Why Is the Chronicle Hating on SF Youth?

Chronicle editorial opposes the youth-led effort to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote . . . without ever talking to any of the youth leading the campaign.

In January, the San Francisco Youth Commission passed a resolution urging the Mayor and Board of Supervisors to put a charter amendment on the ballot to extending voting rights to 16 and 17 year-olds in San Francisco. On March 17th, Supervisor John Avalos — along with co-sponsors David Campos, Jane Kim, and Eric Mar — introduced a charter amendment to do so.

The next day the San Francisco Chronicle published a scathing editorial, titled “A Bad Idea in the Making,” opposing the proposed ballot measure. Typically, the Chronicle takes a deliberative process to its endorsements of ballot measures: talking with proponents and opponents, often scheduling meetings for both sides to present their cases to their editorial board. But this time, they never talked to any of the Supervisors or Youth Commissioners.

As a Legislative Aide to Supervisor Avalos, I’ve worked closely with the Youth Commission on this exciting idea, and I’ve been impressed by how sharp, articulate, and hard-working these young people are. (And as a member of the League of Pissed Off Voters, I’ve To see the Chronicle dismiss their hard work with a sloppy and condescending editorial made my blood boil. So I decided to respond to a few of the editorial’s lowlights:

The Chron says: The boosters aren’t an all-sides coalition looking for genuine cures to low turnout rates and election apathy. It’s a handful of progressive leaders whose fading power at ballot box has led them to a vote-grabbing gimmick.

This proposal was initiated by District 11 Youth Commissioner Joshua Cardenas last December. He had already written the six-page, footnoted resolution on Vote16 before he asked Supervisor Avalos for help in making the Charter Amendment happen. The Youth Commission unanimously passed the resolution, and fifty or more youth came to City Hall on Monday to kickoff the campaign. Here’s a clip of Anna Bernick and Anna He speaking at the rally:

The fact that the Chronicle Editorial Board dismisses the lead role of young people in this effort is exactly the type of ageism we are trying to address — the type of ageism Anna Ho describes at 10:17 in the video above.

The Chron says: Registrar of Voters John Arntz predicted the change could mean up to 13,000 more voters, based on the information supplied him by proponents. That’s a hefty voting bloc, considering 129,000 voters cast ballots last June in a 29 percent turnout.

That’s not the information we gave John Arntz! Our rough estimate is that there are about 13,000 16 and 17 year-olds in the City. (The census says there are 32,786 people in SF between 15 and 19. So 2/5ths of that is about 13,000.) But how many of them are U.S. citizens? And how many of those would register to vote? And how many would turn out to vote? Considering the 231,214 registered voters is 32% of the 725,224 adult population of the City, maybe we could expect 4,000 to 6,000 youth to register.

But whether it’s 13,000 more voters or 2,000 more voters, is it a problem to have more people vote??

The Chron says: The backers lean on arguments about driving licenses, jobs and legal responsibilities that a 16- or 17-year-old has. But there are also dividing lines when it comes to age, such as military service and drinking. These 18-and-above rules are based on the compelling evidence that younger teens lack the maturity and judgment that develops with age. Ask any parent.

Basing your argument on “Ask any parent” is not compelling evidence, it’s an ageist generalization. The Chronicle’s own story on the measure quotes psychology professor Laurence Steinberg saying, “there isn’t a single age at which an adolescent becomes like an adult for purposes of thinking through things. It really depends on the issue and domain.” The story continues, “Steinberg said studies have shown that regions of the brain important for logical reasoning are fully developed by the time people are 16. That’s not true for kids 15 and younger.”

The Chron says: The proposal also creates logistical problems because it would apply only to city races and ballot measures.

While this measure would require the Department of Elections to create a separate ballot for voters under 18 , they told us they wouldn’t need any new databases or equipment, and they’re confident that they can manage the Vote16 process with their existing staff.

The Chron says: The lower voting age idea joins other flawed fixes . . . . So-called reforms and protections are really about political advantage, not a level playing field.

Opponents of Vote16 who claim that it’s a “power grab” by progressives offer no evidence of why we should expect 16 and 17 year-olds to vote one way or another. Again, the Chronicle discounts the intelligence of our youth by doubting their independence. The Youth Commission believes youth have their own opinions and as evidence, they cite an analysis of the Scottish independence referendum where 44% of teens voted differently than their parents.

The Chron says: There are no quick gimmicks to increasing voter engagement.

Absolutely. Getting people to become lifelong voters is hard work. The supporters know that to make Vote16 successful, we will have to make voter education a regular part of high school civics curricula. Research shows that voting is habitual and the earlier people start voting, the more likely they are to be lifelong voters. That’s why we hope Vote16 will eventually help reverse the distressing downward trend in voter turnout.

In my biased opinion, the Chronicle’s editorial seems rushed, sloppy, ageist, and frankly, conspiracy theorist. In contrast, proponents of Vote16 back their arguments up with a tremendous amount of political and scientific research. Here’s are a few of the most compelling reasons:

• Research shows 16 and 17 year-olds are mature and educated enough to vote.
• 16 and 17 year-olds have adult responsibilities, but they don’t have adult rights.
• 16 is a better age to teach youth how to vote than 18.
• Vote16 will increase voter turnout — both by making more young people lifelong voters, and through the “trickle up” effect of engaging the parents and families of youth voters.

If you still have questions, I urge you to take a few minutes to do a little research. A lot of smart people have done a lot of thinking about this. Commissioner Cardenas’s six-page resolution has twenty footnotes!

These leading voting research and advocacy groups have all compiled research on Vote16:

• The Center for Voting and Democracy
• Tufts University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement
• National Youth Rights Association

And lastly, I’ll leave you with the FAQ the Youth Commission made for Vote16. Hopefully you’ll take this important idea more seriously than the Chronicle!