A constitutional amendment proposal now before the Legislature would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they will be turning 18 by the time of the next general election. We think this is entirely unfair to 2-year-olds.
Supporters of this leftist fad want this not only for primaries in state contests, which in New Hampshire are held less than two months before the general election. They want it for our first-in-the-nation Presidential Primary, which might be held close to a year before the general election.
A young Bernie Sanders’ supporter, now director of operations for the state Democrats, testified how “disheartened” he was to know that despite all his hard work for Bernie, he wasn’t old enough to vote for him in the 2016 Presidential Primary.
Ethan Moorehouse said that every day during that campaign he “would encounter students who refused to learn about the candidates, never mind volunteer for one, because they knew their voices wouldn’t matter.”
If the New Hampshire Primary has proven anything, it is that engaged young people (think Eugene McCarthy vs. Lyndon Johnson) can indeed make their voices matter even if they can’t vote. If students refuse to learn about presidential elections and issues unless they can vote, why would we want them voting?
But why are the advocates for this drawing the voting line at 17? A lot of tots and tykes are involved in politics. What happens when they find out they are being shortchanged? What becomes of all the politician-kissing-babies photos if the babes refuse to play ball?
The way things are headed with early voting and absentee ballots, We expect there will soon be a move to register voters as soon as they are born. (Not the unborn, of course. That would offend the pro-choice crowd.)