Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unconstitutional Age-Based Discrimination in the Vote Applied on Account of Young Age

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Young People’s Human Rights and The Politics of Voting Age

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 6))

  • 1481 Accesses

Abstract

The absolute bar in electoral law against the vote for under 18 s has become not just a legal, but a cultural norm in many jurisdictions internationally. That cultural norm, however, is inadequate justification for denial of the basic inherent human right to universal suffrage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Blais A, Massicotte L and Yoshinaka (2001). Deciding who has the right to vote: A comparative analysis of election laws, id, reference 66 at p. 52

    Google Scholar 

  2. Breen C (2006). Age discrimination and children’s rights: Ensuring equality and acknowledging difference, id reference 362 at p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Prince v Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gosselin v Quebec (Attorney General), id, reference 371 (Opinion of Justice L’Heureux Dube) at para 51.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Oral Argument of Jay Alan Sekulow on Behalf of the Minor Plaintiffs, id, reference 382 (Re McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission, id, reference 362).

    Google Scholar 

  6. id at pp. 24–25.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Teixeira RA (1992). The disappearing American voter. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. at p. 3 cited in Campbell, DE (2006). Why we vote: How schools and communities shape our civic life, id, reference 388 at p. 186.

    Google Scholar 

  8. id

    Google Scholar 

  9. Id at pp. 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, id, reference 364

    Google Scholar 

  11. Id at p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Justice Brennan (concurring and dissenting opinion) Oregon v Mitchell, id, reference 317.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Id at pp. 52–53.

    Google Scholar 

  14. id

    Google Scholar 

  15. Parijs PV (1998). The disenfranchisement of the elderly and other attempts to secure intergenerational justice, id, reference 387 at pp. 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Id

    Google Scholar 

  17. Id at para 29.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (1970). Testimony of Senator Edward M. Kennedy 9 March, 1970 before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments regarding lowering the minimum national voting age to 18, id, reference 323.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 14th Amendment (equal protection clause) http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection. Accessed 25 December, 2009.

  20. Id

    Google Scholar 

  21. Parijs PV (1998). The disenfranchisement of the elderly and other attempts to secure intergenerational justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 27: 292–333 at p. 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Id at p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Id (Opinion of Justice Stewart under section III).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Massachusetts Child Labour Law, section 69. Cited in Prince v Massachusetts, id, reference 423 (summary).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Brief of the Appellants in Opposition to Motion of Appellees Emily Echols et al., for Summary Affirmance at pp. 1–2 (McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission et al., id, reference 362).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Id, reference 92, para 81 excerpted from the OHRT judgment cited at p 283.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hinrichs K (2002). Do the old exploit the young? Is enfranchising children a good idea? European Journal of Sociology, 43: 35–58 at p. 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Id

    Google Scholar 

  29. Id, reference 92 at pp. 283–284 (para 84 excerpted from the OHRT judgment).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Id

    Google Scholar 

  31. Majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court delivered by the Chief Justice with respect to miscellaneous Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Title III and IV provisions at para 3) (In McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission et al., id, reference 362).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Id at p. 7

    Google Scholar 

  33. Oregon v Mitchell, id, reference 317.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Id

    Google Scholar 

  35. Id at pp. 1006–1007

    Google Scholar 

  36. Breen C (2006). Age discrimination and children’s rights: Ensuring equality and acknowledging difference. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden at p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hinrichs K (2002). Do the old exploit the young? Is enfranchising children a good idea? Id, reference 340.

    Google Scholar 

  38. U.K. Electoral Commission (2004). Minimum age limits and maturity. In Age of electoral majority: Report and recommendations, U.K. Electoral Commission, London at p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Statement by Justice Breyer excerpted from questions posed during the oral argument of Jay Alan Sekulow on behalf of the minor plaintiffs, id, reference 382.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Id

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (section 2) http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am9. Accessed 29 December, 2009.

  42. Brief of the Appellants in Opposition to Motion of Appellees Emily Echols et al., for Summary Affirmance id, reference 366 at p. 3 (re McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission et al., id, reference 362)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Id

    Google Scholar 

  44. Justice Breyer statement excerpted form the oral argument of Jay Alan Sekulow on Behalf of the Minor Plaintiffs, id, reference 382 (Re McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission, id, reference 362).

    Google Scholar 

  45. id at pp. 21–22

    Google Scholar 

  46. Oregon v Mitchell, id, reference 317.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Brief of the Appellants in Opposition to Motion of Appellees Emily Echols et al., for Summary Affirmance, id, reference 366 at pp. 11–12 (McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission et al., id, reference 362).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Brief of the Appellants in Opposition to Motion of Appellees Emily Echols et al., for Summary Affirmance, id , reference 366 at p. 12 (McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission et al., id, reference 362).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Stammers N (1999). Social movements and the social construction of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 21: 980–1008 at p. 998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Id at para 30.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Joint Brief on the Merits of Appellees Emily Echols and Barret Austin O’Brock, et al., Urging Affirmance of the Judgment that Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ,Section 318 is Unconstitutional. (In McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission et al., id, reference 362).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Campbell DE (2006). Why we vote: How schools and communities shape our civic life. Princeton University Press, Princeton at p. 184.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Parijs PV (1998). The disenfranchisement of the elderly and other attempts to secure intergenerational justice, id, reference 387 at pp. 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Id, reference 92, para 96 excerpted from the OHRT judgment cited at p. 289.

    Google Scholar 

  55. McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission 540 US 93, 2003, US Lexis 9195

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rock the Vote website http://www.rockthevote.com/about/. Accessed 1 January, 2010.

  57. Gosselin v Quebec (Attorney General) [2002] 4SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84 (Justice Bastarch dissenting) at para. 227.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004). id, reference 267.

    Google Scholar 

  59. (US) Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 cited in McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission (Opinion delivered by Justices Steven and O’Connor with respect to Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, Titles 1 and II joined by Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer JJ., id, reference 362).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Campbell DE (2006). Why we vote: How schools and communities shape our civic life, id, reference 388 at p. 186

    Google Scholar 

  61. Id at p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Oral Argument of Jay Alan Sekulow on Behalf of the Minor Plaintiffs, id, reference 382 (Re McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission, id, reference 362).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Sekulow JA (2003). Memorandum for the American Centre for Law and Justice (12 December, 2003). ‘Significance of McConnell v. FEC as Related to Student Free Speech’ at point 5. http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/031212cfrmemo2.pdf. Accessed 29 December, 2009.

  64. Id

    Google Scholar 

  65. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, id, reference 364.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cultice WW (1992). Youth’s battle for the ballot: A history of voting age in America, id, reference, 38 at p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Breen C (2006). Age discrimination and children’s rights: Ensuring equality and acknowledging difference, id reference 362 at p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Arzem v Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) [2006] O.H.R.T. No. 17 (excerpted and analyzed with case notes in Grover S (2008). The child’s right to legal standing, id reference 92.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Id

    Google Scholar 

  70. Grover S (2008). The child’s right to legal standing id, reference 92.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Id

    Google Scholar 

  72. Id at p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  73. id at p. 21

    Google Scholar 

  74. Caplan B (2007). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  75. McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission, id, reference 362.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, id, reference 364

    Google Scholar 

  77. Oregon v Mitchell, id, reference 317.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Parijs PV (1998). The disenfranchisement of the elderly and other attempts to secure intergenerational justice, id, reference 387 at p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Justice Brennan (concurring and dissenting opinion) Oregon v Mitchell, id, reference 317.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am9. Accessed 29 December, 2009

  81. id

    Google Scholar 

  82. Id

    Google Scholar 

  83. McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission et al., id, reference 362.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Oregon v Mitchell, id, reference 317.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Campbell DE (2006). Why we vote: How schools and communities shape our civic life, id, reference 388 at p. 186

    Google Scholar 

  86. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, id, reference 364.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Id

    Google Scholar 

  88. Id

    Google Scholar 

  89. Id

    Google Scholar 

  90. Id at pp. 49–50.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Oral Argument of Jay Alan Sekulow on Behalf of the Minor Plaintiffs (in McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1674arg. Accessed 27 December, 2009.

  92. McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission, id, reference 362.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Grover S (2007). Democracy and Children’s Rights. In Grover S (2007) Children’s human rights: Challenging global barriers to the child liberation movement, id, reference 43 at pp. 59–103.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Id at pp. 40–41.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Id at p. 11

    Google Scholar 

  96. Id

    Google Scholar 

  97. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act [2002] Pub. L. No. 107–155, 116 Stat. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Id

    Google Scholar 

  99. Id at p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Committee on the Rights of the Child (2003). General Comment Number 5 (General measures of implementation for the Convention on the Rights of the Child) at para 12.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Id at pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Id at para 31.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Oral Argument of Jay Alan Sekulow on Behalf of the Minor Plaintiffs, id, reference 382 (Re McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission, id, reference 362).

    Google Scholar 

  104. McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission, id, reference 362.

    Google Scholar 

  105. id (Gosselin v Quebec (Attorney General), Majority opinion given by Justice McLachlin at para 31.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Id at p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Id

    Google Scholar 

  108. Pechstein M (1996). Zur verfassungsrechtlichen Möglichkeit eines Familienwahlrechts. In: Karl HF, Bernhard J (Eds) Familienwahlrecht— pro und contra (Grafschaft:VektorVerlag), 7–21. Cited in Hinrichs K (2002). Do the old exploit the young? Is enfranchising children a good idea? Id, reference 340 at p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  109. McConnell (United States Senator) v Federal Election Commission et al., id, reference 362.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (1970). Testimony of Senator Edward M. Kennedy 9 March, 1970 before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments regarding lowering the minimum national voting age to 18. http://tedkennedy.org/ownwords/event/voting_age. Accessed 24 December, 2009 at para 26.

  111. Id

    Google Scholar 

  112. id at p. 21

    Google Scholar 

  113. Battle K (2007). Child poverty: The evolution and impact of child benefits. In: Howe RB, Covell K (Eds) Children’s rights in Canada: A question of commitment, id, reference 94, pp. 21–44 at p. 24

    Google Scholar 

  114. Id at p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Oregon v Mitchell, id, reference 317.

    Google Scholar 

  116. 14th Amendment (equal protection clause), id, reference 328.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Id

    Google Scholar 

  118. Hinrichs K (2002). Do the old exploit the young? Is enfranchising children a good idea? Id, reference 340.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Id at p. 6

    Google Scholar 

  120. Id

    Google Scholar 

  121. Id at pp. 50–51.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Id at p. 7

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fac. Education, Lakehead University, Oliver Road 955, P7B 5E1, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

    Prof. Sonja C. Grover

Authors
  1. Prof. Sonja C. Grover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonja C. Grover .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grover, S.C. (2011). Unconstitutional Age-Based Discrimination in the Vote Applied on Account of Young Age. In: Young People’s Human Rights and The Politics of Voting Age. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8963-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation