LANSING – House Democrats stuck another blow for bringing more people into our democracy and increasing government participation by reporting two bills out of the House Committee on Ethics and Elections on Wednesday that will allow 16-year-olds to pre-register to vote.
The Committee, chaired by House Majority Floor Leader Rep. Kathy Anger, D-Dundee, reported House Bill 4261, introduced by Rep. Lesia Liss, D-Warren, and House Bill 4337, introduced by Rep. Robert Jones, D-Kalamazoo, the bills out to the full House Floor.
Chris Thomas, director of the state Bureau of Elections, testified in support of the bills, and he said when a 16-year-old goes to the Secretary of State’s office for their driver’s license, they would be allowed to pre-register to vote. Once the person reaches age 17 and a half, they would be sent their voter ID card. They would be allowed to vote in the election occurring in the year they turn 18, not on their birthday, which is existing state law.
The only no votes were cast by two Republicans on the committee: Rep. Kim Meltzer, R-Clinton Township, and Rep. Kenneth Kurtz, R-Coldwater. However, neither gave any reason for opposing it.
Some Republicans have resisted any effort to increase voter turnout, such as their opposition to no reason absentee voting, approved by the House earlier this month.
8 comments:
The socialist democrats just keep coming up with ideas that are the dumber than the last idea.
Kids are already permitted to vote when they reach the age of 18. While there are some that are aware enough to make an informed decision, the majority are not mature enough.
These socialist democrats have way too much time on their hands if they are coming with silly things like this.
Maybe they would be better off learning how to count by ones on the votes that currently take place rather than trying to add more minors to the list of the voting rolls.
Once again, brett, there is no such thing as a “socialist” Democrat in this country, and that is just a fascist Republican talking point. Yea, what could be more dumber than trying to get more people involved in the Democratic process?
You are wrong once again, brett; according to the head of the Bureau of Elections, you can vote in an election in the year you turn 18. Funny, you can go to Iraq when you’re 17, but you’re whining about them being too immature to vote.
I don’t see anything wrong or silly with trying to make it easier to vote, increasing voter turnout and giving more people a voice in how their government is run. I’m still waiting for a reason for anyone to oppose this.
You're an airhead. You cannot join the miliary at the age of 17 unless you have parental consent.
Do you understand that? Without parental consent. That means that a 17 year old is not mature enough at the age of 17.
Name one person and prove that they are 17 that is in Iraq.
You must be 18 to vote now. If your birthday is one day after the election, you don't get to vote.
Your argument is silly. All American citizens should be eligible to vote once they reach the age of 18. Not illegal aliens. Not children under the age of 18. I'm not even convinced, even after all of these years, that 18 year olds should be allowed to vote. We managed to get the vote using the argument that we were old enough to fight for our country in Vietnam, but that doesn't mean that an 18 year old is mature enough to vote.
Lowering the age to vote only lowers the standards of informed elections. It's bad enough that those in charge of the elections, adults, are not able to count votes one at a time.
This is stupid, which really does fit you.
I’m well aware that you can’t join the military at 17 unless you have parental consent, brett. What’s your point? Are you honestly telling me no one can be 17 and be in Iraq? I can’t name one person in Iraq right now that is any age. I joined the Navy at 17, and I turned 18 on my first deployment in Japan.
You may be right about the 18 voting part, but the Director of Elections said at the hearing that you are eligible to vote if you turn 18 in the year of the election. The bill analysis says “A person who pre-registered would become a “registered elector” at age 17 1/2, and would become eligible to vote on his or her 18th birthday.” I’ll concede that one for now.
Who said anything about illegal aliens? The argument is as valid now as it was in the Vietnam era: if you’re old enough to fight for your country, you’re old enough to cast a vote for those who are sending you to fight.
I’m still waiting for your argument why you would oppose this. It seems like you’re trying to make the silly argument for increasing the voting age to 21, and that has nothing to do with this bill.
That is stupid, which really does fit you.
First he argues against 18 y/o being allowed to vote, then he argues for it.
Boggles the mind.
OK, Guru - 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote.
Should we also let 16-year-olds smoke? I know you don't want anyone to smoke (neither do I), but as long as smoking's still legal, if we're setting the age of maturity at 16, shouldn't they also be allowed to smoke?
I have to disagree with you, brett, I don’t think 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote. I never said that, and I don’t know anyone who has ever advocated for that. I also support the age to buy cigarettes remain at 18. Yes, I don’t think anyone should smoke, but if you must, don’t pollute the lungs of the majority of people who do not smoke.
To be honest with you, I don't think guru is that interested in 16-year-olds.
Post a Comment