[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000187","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/amendments\/26\/essays\/188\/suffrage-age\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003ESuffrage\u2014Age\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Amendment XXVI\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESection 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ESection 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Vietnam War provoked many draft-age\u0026nbsp;youngsters and like-minded adults to proclaim, \u201cIf\u0026nbsp;eighteen- to twenty-year-olds are old enough to die\u0026nbsp;for their country, they\u2019re old enough to vote.\u201d That\u0026nbsp;slogan is commonly cited as the impetus for the\u0026nbsp;Twenty-sixth Amendment. The truth is somewhat\u0026nbsp;less colorful. The amendment was crafted primarily\u0026nbsp;to overturn the holding of a fractured Supreme\u0026nbsp;Court in \u003Cem\u003EOregon v. Mitchell\u003C\/em\u003E (1970). That case had\u0026nbsp;invalidated an attempt by Congress to regulate\u0026nbsp;voting age in state and local elections. Essentially,\u0026nbsp;the Twenty-sixth Amendment did what Congress\u0026nbsp;could not constitutionally do.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EEarlier in 1970, Congress had amended the\u0026nbsp;Voting Rights Act of 1965 (\u003Cem\u003Esee\u003C\/em\u003E P.L. 91\u2013285, 84 Stat.\u0026nbsp;314), lowering the minimum voting age to eighteen\u0026nbsp;in all federal, state, and local elections. When the\u0026nbsp;revised law was challenged, primarily on federalism\u0026nbsp;grounds, Justice Hugo L. Black wrote that Congress\u0026nbsp;had no power to change the voting age in either\u0026nbsp;state or local elections. Four justices in two separate\u0026nbsp;opinions agreed with Black\u2019s conclusion regarding\u0026nbsp;voting age, although they disagreed about other\u0026nbsp;issues in the case (literacy tests and residency\u0026nbsp;requirements). \u003Cem\u003ESee\u003C\/em\u003E also 42 U.S.C. 1971 \u003Cem\u003Eet seq\u003C\/em\u003E. The\u0026nbsp;remaining four justices argued that Congress could\u0026nbsp;change the minimum voting age in both state and\u0026nbsp;local elections using its enforcement power under\u0026nbsp;Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThus, Black\u2019s opinion, which no other justice\u0026nbsp;joined in full, left us with the rule that Congress\u0026nbsp;had the authority to extend the vote to eighteen-year-\u0026nbsp;olds in federal elections but not in state or local\u0026nbsp;contests. The Twenty-sixth Amendment changes\u0026nbsp;that.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAfter \u003Cem\u003EOregon v. Mitchell\u003C\/em\u003E, states unwilling to set\u0026nbsp;their minimum voting age at eighteen would have\u0026nbsp;to maintain separate voting systems for federal and\u0026nbsp;nonfederal elections. The great majority of people\u0026nbsp;thought that eighteen-year-olds should have the\u0026nbsp;right to vote, and the states ratified the Twenty-sixth\u0026nbsp;Amendment in record time\u2014a mere 107 days\u0026nbsp;after Congress proposed it.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAlmost immediately, the courts had to\u0026nbsp;resolve issues peripheral to the new amendment.\u0026nbsp;For example, did the right to vote for a candidate\u0026nbsp;include eligibility to sign and vote for initiative\u0026nbsp;petitions? In \u003Cem\u003EColorado Project-Common Cause v.\u0026nbsp;Anderson\u003C\/em\u003E (1972), a state court found that enactment\u0026nbsp;of the Twenty-sixth Amendment entailed\u0026nbsp;participation by young voters in the entire political\u0026nbsp;process\u2014initiatives included.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ECould states restrict voting by minors by denying\u0026nbsp;them residency at schools or other places away\u0026nbsp;from their parents? In \u003Cem\u003EJolicoeur v. Mihaly\u003C\/em\u003E (1971),\u0026nbsp;the California Supreme Court found that denying\u0026nbsp;minors voting residence where they actually\u0026nbsp;lived\u2014whether at school or elsewhere\u2014violated\u0026nbsp;the Twenty-sixth Amendment; the Court held that\u0026nbsp;the amendment emancipated minors for all purposes\u0026nbsp;related to voting. In the same vein, a New Jersey\u0026nbsp;court added that the Twenty-sixth Amendment\u0026nbsp;secured the rights of bona fide campus residents\u0026nbsp;to register in the counties where their campuses\u0026nbsp;were located. \u003Cem\u003EWorden v. Mercer County Board of\u0026nbsp;Elections\u003C\/em\u003E (1972).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EOn the other hand, a state constitution could,\u0026nbsp;without offending the Twenty-sixth Amendment,\u0026nbsp;institute twenty-one as the minimum age for holding\u0026nbsp;elective public office. \u003Cem\u003EOpatz v. City of St. Cloud\u003C\/em\u003E\u0026nbsp;(1972). The amendment does not mandate that\u0026nbsp;persons under twenty-one years of age be seated as\u0026nbsp;jurors under state law. \u003Cem\u003EJohnson v. State\u003C\/em\u003E (1972); \u003Cem\u003ECommonwealth\u0026nbsp;v. Cobbs\u003C\/em\u003E (1973); \u003Cem\u003EState ex rel. McNary\u0026nbsp;v. Stussie\u003C\/em\u003E (1974). Nor does the amendment cover\u0026nbsp;an Indian tribal election, unless the secretary of\u0026nbsp;the interior called the election to ratify or amend\u0026nbsp;a tribal constitution, in which case the election is\u0026nbsp;federal and the amendment applies. \u003Cem\u003EWounded Head\u0026nbsp;v. Tribal Council of Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge\u0026nbsp;Reservation\u003C\/em\u003E (1975); \u003Cem\u003ECheyenne River Sioux Tribe v.\u0026nbsp;Andrus\u003C\/em\u003E (1977).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Robert_Levy.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/www.cato.org\/people\/robert-levy\u0022\u003ERobert Levy\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Chairman of the Board of Directors, Cato Institute\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000187-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000187-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000187-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000187-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWilliam H. Danne, Jr., \u003Ci\u003EAnnotation: Residence of Students for Voting Purposes\u003C\/i\u003E, 44 A.L.R. 3d. 797 (1972)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EKenneth J. Guido, \u003Ci\u003EStudent Voting and Residency Qualifications: The Aftermath of the Twenty-sixth Amendment\u003C\/i\u003E, 47 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 32 (1972)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000187-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJolicoeur v. Mihaly, 5 Cal. 3d 565 (1971)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EColorado Project-Common Cause v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 1, 495 P.2d 220 (1972)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJohnson v. State, 260 So.2d 436 (Miss. 1972)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOpatz v. City of St. Cloud, 293 Minn. 379, 196 N.W.2d 298 (1972)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWorden v. Mercer County Board of Elections, 61 N.J. 325, 294 A.2d 233 (1972)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ECommonwealth v. Cobbs, 452 Pa. 397, 305 A.2d 25 (1973)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EState \u003Ci\u003Eex rel.\u003C\/i\u003E McNary v. Stussie, 518 S.W.2d 630 (Mo. 1974)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWounded Head v. Tribal Council of Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 507 F.2d 1079 (8th Cir. 1975)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ECheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Andrew, 566 F.2d 1085 (8th Cir. 1977)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000187-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000002\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EHouse of Representatives\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000018\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EElection Regulations\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000078\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPresidential Electors\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000080\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPresidential Vote\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000171\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EApportionment of Representatives\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000175\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ESuffrage\u2014Race\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000177\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPopular Election of Senators\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000180\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ESuffrage\u2014Sex\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000185\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPoll Taxes\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]