year old vote would be the issue that legislators would quibble about. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which extended voting rights to Negroes and former slaves) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) were passed and ratified in a manner similar to that which the 18-year old vote proponents are advocating. In several rulings, the courts have upheld the constitutionality of such legislation. The 1922 case of Leser v. Garnett (258 U.S. 130) heard the court declare that extending the franchise by means of a constitutional Amendment in no way "destroys the autonomy of the State as a political body. . . by making so great an addition to the electorate." With the exception of President Nixon, the past four presidents have urged Federal action to extend the franchise. But we still have a situation that amounts to nothing more than legislative procrastination.

The notion that the 18-year-old vote is an ideological issue is, in a sense, misleading. It would be best treated as a political question. Prior to the passage of a woman's suffrage referendum in New York in 1917, little enthusiasm could be generated on the issue in or outside the Halls of Congress. However, by 1920 several States were vying with one another to be the 36th State to approve it. Within the span of 30 months, the President, Congress, and the States had been moved toward approval.

To date, no large State has emerged to be the catalyst for national passage of the youth vote. The campaigns in Ohio and New Jersey both failed in this respect, although individuals in Ohio have regrouped and mounted another campaign similar to that of last fall. Presently, the opportunity to extend the franchise is afforded in another manner. Congress can provide the impetus without the initial prompting of the States. By a single act the Federal Government can send the States a measure that will extend the franchise to 10 million qualified citizens and thus eliminate the voting age inequities existing in this Nation. Congress appears reluctant to take the beginning step. In part this is due to the fact that identification with youth today is no a real political asset. Legislators as a whole are difficult to motivate unless they sense some benefit to themselves. More so, the unwillingness to act on this issue reflects fear on the part of the majority of legislators that an extension of the franchise will pose a threat to the security of their office. This is serious consideration, but the question arises-"to whose good" this measure will serve. I certainly hope, and somewhat believe, that we are presently here so that young citizens, who happen to be between the ages of 18 and 20, can best enjoy the democratic processes this country has made so much of her heritage. I urge you to lower the voting age this congressional session. Senator BAYH. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. Is that the end of your prepared statements?

Mr. MACGOWAN. Yes, sir.

Senator BAYH. I think we have some questions. I appreciate very much the effort that you are making in this direction and I particularly appreciate the grasp you seem to have of the political process. How do you go about getting this type of a project consummated? What is the magic number? To vote in Ohio is 19, in New Jersey it was 18, in Oregon it is 19. What do you suggest, is there a common

ground there for compromise, or what is your general thought on that?

Mr. MACGOWAN. Well, this is the prime reason for constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are three different ages up for referendum in 13 States this year.

Senator BAYH. Nebraska and Maine have referendums to go to 20. Mr. MACGOWAN. Chances are Nebraska will do it. Apparently most of their other legislation affecting young people affects them at the age of 20, and that would make it more uniform. The other two ages are 18 and 19; 19 appears to be legislative compromise. I think Clark can shed some light on the Ohio situation. We are working for an 18-year-old voting age. The reasons are outlined in the testimony and have been brought out here earlier today, primarily that young people are out of high school, that the system must reflect their views and involve them as soon as possible. I do not think anyone can question the qualifications of youth today or the need to involve. them. The question is how soon.

Clark, do you want to say something?

Mr. WIDEMAN. Only to verify that 19 was the age set by the Ohio Legislature, strictly through the process of legislative compromise. There was quite a sentiment for 18 in the legislature, but not quite the necessary number of votes for passage and that is why we ended up with 19.

Senator BAYH. What did you learn in that Ohio campaign that can be helpful in another Ohio campaign or in Oregon, or what are you learning now in Oregon that can help elsewhere?

Mr. WIDEMAN. Well, we learned basically in Ohio that you have to treat this issue much as you would any other political issue. It was not surprising when I became involved in this movement that any attempt to pass this issue had been defeated every time because it has never been approached from this standpoint. There has never really been a conserted campaign conducted in any of these States. We have made half-hearted attempts. We attempted in Ohio in about 2 months to put together a statewide campaign, but we simply were not successful and I think that the difference in the percentage between Ohio and New Jersey is some indication that if you can conduct a campaign on the issue you win people's votes in favor of it.

Senator BAYH. Do you think that is the difference between the close results in Ohio?

Mr. WIDEMAN. I think that is one factor. I think the difference between 18 and 19 was possibly the other factor.

Senator BAYH. Well, are you gentlemen agreed that 18 is the goal or 19, or 182, what?

Mr. WIDEMAN. Let me answer that. I think there is fairly unanimous agreement among most young people in this movement that 18 is the ultimate goal. I think that we are quite willing to accept 19 temporarily, if it will help us along the road.

Senator BAYH. It is unrealistic to suggest that we are going to have two different amendments to the Constitution of the United States in rapid succession.

Mr. MACGOWAN. Yes; it is.

Senator BAYH. I see that my colleague from Kentucky cannot resist the urge.

Senator Cook. Well, no, I just wanted to say that I would hope that with at least 68 Senators now who are on this resolution that we would not speak too loudly or too longly on the fact that we would compromise, because I think what you do is you set a standard nationally for one group of individuals and then you still have that freedom of choice on the local level, and really what you are seeking is uniformity. And most of the States that are voting on it this fall are voting at an 18-year-old level, although some are voting at 20 and some are voting at 19. So, I would only suggest to you that I am not sure at this stage of the game that I would compromise. I would let somebody else ask me for a compromise rather than be willing to compromise.

One other point I might make to you, you mentioned the women suffrage not too long ago. I would hope that you all have an enthusiastic group of women who are working in your organization and your laughter makes me wonder whether you have taken them. into your confidence in regard to these campaigns. I do not want to be too critical of you.

Senator BAYH. I observe some young ladies in the room that I know were active in the Ohio campaign.

Senator Cook. That is good.

Mr. MACGOWAN. I would like to say that the Senate resolution before you is probably one of the most significant things that has come along for us in a long time. I would like to second the thanks to Senator Randolph for his efforts. He has gone far beyond the interests of most political figures on the issue and I think because of his interest that we have a good chance of having it for action in the Senate this session. I am sorry to say that the House is not so enlightened, but hopefully we will be ready next time to look for both the Senate and House passage.

One more thing, Senator. We have some statistics here that I would like to provide for the record, some original research in answering some of the questions and the objections on the issue, and if possible, I would like to submit them.

Senator BAYH. We would be glad to have them and put them in the record.

(The information follows:)

How interested are 18-20 year olds in a lower voting age?

A recent Gallup poll reported 90% of the nation's youth interested in having the voting age lowered. A number of youth groups-Young Democrats, Young Republicans, National Student Association, U.S. Youth Council, Luthern Student Movement, Catholic Youth Organization, Boys Club of America, YMCA, YWCA, National Association of Student Councils, B'nai Brith Youth Organization, Student NEA, United Methodist Youth Ministry are actively supporting an 18-year old vote. Also, a large number of youth organizations are working on the state and local level. Most of the work in states like Massachusetts. Connecticut, Minnesota, and Oregon where referenda will be held on a lower voting age this year, is being done by young people themselves.

In addition to the support generated by youths on the issue, 68% of those people 21 and older approve a lower voting age.

Just how concerned are young people with current issues? How involved have they been in political activities in the past? Would their inexperience be a barrier to making a clear choice between candidates in an election?

(A) A recent Roper Research survey reveals that the leading issues on college campuses are race relations, crime and lawlessness, poverty and slun conditions and avoiding future wars. While one-fifth of the respondents felt the

system of administering justice to be "basically sound and essentially good," 52% said that it needed some improvement while another 21% believed it to need fundamental overhauling. Chief criticisms of the system were inequality of justice, leniency on criminals, slowness of the courts and outdated laws. Although young, this group is far from inexperienced in political activities. A poll recently conducted by Daniel Yankelovick for CBS shows that 17% of those people between 18-20 have been involved in political campaigns. An additional 25% have assisted in organizational meetings, 9% have marched for some cause and 5% have worked for civil rights. A large percentage of the 300,000 who came to Washington last November to voice their opposition to America's role in Vietnam were in the 18-20 age bracket.

"In short," stated Senator Jacob Javits, "the political activism of our college-aged youth today-whether it be demonstrations or work on behalf of candidates-is all happening-outside the existing political framework. Passage of the resolution before this energy into our major political parties of all levels, national, state and local.

How would a lower voting age benefit minority groups?

(A) Minority groups stand to benefit greatly from an 18 year-old vote. There are 1,358,000 non-white 18-20 year olds, comprising 5.7% of their population. A lower voting age would increase this group's electoral population by 11.3%. The comparative national figure is 8.7%.

Recently, Arthur Klebanoff, author of "The Demographics of Politics: Legislative Constituencies and the Borough of Brooklyn: 1950-1965," recommended a lower voting age on the basis of his studies on the voting habits of New York Negroes and Puerto Ricans. Such a move, started Klebanoff, would bring "proportionately higher percentages of Negroes and Puerto Ricans into the electorate" and would "give Negro and Puerto Rican politics a highly desirable youthful orientation."

EFFECTS OF THE 18-YEAR-OLD VOTE AS REPORTED BY SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS IN GEORGIA AND KENTUCKY

In discussing the possibility of youth enfranchisement, it is popular to speculate as to the possible effects of youth suffrage on many aspects of our society. Presently, only two states, Georgia and Kentucky, allow their citizens to vote at 18.

Project 18, a special effort by the National Education Association on behalf of the campaign to lower the voting age, recently conducted a survey of social studies teachers in Georgia and Kentucky in an attempt to assess the impact of the 18-year-old vote on students and their education. The following questions were asked of the Social Studies teachers. With the statistical results are representative comments made by the teachers surveyed.

1. Has the prospect of voting soon stimulated the interest of high school upperclassmen in government or politics?

88% responded yes.

Mock legislative sessions are a favorite means of raising political questions. It causes increased interest in current events discussions-students read the newspaper daily and they request discussion on the topics.

2. Does political interest in your high school take the form of specific interest in campaigns?

90% responded yes.

Our students requested representatives of the two major parties and George Wallace's group to present a question and answer session to our Social Science students.

Is there any special attention paid to school elections?

90% responded yes.

100% of the student body votes-voluntarily.

Official voting apparatus is used in school elections.

The students register for student elections just as in public elections.

3. Are partisan political clubs (Young Democrats, Young Republicans) encouraged in your school?

45% responded yes.

They (the students) tend to be more non-partisan-want to discuss stands on issues.

These groups meet and are sponsored off campus.

4. Has the lower voting age in your state led to any curricular changes designed to foster readiness of young graduates to vote?

76% responded yes.

We have designed an American Government course that touches on Federal, State and local phases of government. This course is required of all our graduates.

Are voter registration procedures made available?

76% responded yes.

Every spring, registration procedures are made available with the cooperation of the League of Women Voters who serve as deputy registrars.

We have a voter registration drive in our school-one in the fall and one in the spring-out of a possible 550 who are of voting age we registered over 400. 5. Please comment on your feelings about the results of voting by 18, 19, and 20 year olds in your state and whether you personally favor it.

98% responded yes.

I am definitely in favor of it. It gives 18 year olds a chance to register their views in a constructive and effective way and probably discourages disruptive and destructive activities.

I definitely favor voting at ago 18-at that age the students are best prepared educationally, just having finished civics classes. Their interest is high and should be put to use immediately, rather than having three years to wane from lack of use. I also suspect fewer students would practice civil disobedience if they felt they could influence governmental decisions through the ballot box. Yes, our young adults are politically more alert and aware than any other time in our history. It is hard to justify to a young man why he could have to serve in our Armed Services at 18 and yet not be allowed to vote.

I feel that our younger citizens are much better participaters in elections than our older adults!

ANALYSIS OF VOTER PARTICIPATION AMONG YOUTHS 18-21 IN 1968

An analysis reveals that voter participation is low among 18-20 year olds. In the recent 1969 election, a total of 144,000 out of 432,000 enfranchised youths under 21 exercised their right to vote. The participation rate of 33.3 percent equaled only 49.1 percent of the national participation figure of 67.8 percent. The youth male participation rate was 35.3 percent-50.6 percent of the corresponding national rate. Young women under 21 participated at a rate of 31.1 percent, a total equaling 47.1 percent of the national female rate. The vote among 18-20 olds was weakest in the non-white groups which had a voting record of only 24.2 percent. Overall, the percentage of youths not registering was more than double the national rate. Most frequent reasons for failure to register were inability to register, failure to meet residency requirements and indifference to the vote.

These figures begin to lose their meaning when conditions of the states having a voting age lower than 21 are examined. Voting participation in the states of Georgia (42.9 percent) Kentucky (51.2 percent), Alaska (53.9 percent) and Hawaii (55.8 percent) was among the lowest in the country. Fewer people turned out to vote in Georgia (where over % of the enfranchised youths in the country reside) than in any other state last election. The aggregate participation rate in these four states was only 47.2 percent, more than 30 percent below the national rate. The youth participation rate becomes a passable 70.6 percent when contrasted with this aggregate figure.

The 18-20 vote rate suffers most among non-whites and lower income groups, both of which constitute a greater proportion of this group than nationwide. Non-whites constitute 22 percent of the 18-20 voting group as compared to the national electoral figure of 10.3 percent. More than 60 percent of eligible youths come from families with incomes under $7,499 (National figure 46 percent). This group usually has a voting record 15 percent below normal. Whereas the national electorate is predominately urban, the states in which individuals under twenty-one are currently eligible to vote are overwhelmingly rural and non-metropolitan.

Despite the poor demonstrated voting record, several indications emerge to encourage expansion of the youth vote. In Kentucky, a survey of voting behavior