 20. When Alaska was admitted to the Union, its constitution-which was overwhelmingly approved by its voters on April 24, 1956-contatned a 19-year-old voting age. In 1969 the State legislature proposed lowering the age to 18. This amendment was approved by the Sta-te's voters tn the 1970 elections and has now taken effect. Several other changes in State constitutions relating to voting ages were approved by the voters in the 1970 elections. Maine voters agreed to enfranchise their 20-yearolds. Massachusetts voters extended the vote to those 19 and over. Minnesota and Montana. did the same thing. Nebraska lowered its votIng age to 20.

In at least three other States there has been recent legislative action to lay the groundwork for a State constitutional amendment, but in these States the voting age remains 21 because the amendment process has not yet been completed. In Delaware the State legislature has approved a 19-yearold vote proposal, but final ratification requires the approval of a subsequent State legislature. The New York State Assembly has twice approved an 18-year-old vote amendment. That proposal will go to the voters for ratification in the November 1971 elections. Nevada legislators gave approval to an 18- year-old voting amendment in 1969. If the legislature again approves this same measure, it could be voted on by the people in 1972. The California constitutional commission has recommended lowering the voting age to 19, but the legislature has yet to take action. In addition to the abo v e action, there have been popular referenda and legislat i ve action on the issue of lowering t he voting age in the following additional States: Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Florida, Wyoming, Connecticut, and Hawaii.

B. Action by the Congress

The idea of amending the Federal Constitution to lower the voting age to 18 for both Federal and State elections is not new. In modern times the first Joint Resolutions proposing such a change in the Constitution were submitted in the 77th Congress. en October 21, 1942, Jennings Randolph, then a Member of the House of Representatives, introduced House Joint Resolution 354. Since that time, more than 150 similar proposals have been introduced, at least one in each subsequent Congress. In the early years, such proposals attracted few other supporters, but over the years Congressional support for lowering the voting age has become increasingly strong. senator Randolph's 18- year-old vote amendment in the 92nd Congress, Senate Joint Resolu t ion 7 , has 85 Members of the Senate as cosponsors.

Since the introduction of the first proposal, the issue of lowering the voting age to 18 has been thoroughly studied in the Congress. Congressman Celler, then the ranking majority member of the House Judiciary Committee, conducted hearings on the Randolph proposal on October 20, 1943, Senate Judiciary Committee hearings were conducted in the 82nd, 83rd, 87th, 90th and 91st Congresses.

While there has been thorough committee study over the years, these Joint Resolutions have not been reported out of committee, with one exception. In the 83rd Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 53 was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee (S. Rep. No. 1075) and debated on the floor of the senate. It failed on a vote of 84 to 24, five votes short of the required two-thirds majority. (For :floor debate, see Cong. Record, vol. 100, pp. 6911, 6956, 6963, 6969.)

c. The 1970 hearings

By far the most comprehensive hearings were those held by the senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments on May 14, 15, and 16 of 1968 in the 90th Congress, and on February 16 and 17 and March 9 and 10 of 1970, in the 91st Congress. At both sets of hearings support was heard from witnesses representing all parts of the political spectrum as well as from representatives of a great variety of organizations.

Senator Randolph was the first witness at the hearings in the 91st Congress. He described his efforts since 1943 on behalf of granting 18-year-olds the vote. He said that allowing participation by these younger voters would have the beneficial result of forcing us all to take a "fresh look" at our political system. He pointed out that the history of this country has to a great extent been a history of efforts to expand the franchise and to expand the political base of our democratic processes. He said:

"We should extend our base by giving to the young people not only the opportunity, but I repeat again and again, the responsibility for this active, this full participation. The future in large part belongs to young people. It is imperative that they have the opportunity to help set the course of that future."

Former Presidential Assistant Theodore Sorensen brought to the Subcommittee’s attention the conclusion of the Cox Commission which studied the student disruptions at Columbia University. That Commission called the present generation "the most intelligent," the "most idealistic,” the "most sensitive to public issues,” and with a "higher level of social conscience than preceding generations." Sorensen described the question of whether to lower the voting age as raising a "moral issue." He said: "For the very essence of democracy requires that its electoral base be as broad as the standards of fairness and logic permit."

Dr. W. Walter Menninger testified in support of lowering the voting age as a representative of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. He pointed out that the Commission in its final report had recommended a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18. Dr. Menninger also reminded the Subcommittee about the statement Senator Mansfield had made during the Subcommittee’s 1968 hearings: "The age of 21 is not simply the automatic chronological door to the sound judgment and wisdom that is needed to exercise the franchise of the ballot." He went on to point out that it is at 18 that young people traditionally "try it on their own," and "become responsible for themselves and others." It is at 18 that "the citizen has fresher knowledge and a more enthusiastic interest in government processes." Dr. Menninger explored the experiences other jurisdictions have had with lowering the voting age. He said that "nothing in the recent history of states which allow those under 21 to vote has indicated that the college-age vote is irresponsible or 'radical.' And he pointed out that, according to the studies of the 1963 Commission on Voting, "where 18-year-olds were allowed to vote, they voted in larger proportions than the remainder of the population." He believed that this evidence supported his thesis that lowering the voting age would allow the younger voters to take an active part in the system when they are still subject to the "stimulation" of courses in citizenship and American history and reverse the presently poor turnout of voters in the 21 to 30 category.

Dr. s. I. Hayakawa, the President of San New York. Francisco State University, stated that "lowering of voting age is just one of many measures that are necessary to involve young men and women from 18 years onward more and more into the life of government, of business, of the world of work in general, so that they have decisions to make that count in the world." He said that the vote, aside from its role in the democratic process, had a "symbolic meaning." For the young citizen, voting is "like an initiation rite, acknowledging adulthood."

Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst conveyed President Nixon's views about the wisdom of lowering the voting age. He said:

"America's 10 million young people between the ages of 18 and 21 are better equipped today than ever in the past to be entrusted with all of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. Their well-informed intelligence, enthusiastic interest, and desire to participate in public affairs at all levels exemplifies the highest qualities of mature citizenship."

Kleindienst also pointed out to the Subcommittee that those States that have had experience with voting at 18 have found that "their experience with young voters has been constructive and positive."

Former Attorney General Ram.sey Clark urged speedy enactment of a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age. He pointed out that while the United States has allowed more citizens to participate 1n the democratic process over the years, it has done so only "slowly, ineffectively, and begrudgingly." He thought that the amendment should be passed "in the name of fairness and justice." And he added: "But there is a more urgent reason. That reason is need, and that need is to involve the young people in our processes and to learn the message that they have to tell us,” Mr. Clark believes that by letting young people vote soon after high school we can "involve them in our system" and "keep them in meaningful participation in the system."

Senator Goldwater appeared before the Subcommittee and said that as a result of his repeated travels to universities in every part of the country over the past few years, he is convinced that "this generation of young people is the finest generation that has ever come along." He said, "to give a direct answer, I see no reason, from the point of judgment, why our young people should not be allowed to vote, and I am talking about 18- year-olds, in State as well as Presidential elections .... I have confidence in these people."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy said in his testimony that:

"I believe the time has come to lower the voting age in the United States, and thereby to bring American youth into the mainstream of our political process. To me, this is the most important single principle we can pursue as a nation if we are to succeed in bringing our youth into full and lasting participation in our institutions of democratic government."

Dr. Margaret Mead, the noted anthropologist, appeared before the Subcommittee and particularly emphasized the fact that today's young people "are not only the best educated generation that we have ever had, and the segment of the population that is better educated than any other group, but also they are more mature than young people in the past." Testimony was heard and statements were received from individuals representing countless organizations, including: Youth Franchise Coalition; National Education Association; American Federation of Teachers; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; American Civil Liberties Union; the American Jewish Committee; and the Association of the Bar of the City of On March 13, 1970, three days after the hearings were concluded, the Senate passed the Voting Rights Act of 1970, which contained a provision lowering the voting age to 18 1n all elections by statute. In its meeting of July 28, 1970, the Subcommittee reported the 18-year-old vote constitutional proposals to the full Judiciary Committee, with the understanding that they would remain in the full Committee pending the outcome of the Supreme Court test. The Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell came too late in the Congress to allow action by either House before the end of the Session.

D. The Voting Rights Act of 1970

After the first series of 18-year-old voting hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments in the 91st Congress, Senator Kennedy suggested that Congress might have the constitutional power to lower the voting age in all elections by statute, thus making a constitutional amendment unnecessary. Senator Mansfield-joined by Senators Magnuson, Kennedy, and other supporters--introduced such a provision as an amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1970, which was then being debated by the Senate.

The Subcommittee immediately began a second series of hearings, devoted primarily to this issue. Support for lowering the voting age by statute was heard from a series of Witnesses, including Senators Kennedy and Goldwater. The Subcommittee also studied the views of a number of experts in constitutional law. Professor Archibald Cox of the Harvard Law School, a former Solicitor General of the United States, took the position that:

"States in which the voting age is twentyone put those who are 18, 19, and 20 in a separate class from those who have reached their twenty-first birthday. Under the Fourteenth Amendment the question is whether the classification is reasonable or arbitrary and capricious. Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court would sustain such a State rule in the absence of federal legislation. Under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, the Congress has the power to make its own determination.

'If Congress upon reviewing these and related facts should find the classification invidious under contemporary conditions, the Court, if it adhered to Katzenbach v. Morgan, should sustain the legislation."

Professor Cox and his Harvard Law School colleague, Professor Paul Freund, later pointed out:

Katzenbach v. Morgan recognizes that under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has the power---and we think the responsibility-to make its own investigation and findings on the constitutionality of state voting classifications, which is conclusive if the Court can "perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did."

"To limit Katzenbach v. Morgan to •policing state restrictions on ethnic minorities' is to ignore the fact that the equal protection clause, which Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce, condemns, in the words of the Supreme Court, 'any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or the selection of public officials.' Indeed, Section 5 is the primary, if not only source of authority for eliminating all literacy tests and reducing residency requirements as proposed by the Department of Justice."

After three days of debate, the Senate adopted Senator Mansfield's Amendment No. 545 by a vote of 64 to 17, on March 12, 1970. The Amendment added Title III-providing for an 18-year-old vote in all elections, Federal, State, and local, general and primaryto the Voting Rights Act of 1970. The bill passed the Senate the following day, March 13, 1970, and was returned to the House, where it was again debated on April 8. On June 17, the House accepted the Senate amendments.

The Voting Rights Act of 1970, Public Law 19-285, was signed by the President on June 22, 1970. At that time the President issued a statement indicating that he signed the b111 despite reservations about the constitutionality of lowering the voting age by statute. He gave his support for lowering the voting age by amending the Federal Constitution, concluding that: "The time has come to give 18 year olds the vote, as I have long urged. The way to do this is by amending the Constitution . The Constitutional amendment now pending before the Congress should go forward to the states for ratification now."

THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN OREGON V. MITCHELL

After passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1970, prompt Supreme Court tests of the constitutionality of the Act were sought by the Department of Justice, several States, and interested private parties. Four suits were finally consolidated by the Court for lation. determination of all major issues presented. Two of the suits, Oregon v. Mitchell (No. 43 Original) and Texas v. Mitchell (No. 44 Original) , were initiated by the States to invalidate Titles II and III o! the Act. The other two, United States v. Arizona (No . 46 Original) and United States v. Idaho (No. 47 Original) were brought by the Department of Justice seeking a declaration that the Act was constitutional and an order forcing the States to enforce the Act. The Court heard oral argument on october 19, 1970, and handed down its decision on December 21, 1970. Excerpts from a Library of Congress analysis of the case follow:

"The best capsullzation of the Court's resolution of the age reduction of Title m is probably to note that four Justices thought the Title wholly constitutional and four thought it wholly unconstitutional. Justice Black's resolution of the issue caused him to side with the former group insofar as federal elections were concerned and with the latter group insofar as state and local elections were concerned."

THE PROBLEMS OF DUAL-AGE VOTING

A. Illogical and morally indefensible

As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell, our 18-, 19-, and 20- year-old citizens have the right to participate in the choice of Federal officers--President, Vice President, senator and Congressmanbut they are precluded from taking any meaningful part in the selection of State and local officials. While as a matter of constitutional law the Court's decision may have been correct, the result is morally indefensible. There is no basis whatsoever in policy or in logic for denying these citizens the right to vote in State and local elections when they may vote in Federal elections .

All of the arguments in favor of lowering the voting age are equally as applicable to State and local elections as to Federal elections. If young people are mature enough to vote , they are no less mature on State and local issues. If young people have earned the right to vote by bearing the responsibilities of citizenship, they have borne no less of State and local responsibilities. If we need the energy and idealism of the young channelled into elective politics, we need it no less at the State and local level.

Moreover, many of the problems that most concern our younger citizens are largely matters of local and State policy: the quality of education at all levels; the state of the environment; planning and community development. In these areas, participation of the young in local and State elections is particularly appropriate and necessary, and their point of view especially valuable in devising responsible programs.

Finally, we live in a time of increasing interest in decentralization, revenue sharing and the merits of additional responsibility at the local level. We should not deny young people their share of such responsibility. We praise the efforts of local citizens• groups in working against pollution and other ills. Allowing younger citizens to vote would strengthen the process by which local progress can stimulate a broader renewal of the entire society. B. Confusion, delay, and the danger of fraud As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell, special, separate facilities and procedures will have to be developed for y oung e r voters who are eligible only to vote in Federal elections. This is not a small or isolated difficulty. Only three states-Georgia, Kentucky, and Alaskarnow allow their 18-year-olds to vote in State and local elections . The o t her 47 States will have to deal specially with at least ten million potential voters; in most States the number of younger voters !s close to 10 percent of the State ' s previous vo t ing age population. separation of voters into two classes will have to be done in a t least two different s t ages , at the time of registration and each time the v o t ers come to the polls. When a regi s trant a p pears at t he local election board office, the clerk will have to determine initially wh i ch class of voters the registrant belon g s to and put him in the proper file. In most c as es it will be necessary to have at least two complete registration lists. Many of the State officials who are responsible for supervising this type o! operation complained about the difficulties of establishing procedures to transfer registrants automatically from the Federal-only list to the Stateand-Federal list once the registrant becomes 21. Most voting lists are not now maintained in order of birthdate. Nor are the clerks used to transferring voters-on a regular basisfrom one status to another.

Some State registration laws will cause trouble. In South Carolina, for example, each voter is issued a voting certificate which wm describe the type of election in which he may vote. These voting certificates cannot be changed under present law to reflect the registrant's eligibility to vote 1n State elections once he turns 21, unless the registrant appears personally-after his 21st birthday and before the next election-to have his certificate amended. The Chairman of the Richland County Board of Registration fears that there will be "dissatisfaction and resentment" on election day.

There will be even more chance of confusion, delay and fraud on election day. Louisiana State Attorney General Jack Gremillion predicted that there would be "chaos and confusion" in the next general election-a fear shared by many election officials. John D. Rockefeller, IV, Secretary of State of West Virginia, said that the "crux of the problem" will relate to "the confusion which will be created at the polling place on election day." He indicated that "the added responsibilities passed on to the election officers . . may . create a jumble of confusion."

lt will be necessary to identify and separate out the younger voters from those eligible to vote in all elections. In areas where there is registration, it will be necessary to go through the separate lists and check off each vote_ . A few areas of the country do not require registration, and in such areas it will be necessary to verify not only the identity and residence of each voter, but also his exact age.

Once the voter's age is determined, the poll workers will have to give out the proper ballot or direct the voter to the proper voting machine. Poll workers generally do not receive much training and are expected to have difficulties adapting to overly complicated new procedures. A memorandum prepared for the Secretary of State of Minnesota noted that "election judges . . are not apt to be the people who most readily understand the new and complicated regulations that will result . " and concluded that giving proper instructions at the polls "w111 be a nightmare at best . "

Voting machines are used today in more than half of all polling places, and are used exclusively in many areas of the country. Some election officials have reported that their voting machines simply cannot be adapted to service both types of electors simultaneously. Amalia Tara, the Election Attorney of the Connecticut Secretary of State's Office has predicted that it would not be "feasible" to permit both younger and older voters to use the same machines. In Nevada the Legislative Counsel Bureau predicts that it would probably be necessary to use paper ball o ts in t he ci t ies which now rely on voting machines.

Other election officers have been informed that it would be possible to "lock out" the State and local elections by pulling a special lever each time a younger voter came to use the machine. If this system were used, of necessity there would have to be an attendant to guard each machine and adjust the machine so that no voter could cast votes in any race for which he was not qualified. But this type of complication-like any added complexi t y-suggests the possibility o! added confusion and added mistakes-­ whether brought about by fraud or simple error.

Many election officials in areas which now use voting machines have decided that this constant rea.djustUlg of the voting machines--even 1f possible-would be impracticable and prone to fraud, and therefore unacceptable. Some election officials-for example, in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Shelby County . Tennessee-are considering the use of a separate machine for the younger voters only in each voting place. It has been suggested that it might be necessary to rely on paper ballots for 18-year olds in many jurisdiction&-including the States of Michigan, Montana, and North Dakota and the City of Chicago. Paper ballots, of c o urse, have been abandoned in many jurisdictions because they increase the likelihood and ease of vote fraud. And the usual problems associated with any paper ballot system will be exacerbated in those areas which rely heavily on machines, because the elaborate vote counting and fraud prevention procedures and safeguards were largely abandoned when the switch to machines took place. It will be necessary to reinstate these costly procedures and hire people to count and protect paper ballots whenever they are used.

Even where paper ballots are now used, a special ballot will have to be printed up and handed out to the right voters, thus adding even more confusion to the proliferation of such ballots-with separate ballots for referenda and the like-which now inundate the polling places.

One almost certain result of the dual-age voting confusion will be increased delay on election day. It will take more time because the two classes of voters must be separated in some manner. Moreover, it will take more time to administer two separate means of voting-whether by machine or paper ballot--than one. And delay at the polls inevitably results in diminished voter turnout, reduced political participation, contrary to the en ti re thrust of voting reform efforts. James C. Kirkpatrick, the Secretary of State of Missouri, indicated that "probably most important of all" was the fact that "the confusion may well result in long lines at the polling places on election day," causing voters "to decide against voting rather than be forced to stand in line for a long timeespecially in bad weather."

A few States are at least considering the possibility of avoiding some confusion and delay by keeping the younger voters out of the usual polling places-requiring them to vote either in centralized locations or by absentee ba.llot. But this type of alternative has fostered criticism on several grounds. At least one voting official has criticized this type of segregation of the younger voters because it would give them less of a sense of participation in the election system, and they should not be removed from the heart of the process.

Moreover, it would seem unfair to force the young voters to undertake special burdensobtaining absentee ballots, or traveling to one centralized location in each city, for example-in order to exercise their right to vote. And requiring all younger voters to undertake special burdens to exercise their franchise might will serve to dissuade them from participating in the election. Absentee ballots might have to be filled out before the election, and obtaining them might require going through a good deal of bureaucratic red tape. The travel to a centralized voting place might be impossible for many young people. Indeed, to force younger voters to go to greater pains 1n order to exercise their right to vote is at least inconsistent with the purpose of the Voting Rights Act, which sought to encourage greater political participation on the part of the young; such segregation might even amount to a denial of their 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the laws in the exercise of the franchise.

C. Added costs to the States

The views of most State election officials are summed up in a comment by Oregon Attorney General Lee Johnson, who characterized dual-age voting as "an intolerable administrative burden on the States," a burden that "will result in considerable cost to the taxpayers." There are basically two types of expenses which will be involved, initial expenses for new physical equipment required to handle two classes of voters, and the ongoing expenses of sustaining and maintaining two sets of registration books, election supervisors, and the like.

The estimates of actual cost resulting from dual-age voting vary widely among States. Many State and local officials are just beginning to appreciate the problems involved and to canvass the possible solutions. But the information and estimates now available from election officials suggest that the nationwide cost involved is no less than 10 million to 20 million dollars-and may in fact amount to substantially more.

The largest costs will stem from the need to purchase new voting equipment. A majority of votes cast in America today-all of the votes in some States, like Connecticut-­ are cast on voting machines, many of which cannot be modified to "lock-out" certain votes. New voting machines cost approximately $2,000 apiece. In the interest of the greatest accuracy, a separate machine should probably be provided in each polling place so that no administrative errors would allow an under-21 voter to vote in a State or local election. An expenditure of $2,000 or more per voting place would entail an enormous initial cost of implementing dual-age voting-1.3 million dollars in Connecticut, 3.5 million dollars in New York City.

Even for jurisdictions prepared to meet such costs, there are dangers if the issue o! voting age is not quickly resolved. For it takes time to get approval of purchase orders, finance the purchases and receive delivery of such a great number of machines. It is not altogether clear whether sufficient voting machines could be produced or modified in time for the 1972 elections-even 1f the States and localities were to move without further delay.

Because of the enormous cost involved in purchasing new voting machines, the great majority of jurisdictions can be expected to rely on some lesser measures, either machines modified to "lock-out" the vote of young people for State and local office, or paper ballots. But although this approach will reduce the cost of equipment required, it will increase the need for election clerks and officials in the polling places-not just once, but in every election. It is simply impossible to estimate the magnitude of this cost.

Moreover, a substantial increase in voting personnel will be required by dual-age voting even in jurisdictions relying on new voting machines. More clerks will be required to fill out the two sets of registration forms. More clerks will be required to handle the extra bookkeeping which will be involved when each under-21 registrant becomes of age and has to be transferred to the regular registration list . There will also be the problems and costs involved with the establishment of a. completely separate set of bookkeeping to account for these younger voters.

Each jurisdiction will have to spend more on informational campaigns to inform their voters about the new complications and registration procedure. Additional ballots will have to be printed and kept track of. Each polling place , furthermore, will have to hire additional personnel to separate out the younger voters from the others. And a greater effort would have to be made to train poll workers-who are generally hired for only one day and given little or no instructionin the complexities of the new procedures. Clerks will have to know which people are qualified to receive which ballots. Voting machine attendants will have to distinguish be t ween those under and over 21, and adjust the machines appropriately for each class.

In areas where voting machines are used for those over 21 and paper ballots are given to those under 21, it will be necessary to institute a completely new ad lltional system to count paper ballots and t protect against misuse and fraud.

At this early date, it is im possible to estimate the additional expenses brought on by dual-age voting with any great certainty. But several elections officials did attempt to give rough estimates of the cost their departmen t s would be facing under this new procedure. A few examples follow:

Paul Marston, Recorder of Maricopa County-including Phoenix-Arizona, predicted a possible expense on the order of $60,000 resulting from dual-age voting.

California State Assemblyman John Briggs reported that, according to the California Secretary of State, it would cost more than 1.5 million dollars to implement dual-age voting in California. The Registra-Recorder of Los Angeles County has estimated that "dual age voting will cost approximately $400,000 to $500,000 additional."

Mrs. Gloria Schaffer, the Secretary of State of Connecticut, has estimated that the State may have to spend $1,300,000 on voting machines alone to implement dual-age voting. In Tilinois, Secretary of State John W. Lewis estimated that there would be a 40 to 50 percent increase in election costs because of the need to keep two sets of registration books, two sets of ballots, and the like. The chairman of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners puts the extra cost for his city alone at between $150,000 and $200,000. The Indiana State Election Board has predicted that it will cost $170,000 for separate registration facilities, and for the printing and casting of paper ballots.

In Iowa dual-age voting could cost $125,- 000 to $150,000, but Secretary of State Melvin D. Synhorst added that if voting machines had to be purchased this figure "could rise considerably higher."

According to Allen J. Beerman, the Secretary of State of Nebraska, the implementation of Oregon v. Mitchell could easily result in a 30 percent increa.se in election costs-an additional $300,000.

New Mexico Secretary of State Betty Fiorina expects the cost of implementing dualage voting to total approximately $200,000.

Maurice J. O'Rourke, the President of the New York City Board of Elections has stated that such a dual-age voting procedure "would cost the city $5,000,000 minimally. We would need 1,500 new voting machines, which cost $2,000 each, and we would have to spend at least $2,000,000 for additional permanent personnel to set up and maintain the two sets of registration books necessary for two categories of voters."

Ward Fowler of Oklahoma's State Election Board, has predicted extra costs arising from dual-age voting of "$50,000 to $150,000 per election year."

Rhode Island relies heavily on voting machines. Therefore, Secretary of State August P. LaFrance expects that additional expense could total nearly "two million dollars."

Director of Elections Jack M. Perry of Shelby County, Tennessee, which includes Memphis, has made a "rough estimate" that the extra. expenses of dual-age voting would amount to "around $800,000."