essential for voting not so much because of its connection with information as that its absence cuts a man off from genuinely participatory roles in institutions. Men who cannot read cannot easily take care of their own affairs. The extension of the franchise to Negroes has been slow in the South because race there has served as a fair indicator of the ability to participate in institutions as more than mere benefactor or servant. Property, sex and race have now been excluded as qualifications for voting because they no longer serve to distinguish involvement in institutions from its absence. But the literacy requirement has been attacked only because it has been abused by Southern politicians.

Thus voting in fact serves as an essential instrument for the realization of institutions, and is in fact so viewed. Democracies are in this way distinguished from merely socialist or citizen-oriented governments. And the voting characteristic of a functioning democracy requires voters possessing developed political wills. Democracy will not work in a community of peasants or primitives. And the adulteration of the vote with the desires and abstract ideals of citizens who are not yet fully committed participants in the main institutions of actual social and economic life cannot but hinder democratic processes.

These points have been made and labored because they bear immediately on the nature of the intelligence requisite for effective participation in democratic processes. What kind of intelligence is this?

Surely it is not the intelligence associated with the retention of complex information or facility in abstract reasoning. It is not the intelligence measured by "I.Q." tests. The voter is not required to deal with the complex, for which we need specialists. His opinion is not sought on the intricacies of funding the national debt, international affairs or the management of the post office. Indeed, this "intellectual" intelligence often stands in the way of political insight professors and scientists of recognized ability in their fields often show surprising naivete on political issues. The abstract thinking characteristic of intellectual pursuits when turned to the political, which it looks upon as an object for analysis, is likely to be shallow and unrealistic and inclined to go off in extreme directions-right or left. The type of thinking distinctive of political intelligence is, by contrast, not abstract.

The type of thinking that is required for intelligent voting is the type of thinking that anyone does when he thinks in terms of (not merely about) the institutions that enable him to act as an individual. This is less a matter of ascertaining means and ends than of recognizing structural demands, defects or deficiencies in an order or organization. We do not vote as to whether we should be in Vietnam: we vote for candidates who are aware of the implications of our presence there and in Asia, or, from another perspective, who are aware of the problems involved in maintaining the balance of power among nations. This kind of thinking cannot be taught. It simply develops as one is involved in the institutions of social and economic life.

It would seem, then, that the argument that modern high school students know more about social and political matters, even if true, establishes nothing concerning their ability to do the kind of thinking that qualifies a voter for the task he is called upon to perform, to provide that judgment that the free society depends upon him to provide. Hence it offers nothing in support of the suggested change.

There are no sure tests for the ability to think intelligently in political affairs. The best we can do is to accept as evidence for it that a man has participated in those aspects of actual living in which political and social intelligence develop. A man who owns property, earns his own living, has a family, shares in civic projects and responsibilities, etc., thinks in a way quite different from a schoolboy, who merely thinks about the institutions of the practical life and does not think himself as realized in them. He may, of course, think in this manner with respect to his club, his friends, his family or his school; but this is insufficient to the social and economic issues of a civil election.

It seems safe to say, then, that the intelligence desirable in a voter cannot be expected to develop any earlier than the age when a person becomes involved in some appreciable degree in the activities involving institutions we enter into political life to maintain. There is no reason to believe that for the average citizen this comes about any earlier than it ever did at any other time. Twentyone years is, if anything, a low estimate. So far, at least, no one has advanced an adequate argument that it is not.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PHILIP A. HART, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, FEBRUARY 17, 1970

Thank you for the opportunity to endorse the amendment before this Subcommittee. For many years, I have sponsored proposals and supported other efforts to lower the voting age.

I am in good company. Georgia and Kentucky already have granted the franchise to eighteen-year-olds. Alaska permits its citizens to vote at nineteen: Hawaii at twenty. Our last four Presidents and many members of Congress have endorsed this reform for the entire Nation.

Recently, the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, on which I was privileged to serve, reached the same conclusion. Dr. Menninger, a colleague on that panel, has presented the Commission's recommendation to your subcommittee.

One point stands out, it seems to me, in debate over the voting age. This amendment should not be adopted merely to placate protest or as a desparate gesture to bridge the so-called generation gap.

Nor should the controlling consideration be that eighteen-year-olds may risk their lives in carrying out foreign policies over which they have no control. To overemphasize this inequity would do all our young adults-including those who may serve in battle an injustice. The main reason they should vote is simply that they are able to do so intelligently and responsibly.

Men and women between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one with whom I have had contact in the past five or ten years are certainly qualified to vote. They have recently had the benefit of courses in American government, national and world affairs. They also are exposed to the increasingly sophisticated analysis of the issues and the candidates provided by the publishing and broadcasting media. Our whole society is much better informed than it used to be, but the difference is perhaps most marked among young adults. Information is only one factor. Today's eighteen-year-olds are concerned as well as knowledgable. They have repeatedly shown-through participation in community projects, conservation efforts, tutoring programs and election campaigns-their commitment to resolving the issues which confront us. Can anyone seriously question that these young citizens, regardless of political persuasion, are vitally concerned about our society or that the vast majority seek to effect change through the electoral system?

Opponents of the eighteen-year-old vote may concede that today's youth are well educated and eager to be heard. "But," they maintain, "that does not ensure mature judgment; youth is impetuous."

These critics should remember that eighteen- and nineteen-year-olds hold no monopoly on rash judgments, biases or emotionalism in the political arena. While at my age I would hardly disdain the value of experience, anyone familiar with the hurly-burly of election campaigns must admit that biases or emotionalism affect voters of all ages.

Moreover, for the reasons I have already mentioned, our youth are increasingly capable of perceptively appraising the candidates.

A related objection is that eighteen-year-olds are sometimes said to be in an unstable period of life: their future is unclear and they have not yet established a sufficient stake in the policies that govern society.

In our technology society, however, the same may be said for many of our present younger voters who are still in school or the service and who have not yet settled into a job or family responsibilities. At the same time, many persons over eighteen but under twenty-one are earning their living. Those in school are often helping to defray their education. Some of these working taxpayers are married and heads of families.

In addition, most states hold eighteen-year-olds fully subject to the penal laws precisely because they are deemed adults able to decide upon and be responsible for their actions.

Here again, the age of twenty-one is no magical dividing line, whatever its usefulness or other legal purposes. Rather, we must determine whether a slightly lower voting age requirement would be more responsive to the abilities of our young citizens, and will help our leaders to be more responsive to the future needs of the Nation.

I have faith in the overwhelming majority of these young men and women, who are working constructively and thoughtfully to revitalize our democratic processes and to shape a better America. I urge most emphatically, therefore, the adoption of this amendment.

STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, BEFORE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, AMENDMENTS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE, FEBRUARY 17, 1970

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to present my views before your Subcommittee in support of lowering the voting age.

I am proud to be able to count myself as a cosponsor of S. J. Res. 147, introduced by Senator Jennings Randolph, long an advocate of enfranchising our youth, to provide a Constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18. The reasons for approving such an amendment are many, and I would like to point out what I feel are the most significant arguments which have been put forth in favor of a lower voting age.

The present minimum voting age of 21, adopted by a majority of the States, is an outdated remnant of medieval custom and English common law; in the Middle Ages it was the age at which a young male was considered to have reached maturity and when knighthood could be bestowed. This age limitation has no relevance to our present society. The critical change in the role of our young people in today's society occurs when they graduate from high school, usually at age 18. This is the time when many young adults cease their education and go into the job market; others enter the armed forces; and still others go on to higher education. It is the time when civics and history lessons are fresh in their minds-when they are motivated to fulfill their role as citizens. Instead, however, we deny these young people the vote and insist they wait three years until much of this early motivation has worn thin. Studies have shown that individuals at age 21 and several years after that have a very low voter turnout record. Part of the reason for this phenomenon is their inability to comply with residency requirements, but a large part of the reason can be attributed to disinterest. I believe that if we granted the vote to recent high school graduates—that is, 18-year-olds-motivation would be present, and their voter turnout record would be good.

Today, all authorities agree that high school graduates are better educated than ever before in the history of our country. Scores of tests indicate that the 18-year-olds of today are more concerned and more aware of national and local issues than are their elders. On the subjects of government, politics, and the function of the electoral system time and time again young adults score higher than their parents. The young men and women reaching maturity in the past decade have also shown a greater desire to participate in the political processes of the nation than ever before. I recognize that some of the more militant and demonstrative youths have caused considerable distress among their elders. But I believe the so-called "trouble-makers" are a small fraction of the whole, and the vast majority of young people are mature and concerned citizens with high ideals and hopes. They have a great desire to express their enthusiasm and energy through the ballot box. What better way is there to curb even the more militant young people than to channel their spirits in a constructive direction by allowing them to vote? I believe it is essential that we allow an expression of feelings within the established political framework. If we do not, I fear that even greater numbers of America's young people will become frustrated, disillustioned, and alienated from our society.

Today, more people of high school age are actually in school than ever before; 85 per cent of our high school-age youth is now in high school compared to only 30 per cent fifty years ago. In 1920, fewer than 600,000 of college-age young people were enrolled in college (only 8 per cent of the age group). Today, 5 million, or almost half, of this age group are attending institutions of higher education. Clearly, 18-year-olds are not only more intelligent but they have an education far superior to that of their parents.

There is also new evidence available in the field of child development and psychology indicating that emotional and intellectual maturity parallel physical growth. It is a well known fact that adolescents today reach physical maturity at a considerable early age than they did even at the turn of this century. Our child psychologists tell us that at the age of 18, emotional and intellectual growth is largely completed. Thus, 18-year-olds are not only more intelligent in a factual sense but they have a greater intellectual maturity than the youth of the past.

One of the oldest arguments put forth in favor of a lower voting age is "If they are old enough to fight and die for their country, they are old enough to vote." Despite the triteness of this phase, I believe there is great truth in these words. Our Selective Service System is authorized to draft youths at

age 18. Young men under arms are carrying out the policy of the nation without the privilege of participating in the determination of that policy or in the selection of their Commander-in-Chief. At the present time especially, when so many men below the age of 21 are serving or have already served their country in the Vietnam conflict, it is not right to deny the franchise to these people.

Eighteen-year-olds today can not only be drafted to fight for their country but they can be tried before adult courts on both criminal and civil charges; they may hold adult jobs; they may pay taxes; they may marry and raise families they may operate automobiles: in many States they may sue and be sued, make wills, and purchase insurance. In almost every respect 18 is the age when responsibility as a citizen begins-not 21.

In more than thirty countries, 18-year-olds have been given the franchise. In four States in this country laws have been passed to permit individuals below the age of 21 to vote. There is no evidence to indicate people under 21 years of age have been responsible for electing representatives of either the far right or the far left. No radical policies have been initiated as a result of enfranchising 18-year-olds. The fear of some that young people, if given the right to vote, will elect irresponsible leaders does not seem justified.

Mr. Chairman, the Gallup poll has for a number of years demonstrated that a majority of the American people support a lower voting age. Every President of the United States since Harry S. Truman has at one time or another publicly proclaimed his support for lowering the voting age. The National Education Association, with almost one million members, has supported lowering the voting age to 18 for almost twenty years. The majority of political scientists and constitutional lawyers in this country have indicated support for a lower voting age. Many other organizations and individuals across the nation have called for a Constitutional amendment to enfranchise 18-year-olds.

In the last ten years virtually every State in the nation has had at least one bill pending in its State legislature to lower the voting age. A proposal to amend the Constitution to lower the voting age to 18 has been introduced in the U.S. Congress every year since 1942, when Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg of Michigan made the first proposal.

The time for action on this measure is long overdue. The public issue has been debated for a century and a half, and there has been a loud cry for such an amendment to the Constitution for thirty years now. We can afford to wait no longer. I strongly support S. J. Res. 147, to enfranchise 18-year-olds, and I urge this Subcommittee to take favorable action on this resolution as soon as possible.

Thank you.

STATEMENT BY VIRGIL L. MUSSER, PRESIDENT OF THE WOOSTER (OHIO)
COLLEGE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

TO PREVENT ANOTHER 1968-THE NEED TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE

This country cannot take another 1968. A year when disenfranchised young people sought to express their views and were turned into a national disgrace. It appears, however, that we will continue to have the strife and violent dissent of 1968 because the political institutions of this country have failed to recognize young people as a community whose views are important. We are doing the same thing to our young people that we have done to other minority groups. We use them to further the political and economic goals of this country and deny them a voice. The success of many of this country's volunteer programs, VISTA, the Peace Corps and others depended upon the active participation of young people. We tell young people they can participate .. can be part of the electoral process by working hard for the candidates they support, yet we deny them the single most effective forum we have, the voting booth.

The Democratic process in this country is made up of a number of political institutions which revolve around the electoral system. While the major political parties have made token moves to open their ranks for youth participation and have offered at least some verbal support for the state campaigns to lower the voting age, in terms of actual work, very little has been

done. In 1965, as president of the Young Democrat Clubs of America, I helped to initiate a nation wide campaign to lower the voting age. The first response was good. We collected endorsements from people of both political parties, had many offers of help and lots of best wishes. However, the endorsements turned out to be tokens, the offers of help disappeared and we were left with the best wishes. Our campaign floundered from lack of organization and funds. Then as now, many politicians and would be politicians use the issue to attract the much needed manpower the high school and college students can supply. Yet, these same people fail to include young people in campaign policy sessions and when elected the issue of lowering the voting age takes a back seat to the more popular issues of the day.

In working with students at Wooster College, I have found they are not seeking ways of avoiding responsibility, they are looking for ways to assume more. They are not insisting that only their demands be heard, but that all demands be given a fair and equal hearing. The parents of this generation are to be congratulated on the fine job they have done in rearing their children. Today's young people are better educated and more mature than any other previous generation. They are asking the important questions of today and are seeking the answers. We know from experience that this generation must make itself heard. We must give them a platform that will be listened to by those in policy making positions. We must give them the right to vote.

To continue to deny young people the vote in a society where voting is the most effective means of expression is inviting them to find other ways to be heard. While we can hardly afford the riot and confusion of 1968, we can hardly expect anything else.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A.

RESOLUTION ON EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE TO 18-YEAR-OLDS

(Based upon the Policy Statement "Equal Representation is a Right of Citizenship" adopted by the General Board, June 3, 1965.)

Adopted by the General Board on January 22, 1970, Tulsa, Oklahoma. The franchise is the fundamental instrument of every citizen's participation in a democratic society. Over the history of our nation, this principle has been recognized in the progressive extension of the right to vote to classes of citizens to whom it had previously been denied. Major milestones in this movement include the 15th, 19th and 24th amendments to the Constitution providing respectively that the right to vote will not be denied by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, of sex, or of failure to pay a poll tax or any other tax.

Today, there is growing recognition of the injustice done to our citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 who must carry many of the responsibilities of adult citizenship but who are generally denied the right to vote:

Most notably they are subject to the requirements of the Selective Service System, of duty in the armed forces, and of fighting in our wars, all at great personal cost and risk to health and life.

Especially as this age group becomes economically more independent and important, they bear a large share of the burden of taxation.

In many jurisdictions they are treated as adults rather than juveniles in the courts and can enter into various kinds of legal covenants without the permission of a parent or guardian.

Those between 18 and 21 in our day are generally well informed and concerned about the issues confronting our nation, as the high degree of political awareness and involvement of college students and other youth attests. Both in the interest of justice to these young people and so that the country as a whole may profit from their contributions to its political life, their concern should be given the opportunity for expression through all the channels of political participation especially the vote. The General Board of the National Council of Churches supports and encourages efforts at both the federal and state levels to extend the franchise to citizens between the ages of 18 and 21.