I think one of these days we should look to the problem that we face in America, and that is that medical science is seeing to it that people are growing older and older and older, and maintaining a major proportion of the voting rights in this country, and I think those of us who represent the middle of the age spectrum, and I use that rather politely, we find ourselves in need of some help sometimes and I think that help may well come from the political vitality of the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old voter. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much, Senator Cook. You refer to age brackets. I want you to know, and Senator_Bayh to know, that I have no problem with the generation gap. I can get along very well with younger people, and I want the record to so indicate. I realize that there should be no postscript to what I have said, except to tell you gentlemen who sit here that I am excited about this subject in February 1970, just as I was excited about this subject in 1942. I believe in it. I do not place myself at all in the role of a crusader, but I Senator BAYH. I wish you would. Senator RANDOLPH. I believe that now is the time, and I think the hour is striking now for 18-year-old voting. I believe that the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, will report this resolution favorably and that the full committee under the chairmanship of Senator Eastland will report the resolution and that we will have it in the Senate of the United States. I know the problem in the House to a degree. I did not mean to negate the challenge over there when I mentioned the 22 Representatives who participated in the special task force. But, 22 Representatives joined together and said they believed in 18-year-old voting. I have talked with scores of Members in the other body in which I had the responsibility to serve, and I believe that they are more favorable to this proposal than ever before. I recognize the problem of the committee in the House, but I believe that we can overcome the obstacles that are before us. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to those witnesses who join in testifying on this resolution. I personally and officially am grateful that they could come here for these hearings. I want to thank also the perhaps 150, young persons who are present in this hearing room this morning who believe that they can exercise with a certain amount of good judgment the responsibility of the American ballot. Thank you very much. Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Senator Randolph. Our next witness is no stranger to Washington-Mr. Theodore Sorensen. Ted Sorensen, former Special Counsel to President Kennedy and now residing in New York, a member of the bar and a distinguished scholar, has taken time from his busy schedule to join with us. Mr. Sorensen, I am somewhat reluctant to have to point out that we are going to have a full committee meeting in about 5 minutes. Now, this in no way limits your statement, but I thought perhaps we could get through your prepared statement and then we are going to have to have a short recess for the committee meeting. I do not anticipate a long committee meeting, but I think that inasmuch as the Supreme Court nominee is before the committee it will make up in its intensity what it lacks in length, and I do not want to miss that experience. STATEMENT OF THEODORE E. SORENSEN, FORMERLY SPECIAL COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY Mr. SORENSEN. I do not want you to miss it, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAYH. So, if you will proceed we are very grateful that you are with us this morning. Mr. SORENSEN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cook, I am pleased to appear before this subcommittee to urge an amendment to the Federal Constitution lowering the voting age to 18. As one who has had considerable personal experience and firsthand experience with young people and their interest and ability in the political process, I congratulate you and Senator Randolph for pushing this important measure. This is one of those ideas whose time has come. This is not a partisan matter. Frankly I regard as speculative all of the talk that such a step would help or hurt any particular party, philosophy, or candidate. Nor is this an unprecedented measure. Many statutes already recognize age 18 as the effective dividing line between children and adults with regard, for example, to employment, financial affairs, property, crime, alcoholic beverages, motor vehicles, and family relations. This is instead a moral issue. For the very essence of democracy requires that its electoral base be as broad as the standards of fairness and logic permit. "They alone deserve to be called free," wrote the non-property-holders of Richmond in their historic petition to the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829, "who participate in the formation of their political institutions." Thus the real question in a free country is not "Why should they vote?" but "Why shouldn't they?" A case can be made for excluding felons, aliens, lunatics, and children. But 18- to 20-year-olds do not deserve to be categorized with these groups. I do not support the traditional proposition that the physical and mental characteristics required for military service are proof of ability to exercise the franchise, that is, that any one who is old enough to fight is old enough to be allowed to vote. But I do strongly support the proposition that the development of an informed social conscience, sense of public responsibility, and discriminatory intelligence deserves the franchise, that is, that any one who is old enough to vote is old enough to be allowed to vote. Nor is the draft age wholly irrelevant, Mr. Chairman. The brunt of fighting and dying in a prolonged and unpopular war falls with particular force on those between the ages of 18 and 21. To them the debate over Vietnamization, reescalation, and negotiation is not just a matter of party politics or abstract foreign policy-it is literally a matter of life or death. Yet they have no voice whatever in the process which determines whether they live or die. If taxation without representation was tyranny, then conscription without representation is slavery. This Nation has extended the franchise in the past when it recognized that for voting purposes there was no longer any valid reason to distinguish between the rights of landowners and the landless, whites and Negroes, men and women. No one ever said that these new voter groups were identical or even equal to the old, merely that they could no longer be fairly excluded. The arguments heard now that the new group will be gullible, reckless, or improperly swayed-were heard and rejected then. Today there is no longer any valid reason or evidence to distinguish between the voting rights of 21-year-old citizens and 18-year-old citizens. The latter may not be as all-wise or all-perfect as some might wish. Many 18-year-oldslike many 21-year-olds and even 24-year-olds-will be more experienced and more independent, and bear more responsibilities, later in life. But speaking as one who visits with college students frequently, I can testify firsthand to their analytical minds, skeptical outlooks, and invulnerability to phony appeals. There is no evidence to indicate that their voting judgment will ever be any more interested, informed, intelligent, balanced, or mature than it is between 18 and 21. This conclusion is challenged, I have noted from your past hearings and elsewhere, by two groups. First are those who mistakenly judge today's 18- to 20-year-olds on the basis of their own observations at that age. The statistical record is clear, however, that, contrary to the conditions which prevailed before World War II, most 18- to 20-yearold Americans today are paying taxes, have graduated from better high schools and have been subjected to more different kinds of experience, exposure, training, travel, and information than was true even of 21-year-olds only a generation ago. They are marrying earlier, taking more jobs and studying more than even before. In my State of New York, for example, the median years of educational attainment even for those 18- to 20-year-olds not in college substantially exceed that of the general adult population. As stated by the Cox Commission which studied the Columbia University disorders: The present generation of young people in our universities is the best informed, the most intelligent, and the most idealistic this country has ever known *** the most sensitive to public issues *** the most sophisticated in political tactics *** (with) a higher level of social conscience than preceding generations. Second, among the opponents of this measure are those who mistakenly judge today's 18- to 20-year-olds on the basis of a comparatively few troublemakers in their midst. Campus disorders make sensational headlines. That, in my opinion, is why two States have recently voted against extending the franchise to this group. But nearly one-half of all 18- to 20-year-olds are not in college at all. Of the more than 2,500 colleges and universities in this country, less than 1 percent have suffered serious disturbances. Of the 7 million college students in this country, less than 2 percent-according to a staff report to the Eisenhower Violence Commission-can be classified as militants or radicals. Most of the ringleaders in these disorders, I have observed, are 21 or over-and thus deemed sufficiently "mature" to cast a ballot. Most of the persons arrested in Chicago in 1968 in connection with the disturbances during the Democratic Convention were 21 or over. Dissatisfaction and dissent among the 18- to 20-year-olds may well, moreover, reflect a perceptivity of the world that speaks well of their readiness to vote. They recognized the folly of bombing North Vietnam, and favored troop withdrawals from South Vietnam, long before their elders or their Government. They focused on the hypocrisy of our racial practices and on the dangers in our environmental practices long before the voters as a whole. Even those adults who disagree with their answers must be impressed by the depth of their questions. To be sure, some young people despairing of the society they are about to inherit have misbehaved. But we cannot hold them to account for their acts if we continue to classify them as children in terms of voting rights. We cannot tell them their remedy lies in the ballot box rather than the streets if we continue to deny them the ballot. We cannot keep urging them to achieve change within the system when they are excluded from the system. We cannot, in short, refuse to grant them political responsibility in this resolution and then act surprised if they act with political irresponsibility. There is no magic in setting the voting age at 21. The only two States admitted to the Union in modern times-Alaska and Hawaiiboth breached it. Experience with a voting age of 18 in Kentucky, Georgia, and a host of foreign countries such as Israel has given no reason to oppose it. We should not do it in the foolish expectation that it will greatly enlighten or transform either the electorate or the young. We should do it because there is no longer a legitimate reason not to do it-because unfair and arbitrary distinctions are repugnant to a democracy-and, above all, because it is right. Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Mr. Sorensen. That was a very penetrating statement. I would like to put in the record at this time, if I might, an article from the New York Times, January 14, which is entitled "Analysis of Student Protests Finds Most Nonviolent, With New Left a Minor Factor." It substantiates some of the contentions that you make. (The article follows:) [From the New York Times, Jan. 14, 1970] ANALYSIS OF STUDENT PROTESTS FINDS MOST NONVIOLENT, (By John Herbers) Washington, Jan. 13-The first complete study of student protests last year at colleges and universities shows that most were nonviolent and did not interrupt routine, that new left groups were a minor factor, and that the protesters were less concerned with the Vietnam war and related issues than with conditions on the campuses. The study, covering 232 campuses from January to June, 1969, was conducted by the Urban Research Corporation of Chicago, a private commercial organization that monitors trends on the domestic scene and prepares reports for a range of groups and institutions. John Naisbitt, president of the corporation, a former assistant to John W. Gardner when Mr. Gardner was Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, said that many of the findings "seemed to contradict the general wisdom" about campus protests and disorders. Senator BAYH. Without objection we will put that in the record. (The material follows:) THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE, Washington, D.C. AGE AT WHICH MINORS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ADULTS FOR PURPOSES OF PROSECUTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW (FIRST FIGURE GIVEN); EXCEPTIONS. 1. Alabama 16. Juvenile court may waive jurisdiction of any child from 14 to 16, for any crime, to regular courts for trial as adult, in its discretion. 2. Alaska 18. Juvenile court may waive jurisdiction of any minor under 18 for any crime and he then may be tried as an adult in the regular courts. 3. Arizona 18. 4. Arkansas 18. Juvenile court, in its discretion, may transfer to regular courts, for trial as adults, any child under 18, accused of any crime. 5. California 21. Juvenile court may waive jurisdiction and transfer to regular courts, for trial as adult, all crimes of all minors age 16 to 21, in its discretion. 6. Colorado 18. From 16 to 18, Juvenile court may waive to regular courts, for trial as adults, all felonies of minors, in its discretion. Juvenile court has no jurisdiction of minor's crimes punishable by death or life term, where minor is between 16 and 18: they are tried as adults. 7. Connecticut 16. (or 18 where case transferred to juvenile court by regular court). 8. Delaware Family Court for Kent and Sussex Counties: 18. This court has no jurisdiction over capital felonies of minors under 18; they are tried as adults. This court may waive jurisdiction of all crimes of minors age 16 to 18 to the regular courts for trial as adults. Family Court for New Castle County: 18. The rest is same as above. 9. Florida 17; 16 for capital crimes; 14 for other felonies in discretion of judge or upon demand of child and parents. 10. Georgia 17. Court, in its discretion, may transfer to regular court any criminal case involving child of 15 and older. 11. Hawaii 18. (juvenile court has concurrent jurisdiction with criminal court of minors from 18 to 20). Juvenile court may waive jurisdiction of child 16 or over in felony cases and of minors 18 or over where crime committed prior to 18. 12. Idaho 18; probate court may waive jurisdiction from 16 to 18 if a felony; pre-18 offenses after child reaches 18. 13. Illinois 17 for males, 18 for females. Juvenile court may waive jurisdiction of crimes of those 13 and over. 14. Indiana 18. Juvenile court may waive jurisdiction of crime of minors age 15 to 18. Juvenile court has no jurisdiction of crime of minors punishable by death or life terms. 15. Iowa 18. May be tried as an adult for indictable offenses when under 18 and Juvenile court may waive any criminal case of any child under 18 in its discretion. 16. Kansas 18. From 16 to 18 Juvenile court may waive jurisdiction if it concludes child is not amenable to treatment. 17. Kentucky 18. From 16 to 18 child, in felony case, may be waived to regular courts in discretion of Juvenile court (in murder and rape, child may be under 16). |