City Council Rejects Lower Voting Age

The Cambridge City Council rejected an effort to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in Cambridge municipal elections last night, deciding the voting age should remain 18 in the city.

In an often confusing and tense meeting, the council voted 5-4 against the amended version of a proposal brought forward by the Youth Action Coalition, a group of Cambridge Rindge and Latin (CRLS) students who were trying to enfranchise themselves in city council and school committee hearings.

Dozens of students and their supporters packed into the council chamber, with more students filling the upper level balcony, a rare occurrence for council meetings.

Students held signs and banners supporting their cause, and wore bright yellow pins proclaiming “Expand Democracy!”

During the public comment period, supporters of the measure said that lowering the voting age would encourage more youth voter participation, educating students about the election process so that they would continue to participate in the future.

“Voting in high school provides a structured entrance into the democratic process,” said one CRLS student.

Supporters said there was no reason to believe that 16 is too young to vote.

“Being younger doesn’t mean being immature,” said CRLS student Patty Ford.

And students say that being allowed to vote would give them a voice in City Council and School Committee decisions that directly affect them.

Several prominent figures came out in support of the measure, including State Representative Jarrett T. Barrios ’90, who said the measure also had the support of Representative Alice K. Wolf. The Mass. State legislature would have to approve any home rule petition passed by the council.

“We are here to support and help you if you see fit to pass this proposal on to us in the state legislature,” Barrios said.

Cambridge school committee member C. Denise Simmons—who recently announced that she is running in the fall’s city council election—said that lowering the voting age would have a “trickle-up” effect, as more activity by students would encourage parents to become more involved in voting.

“Young people can show parents how to move forward and be involved,” Simmons said.

But in much confusion, the vote on the measure was delayed three times to clear up red tape about the vote.

Councillor Jim Braude, who introduced the measure, had not formally submitted a petition to the council, but had simply submitted a report from one of the council’s committees.

During the three lengthy recesses to clear up confusion over the proposal, councillors chatted informally with students, who waited impatiently for the council to act on the measure.

After the debate was settled, each councillor then declared his or her reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the motion, wih the council splitting in a five to four vote against the measure.

Councillors opposed the measure for a variety of reasons—among them a concern that lowering the voting age would make minors more susceptible to being charged as adults, and a concern that high school students would be manipulated by political campaigns.

“The last thing I want to see is councillors greeting students in the hallways,” said Vice Mayor David P. Maher.

Other councillors felt the measure may hurt a pending effort to allow non-citizen immigrants to vote in school committee elections.

But Braude supported the proposal until the end with his argument that early voting would increase adult participation.

“Habits formed when still in the home—whether smoking cigarettes or voting—are retained and repeated in adulthood,” Braude said.

Councillor Kathleen L. Born, who is usually one of the most liberal council members, surprised some by being the tiebreaker and opposing the measure.

After the defeat, the proponents—who had come out in droves—were speaking of continuing the movement next year and changing the composition of the council in the upcoming November elections.

“This just encouraged us to continue working,” said CRLS student Paul Heintz. “This will come up again.”

Janice Y. Lee, who had worked with the students and helped direct them through the Cambridge political arena, had no definite plans for how the movement would proceed after the motion’s defeat.

“That’s up to the young people,” said Lee. “I don’t think they’re very satisfied.”

—Staff writer Imtiyaz H. Delawala can be reached at delawala@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Lauren R. Dorgan can be reached at dorgan@fas.harvard.edu.