In discussions around expanding voter turnout, many different policy interventions come up—same day voter registration, automatic voter registration, making Election day a holiday. But what if the best way to change the likelihood of people voting actually came in changing their first voting experience?

There’s a body of evidence that shows that voting for the first time at 16, rather than 18, increases the chances of people becoming life-long voters. In this second episode in our series on strengthening our democracy, we look at how this change can play a role to improve outcomes for all.

In this episode, host Sarah Edwards (MPP ’20) explores efforts to expand the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds. She speaks with Brandon Klugman, Campaign Manger of Vote16 USA and Arianna Nassiri, a high school student in San Francisco leading the push to lower the voting age for SF local and school board elections.

Curious to learn more? We suggest the following:

1. Read this article on the outcomes related to lowering the voting age
2. Explore Ayanna Pressley’s efforts for federal legislation
3. Stay up-to-date on San Francisco’s upcoming campaign

Transcript

Brandon: [00:00:04] Their research on voting being a habit is really clear, and it's also really clear that 18 is not a great time to be in that habit. 16 is a better time to pick up the habit. 16 and 17 year olds are more likely to cast their first vote and then enter our democracy as folks that already have that habit of voting established.

Sarah: [00:00:31] In this series of episodes, we're talking about policies that strengthen our democracy when we're thinking about this. Many of these policies are tied to our ability to vote and about increasing opportunities to make voting easier for people. But what if we actually changed when people first gained that right to vote? What would those outcomes look like? How would that help make our democracy stronger? I'm Sarah Edwards and this is Talk Policy To Me. Today on the podcast, talking at 16 year olds and voting. Across the country, there are several efforts working to expand voting rights to people under age 18. Some types of campaigns already in place include one, 17 year olds voting in the primary if they'll be 18 years old in the general election. California doesn't do this, but many other states do. Two, 16 and 17 year olds voting in their school board election. We saw this pass in Berkeley in 2016, as well as in many other locations across the country. Three, 16 and 17 year olds voting in all local elections. Right now, this mostly only happens on the East Coast. The one approach that's been discussed at multiple levels but has not yet been passed is 16 and 17 year olds gaining the full right to vote, the right to vote in presidential elections, gubernatorial elections and all propositions. In this episode, I talked with a few different experts. I talked with Brandon Klugman from Vote16, an advocacy organization that supports local efforts to expand voting rights to Young. I also spoke with Arianna Nassiri, who's a 17 year old youth leader on Vote16 S.F., which is San Francisco's campaign to expand the right to vote to Young people. So of all the possible changes that we can make to make our democracy stronger or to expand voting rights to people, why this one? Why would changing the voting age make our democracy healthier? I'll turn to both of our experts to find out. First up, let's hear from Brandon.

Brandon: [00:03:04] Yes. So we know that our democracy works best when more people participate. And unfortunately, voter turnout in the United States is really, really low when we compare ourselves to other advanced democracies. And we know that it's even worse when we look not only at presidential elections, but in midterm elections and even worse when we look in many places at local elections. Most big cities we know and there's a group project on it called Who Votes for Mayor. Most big cities and even medium sized or smaller cities will celebrate if they had 20% turnout for a mayoral election. And we know that that doesn't equal representative democracy. And so when we think about how we can increase voter turnout and participation in our elections in the long run, we have to recognize the fact that voting is a habit. The research has made that really clear, that whether or not somebody votes in the first election, they're eligible for it because they're really a long way toward establishing whether they're going to be a habitual, lifelong voter who participates every single election or whether they're going to be a habitual non voter who sits out election after election, at least throughout the first several cycles, until they maybe pick up the habit a little bit later in life. And unfortunately, 18 is not a good time to establish that habit. And most folks are in some sort of transition. That makes it really, really unlikely that they're going to cast that first vote. And it's not surprising that the turnout rate for 18 year olds is really low. But at 16, on the other hand, we know that 16 year olds are, for the most part, in environments where they're much more likely to cast their first vote. They're supported by family, by peers, by teachers studying civics in government at a school, or have already completed those classes earlier on in high school and middle school and in communities where they have strong roots. And so their research on voting being a habit is really clear. And it's also really clear that that 18 is not a great time to begin that habit. And we're really encouraged by the data that has been published from cities in the United States that have implemented 16 and 17 year old voting and from countries around the world that have implemented it on different levels, it's shown that premises true 16 is a better time to pick up the habit. 16 and 17 year olds are more likely to cast their first vote and then enter our democracy as folks that already have that habit of voting established. And so, you know, while the long term longitudinal data is yet to come, especially from the United States, we believe really strongly that our democracy will be stronger with 16, 17 year olds participating, and the participation in the long run will increase as a result.

Sarah: [00:05:55] This does make a lot of sense. But if we think about the fact that our system is generally resistant to change and we have a society that has these really specific markers about aging and adulthood and responsibility, I'm imagining there's a lot of pushback.

Brandon: [00:06:14] Absolutely. And I acknowledge that a lot of people are hearing about this idea for the first time. And a lot of people do have a gut reaction that's negative. You know, on first blush, it does sound to a lot of people like an idea that's a little bit out there. And, you know, anecdotes, experiences often come to mind about a certain memorable 16 year old, whether it's someone themself or someone they know. But when we actually look at the research on this, it's pretty clear that 16, 17 year olds are ready to vote. Voting relies on a decision making process that is referred to as called cognition. This is the this slow, deliberate, thought out decision making process. It's the same sort of decision making and thinking process that we would use if we were taking a math test. And when it comes to code cognition, the research is clear. The 16 year olds are just as developed and able to use their thought process as older folks who are eligible to vote. And what it's not as voting is not hot cognition. Right. Which is the other side of that coin. It's the high pressure, the impulsive decision making process. And that's where it's true that 16 year olds are not as good or as not are not as developed as older folks when it comes to high cognition situations. But the good thing is they're voting just like a math test is something that relies on code cognition, where we know 16 and 17 year olds are more than ready. And it's something that once it develops, it plateaus. It's not, you know, something that continues to become more and more advanced with each year of age. And beyond that, we also know that when it comes to civic knowledge, 16 year olds are right on par with age 21 when it comes to civic knowledge, Although we also are quick to mention that, you know, in this country we determined that and I think rightfully determined that avoiding is not voting rights, aren't, you know, tied to any display of knowledge or intelligence, which is as it should be. And so it's always important to remind folks of that as well. And then lastly, you know, a little less on the research, but more on lived experiences when young people are advocating for this issue. I cook to bring up that as 16 young folks are able to drive in, most states are able to work without restrictions on their hours. They're able to pay taxes on their income and do pay taxes on their income, are able to take care of their family members and in many cases and do take on responsibilities that are on par with, if not much more weighty than casting a ballot in a municipal election.

Sarah: [00:08:59] I might be concerned that we would expand the right to vote to young people in some locations not see a particularly high turnout among 16 and 17 year olds as voter turnout among young people generally is not very high. And then that might be used as a tool against future efforts. I asked Brandon about this fear.

Brandon: [00:09:20] Not every 16 year old is going to show up and that's okay. You know, most 18 year olds don't show up most 19, 20, 25, 30, 35 year olds don't show up either. And so I think that, you know, sometimes people do fall into the trap of, you know, pointing out, you know, themselves at a younger age or their children or some teenagers who they know and saying, you know, those people definitely aren't ready. Those people definitely aren't interested. And then why should we even do this? And, you know, I like to remind folks that it is you know, all we're doing is giving 16 and 17 year olds the opportunity to vote. And then, of course, by, you know, implementing civics education and voter registration and voter education and all that, we're putting them in a position to have all the information they need to feel ready to show up. But, you know, for those who aren't interested or who don't show up, sure, it's unfortunate, just like it is when any other age person doesn't show up to vote. But it's totally okay. And so I try to help people understand that, you know, we don't have to be worried about a smaller segment of young people who maybe aren't interested, because that's really no different than any other age group. Right now, Colorado had their first election in a presidential primary with 17 year olds voting only those who are going to turn 18 by their general. But it was the first time they even did that. And. Of the registered 17 year olds, 45% turned out. And of the registered 18 to 35 year olds, I think it was 35% showed up. So a whole ten points lower. And now all those 17 year olds, you know, that extra ten percentage points worth of 17 year olds who did cast their first ballot, you know, for the most part, while they're still in high school now, have that voting habit established and are much, much, much more likely to vote in the next general election, vote in the next midterm, vote in the next mayoral election, and carry that habit on throughout their lives.

Sarah: [00:11:32] So when we're talking about the specific efforts to change voting access for young people, it's really important to clarify how this works and why it happens in the way it happens. So to some degree, the reason that the changes approach differently in different places comes from the way that the laws are set up in that jurisdiction. So it's really based on state constitutions and what powers they give to cities. So some city councils are able to take action themselves and can just vote on it among the city council members. In other locations, it has to pass through a local proposition. And even in other jurisdictions, no changes can be made to who can vote until it happens at a state level. But regardless of all of this, changes at the federal level would open up a whole new set of doors and change things consistently across the country. Ayanna Pressley introduced legislation last year to lower the federal voting age to 16. While this wasn't successful, it opened up the conversation at that level and has provided new ideas and support to young people's campaigns across the country. Next up, we'll turn to one such young person and look at what it means to make this change at the level that we can today at the city level. I speak with Arianna Nassiri, a youth leader in San Francisco's effort to change the voting age.

Arianna: [00:13:01] So 16 would be a charter amendment to the San Francisco charter, which is striving to lower the local municipal voting age and proposition all elections and school board elections to 16.

Sarah: [00:13:13] We thought about how expanding the vote in a broader sense could make for a healthier democracy. But I'm curious about what that would mean in San Francisco itself. Here's what Arianna thought.

Arianna: [00:13:26] So the intention behind Vote16 is the kind of the democratic intentions behind it is the authenticity of our representativeness as an elector, as a municipal elector, in that San Francisco is a more progressive and more liberal city with also a younger demographic than the average city across America. But we're not seeing that translate into legislative and legislative action. And then also we're not seeing those numbers in the electorate. And initially, that was a question of, well, maybe young people just aren't turning out. But that's not entirely the issue. It's that. Policies being voted on by voters that it doesn't pertain to necessarily. So issues of access, educational systems, access, you know, municipal transport associations, those kinds of policies affect younger people in higher proportions than they do the people who are voting on them. So we're seeing an electorate that skews older, whiter and less progressive, voting on legislation that the people who would be impacted by it most directly are currently disenfranchised because they are simply not old enough to vote. So the intentions behind Vote16 is to expand the demographic to allow for more not all of that population, but more of that population to vote. There's this assumption that young people will not take voting seriously and they don't understand, you know, the history behind the system itself and what the importance and significance is of a vote on Election Day. But I think especially now with current events and we're seeing a rise in youth civic engagement more where there's a heightened awareness around the political maturity of young people and the awareness that with globalization and the access to news and media just by a touch of a couple of buttons. Young people are just as informed with regards to certain political processes as older people and therefore should have the right to vote.

Sarah: [00:15:25] So San Francisco actually had the same effort on the ballot in 2016, but it lost by a narrow margin. It feels like the world has changed dramatically in the last four years. But in particular, I'm curious what's different when it comes to this movement? I turn to 17 year old Arianna, who is 13 years old, this time at the last campaign.

Arianna: [00:15:47] So I think that was also one of the biggest issues of not necessarily the campaign in 2016, but just the initiative in general, is that it's hard as an older person to put yourself in a younger person's shoes. And like you were saying, so much has changed in recent years, and the childhood of an average American now is just completely different from the childhood of an American 10, 20, even 5, 10 years ago. And there's this just de facto statement of, Oh, well, when I was a kid, I, of course, wasn't mature enough to vote. So why should I assume that teenagers now are prepared to vote? And analysts argue that 2016 catalyzed this new wave of youth civic engagement nationally. We're seeing, you know, the March for Our Lives movement, the climate protest. We're seeing young people actively involved in politics. And of course, there have been historical campaigns where young people have been involved, but not to the extent that we're seeing it right now nationally. So I think that. It's difficult to put something on the ballot that, again, the people who are allowed to vote on it aren't necessarily being affected by it as much. But a discussion I've actually had with a lot of other voters is that you will be affected by it because the policy that's passed in your city will be affected by it more. So rather than me trying to convince you to vote yes, I would like to show you the numbers. So I will oftentimes show that, you know, the average age, the median age of a San Francisco voter versus the median age of a San Francisco citizen. And there's this ten year discrepancy between the two. And that ten years is a massive it's not just a marginal difference in terms of life experience. That's those are two completely different generations and one generation's just not being represented. So. And it's difficult to have this discussion with adults that simply want to assume that teenagers now are the same as teenagers ten, 20, 30 years ago. But for the adults who are willing to recognize the fact that a teenager in 2018, 2019, 2020 in America has a completely different level of civic engagement, political experience, and a teenager 20 years ago, that's a discussion that eventually leads to someone being more interested in the campaign. I wasn't too involved with the 2016 campaign, but just looking at the history of the campaign itself and how it was being run. Right now what we're seeing more is a level of intergenerational dialog between young people and current voters that just wasn't present in 2016, given, you know, the extremity of something like COVID 19. And we're seeing we're seeing a world now where it's age is not as much a factor as it is just humanity and citizenship and the rights of the citizen and given nation state. And we're seeing this level of intergenerational cooperation where young people are staying home to protect the lives of slightly more vulnerable older generations and older generations, having a level of gratitude towards those young people. And granted, of course, there are people on both ends of that of this dialog that are taking that for granted. So we're seeing young people, some young people not necessarily staying home. And then that, you know, as fuel to this fire. But for the most part, we're realizing now and this is somewhat cliche, but we're realizing now that we are all in this together and that everyone has the other person's best intentions at heart. And for something like Vote16, where it shouldn't be as polarizing as it is, because really the intention to Vote16 are to make sure that everyone has a seat at the table, as many people have a seat at the table as possible.

Sarah: [00:19:28] As we know that policies rarely work in isolation. In this case, it seems incredibly prescient. We're thinking about the related policies that might play into the success or failure of such an effort. I'm thinking about civics education, particularly as an incredibly pivotal point in this system. If one of the main arguments against young people voting is that they don't understand our civic systems well enough, why don't we just provide them with a better education to do so? Easier said than done. But Arianna has an inside perspective.

Arianna: [00:20:03] So I sit on the Youth Commission as the chair of the Civic Engagement Committee, and we've passed resolutions and we've urged the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Education to implement education in every classroom and also a very nonpartisan level of civics education, because I mean, nationally, when when 2016 campaign got a lot of press nationally and we heard all this backlash around, you know, San Francisco was trying to push more liberal voters into the pool. That's not what we're trying to do. That's actually the opposite of what we're intending to do, because what we want to do is make San Francisco elections more legitimate, representative of who they are representing. And if that means including more liberal voters, fine. But that's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to introduce more voters in general. And even if that means making the the electorate more conservative and less progressive per San Francisco standards, that's not something that we are trying to sway in one direction or another. Our intentions are to make it as representative as possible.

Sarah: [00:21:07] When I think about the most basic form of civics education or how we may talk about civics education with our parents, Schoolhouse Rock is the first thing that comes to mind. It's interesting, it's informative, but it doesn't really push people into engagement. I'm curious if we're thinking about civics education as it aligns with expanding the right to vote to young people. How would it have to go beyond Schoolhouse Rock? Here's Arianna's perspective about the role of Schoolhouse Rock and what we can do to bring that into the new millennium.

Arianna: [00:21:42] I mean, I grew up with Schoolhouse Rock as well. You know, I'm just a bill, only bill. But I of course, you'd have to go past Schoolhouse Rock. I think that you know it. Civics education. In terms of building a politically mature voter would entail discussing the history of elections in America. So what has led to what has shifted the electorate nationally and historically? So in terms of what lowered voting age 21 to 18, but then also discussing, you know, bringing a level of equity and inclusion into those discussions and discussing how race has played a part in our election system, how gender has played a part as well. So just making sure that these young people are aware of the importance of voting, I think that really engaging and exciting years, young people and whether this comes as I mean, there wouldn't be Schoolhouse Rock, but music and videos and some digital and engaging platform to get these young people excited. So it shouldn't be an archaic old school education system that we're just recycling and using. It has to be completely revamped to cater to the needs of these young people, keep it current, keep it engaging and enticing. Something that they can actively engage with. That's something that we look for.

Sarah: [00:23:02] Brandon had some really important thoughts to share about civics education as well. So Vote 16 is actually a part of Generation Citizen, which is an organization that advances action based civics education. So he's really familiar with the theory of change behind civics education and what it looks like to actually apply this well.

Brandon: [00:23:25] Unfortunately, civics has been, for the most part, devalued or under prioritized and in some cases pushed out of the classroom. You know, as schools are focused on reaching accountability metrics for other subjects, the good thing is that maybe the tide is turning and generations, citizen and other great leaders in education are doing really wonderful work to bring civics back in the classroom and make sure it's effective. When we look at what makes a strong civics education and we look at whether it goes beyond the their rote memorization goes beyond Schoolhouse Rock, when a lot of people think of civics, they think of the Schoolhouse Rock songs or they think of, you know, their experience and and maybe a pretty dull government class, memorizing how a bill becomes law, memorizing a few constitutional amendments, maybe memorizing, you know, a couple other things related to the process of elections or the Electoral College or something like that. And but what we found in what we do at Generation Citizen is that learning about government and civics is a lot more effective when it's action oriented and relevant to students lives in their local contexts. And so what we do is what we call action civics for students go through a semester long program where they discuss issues in their community that they face on a daily basis and choose one to focus on together as a class. Do a lot of research on that issue. That involves talking with local experts who work on it every day or who are experiencing or are affected by it, and then coming up with policy solutions, researching which policy solutions have been proposed or have even been experimented with, and then figuring out who is the decision maker on the issue. Is this a city council issue? Is this something where our state legislature has the power, or does my superintendent have the power over this issue? And then figuring out how we can engage with that decision maker to move the needle on the issue. And we find that by leading and supporting students through a process like that, where they, you know, learn who their decision makers are on the local level and get a chance to actually interact and engage with them. Those lessons about how government works and what our own roles are in the political process are a lot more sticky and a lot more effective than the sort of rote memorization that most people think of when they think about a civics class. And so, you know, we're really, really excited that schools are increasingly prioritizing it over the past few years and increasingly recognizing that it should be action based. And, you know, my ideal sort of world that I envision is one in which every student has the opportunity to learn about how their government works in that kind of hands on way, and then also has the opportunity to vote in their local election once they turn 16, because we know that their lessons in the classroom are most effective when they're relevant to our lives outside of the classroom. And action oriented civics certainly helps to make those lessons relevant outside the classroom. But I think there's nothing that would make it more relevant than by actually inviting young people into the voting booth on the local level once they turn 16.

Sarah: [00:26:51] At Talk Policy To Me, we know that policy is personal, particularly when it comes to voting. There's so much that's tied to your personal experience. I asked Arianna what this change might mean for her personally or for those close to her.

Arianna: [00:27:07] I think that I mean, at this point, simply having on the ballot alone has changed a lot in my life and in the lives of all the young people involved, as well as young people in San Francisco in general, because we're seeing this this realization that those 16, the legislation wrote 16 was entirely written by young people and was passed through the network of San Francisco Board of Supervisors and that the city attorney and eventually put on the ballot completely through the efforts of young people and the supporters that they garnered. So there's this new realization of the power and efficacy of the young citizen. And for me, this was a realization that completely shifted my viewpoint on San Francisco government and government in general and made me realize that policy is something that I am passionate about and it's something that everyone can be. I thought that it was a tight knit network of people that you're either born to or you're not. And we're starting to realize that that's not necessarily the case. And it's actually the opposite, where every United States citizen has the rights of the citizen and one of the rights of the citizen is to to actively be a part of their government. And that was a realization that myself and all the other young people involved, It really shifted our viewpoint and our impression of government as a whole. And it gives us hope that policy doesn't need to be as archaic as it's deemed to be, and that if we can have more legislation like Vote16. Not even necessarily pass, but just be put on the ballot. That in itself is a show of success. And for us, it's opened a lot of doors in terms of what can be done locally and nationally. Every young person in San Francisco and every young person nationally has been affected by legislation from the second that they were born, you know, indirectly or directly. Everything that happens in our lives is wholly dependent on the legislation that we see passed. And the more representative electorates are of the needs of the population, the more we'll see a symbiotic relationship between people and the government. And the government doesn't need to be this stigmatizing and polarizing force that some people love and some people despise. Really, the intentions of government is not to govern the people, but it's to represent the people and to help. Implement the needs of the population into legislation. So if we have a more representative electorate, we have a more representative government, and that results in more representative legislation. So for us is about 16 campaign. We hope that listeners and that people not necessarily just in San Francisco but across the country come to this realization that young people just want to be heard. And that's why we're putting about 16 on the ballot, is that we are ready to have a seat at the table. And we would be very grateful if we were given that opportunity.

Sarah: [00:30:25] As we're thinking about the suite of policies that can make our democracy healthier. This is one that will be really interesting to follow, both in terms of the outcome of this November San Francisco vote and in terms of the long term outcomes from the individuals who get the opportunity to vote prior to age 18. In our next full episode, we'll turn to another policy that might make for a healthier democracy. Stay tuned for that and for our upcoming COVID 19 short episodes, which we'll be releasing as soon as we can. Alongside this Democracy episodes. Talk Policy To Me is a production of the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy and the Berkeley Institute for Young Americans. Bora Lee Reed and Sarah Swanbeck are executive producers. Michael Quiroz is our sound engineer. Music heard on today's episode is by Pat Mesiti-Miller and Blue Dot Sessions. I'm Sarah Edwards. Stay safe and catch you next time.