16 and ready to vote: A case for lowering the voting age in Maryland
Signs direct voters to a polling place at Sacred Heart Church in La Plata. (File photo by Angela Breck/Maryland Matters)
In April 2024, the St. Mary's County Board of Commissioners grappled with a consequential decision: Whether to increase taxes to adequately fund schools or decrease taxes at the potential expense of educational quality, teachers' salaries, and specialized programs.
This debate divided community members, with one critical group notably absent from the conversation—students. Although the outcomes would directly impact them, students had no vote, no representation, and little say in a matter pivotal to their futures.
This situation highlights a glaring democratic gap: 16- and 17-year-olds are largely affected by decisions that shape their education, communities and futures, yet they remain disenfranchised. Maryland can and should address this inequity by lowering the voting age in local elections, starting a new chapter of democratic inclusion and civic engagement.
As demonstrated by Takoma Park and others, Maryland's legal framework already lets cities regulate local elections. Under this policy, extending voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds in local elections is very simple and amplifies youth voices in critical issues such as education funding, environmental sustainability and public safety.
Policymakers in Maryland have already spearheaded this effort, advocating to lower the voting age to 16 statewide. For example, the Your School, Your Voice Act, introduced by Del. Joe Vogel (D-Montgomery), gives counties the authority to lower the voting age to 16 in Board of Education elections.
Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@marylandmatters.org.
We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates.
Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines.
Views of writers are their own.
'Legislators consider hundreds of pieces of legislation that directly impact young people — issues like how to fund their schools adequately, secure safe communities that don't lead to their over-incarceration, and more should center their voices and experiences. The ability to vote in some of our elections will ensure their input is truly considered.' – Joanne Antoine, executive director of Common Cause Maryland.
Maryland is no stranger to innovation in local governance. In the past 13 years, eight Maryland cities, including Takoma Park, have extended voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds. Takoma Park's experience provides compelling evidence of success: In the first election after the change, turnout among 16- and 17-year-olds exceeded that of any other age group.
Since then, similar initiatives in California, New Jersey, Vermont, and even 22 countries including Austria and Argentina have demonstrated that engaging younger voters strengthens democracy.
Critics argue that teenagers lack the maturity to make informed voting decisions. However, research by Temple University and others counters this assumption. Studies find that 16-year-olds possess the same cognitive ability for 'cold reasoning' — logical, deliberate decision-making — as adults. Moreover, adolescents at this age are more likely to be embedded in stable social environments, often surrounded by peers and family members who model civic participation, fostering the development of lasting voting habits.
Another misconception is that teens merely mimic their parents' choices. Evidence from Scotland's independence referendum shows that 40% of young voters had different preferences than their parents, proving that young people are independent thinkers capable of nuanced decision-making.
Generation Z, often lauded for its activism and leadership, has already demonstrated its readiness to contribute meaningfully to civic life. From organizing climate strikes to advocating for gun-violence prevention, today's young people are profoundly shaping public discourse. Their engagement underscores the urgent need to grant them formal representation in the electoral process.
Opposition to lowering the voting age often hinges on a perceived link between voting and legal adulthood. Yet this argument overlooks the fact that 16-year-olds already participate in society in meaningful ways: They work, pay taxes and drive. It is only fair that they have a voice in the policies that affect their daily lives and futures.
Public opinion also supports this shift. Research from the University of Maryland's Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement reveals that Americans are increasingly open to lowering the voting age. Federal lawmakers, including Democratic Reps. Grace Meng of New York and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and former Texas Republican Rep. Michael Burgess have championed this cause, citing the unique perspectives and passion that young people bring to our democracy.
Maryland can lead the nation by expanding democratic participation to younger residents. Organizations like Vote16USA, Vote16MD, Common Cause and others have laid the groundwork, advocating tirelessly for this change and empowering student leaders to take center stage.
The time to act is now. Maryland can build a brighter future by ensuring all its citizens — regardless of age — have a voice in shaping it. By granting 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote, we affirm their stake in our shared future and strengthen our democracy for generations to come.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Annapolis mayoral candidates hold cordial debate on environment, housing, other topics
Annapolis mayoral candidate Rhonda Pindell Charles, left, responds to a question during a debate Tuesday with her Democratic primary opponent, Jared Littmann, right. Baltimore Banner columnist Rick Hutzell, the moderator, center, listens. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters) Rhonda Pindell Charles and Jared Littmann cordially debated, and mostly agreed, Tuesday on how they would improve Annapolis if they were elected the next mayor of the capital city. Both would form partnerships with community and nonprofit organizations. Both would work to eliminate environmental hazards in some of the city's underserved communities. And both Democrats bestowed high praise on current Mayor Gavin Buckley (D), who is term-limited from serving a third, four-year term. 'I think he's one of the best mayors we've had … and I've been here my entire life,' said Pindell Charles, who has served as an alderwoman on the city council since 2009. Littman, a former alderman who served five years on the council before his term ended in 2017, noted that he and Buckley have a number of similarities, including both having two children, but added that 'my demeanor's a bit different' than the outgoing Buckley's personality. Buckley was one of dozens on hand for Tuesday's nearly 90-minute debate hosted by the Caucus of African American Leaders at the Wiley H. Bates Legacy Center. Some sported blue Littmann T-shirts and others wore red or white shirts supporting Pindell Charles. There was at least one difference between the two besides their supporters' T-shirts: Pindell Charles and Littman outlined different approaches to hiring city personnel. 'I have committed to keeping all staff. I have never heard any other mayor say that,' Pindell Charles said. 'I've worked with these folks on a regular basis. I see how they operate [and] how they get things done.' Although Littman commended city staff, he said he would interview each of the city's directors and chiefs to assess their priorities, any expectations and how they would measure themselves against those expectations. Anyone who may scores themselves a '10 out of 10 of everything always makes me skeptical,' he said. 'I look for people who identify where there's room for improvement.' 'I do not promise anybody a job. Everybody's got to work for their job,' he said. Littman has been working for the mayor's job for 18 months already, declaring his candidacy in January 2024. Pindell Charles announced her candidacy in September. As of Tuesday, they were the only two candidates seeking to be mayor, although others have until July 28 to file. The Sept. 16 primary looms large in the city, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 2.5-to-1. The Anne Arundel County Board of Elections said that as of Tuesday, about 13,881 Democrats were registered in Annapolis, compared to 5,518 Republicans and 6,006. unaffiliated voters. If no other candidates emerge, the primary winner could have a free pass to the mayor's office. Pindell Charles received a bachelor's degree in business administration from Morgan State University, before earning a law degree from the University of Maryland School of Law. The retired prosecutor, a native of the city she hopes to lead, seeks to make history as the city's first elected Black mayor. Alderman John Thomas Chambers Jr. (R), who was Black, served on an interim basis for two months in 1981 after the suicide of Mayor Gustav Akerland (R). Her time on council included a brief stint as acting mayor, when Buckley appointed her in 2o20 to serve while he traveled home to his native Australia to care for his ailing mother. Littman received a bachelor's degree in environmental engineering from Washington University in St. Louis and a law degree from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He has worked as an associate county attorney in Montgomery County and is currently a small business owner with his wife, running K&B Ace Hardware in the city. During Littman's time on council, he sponsored several pieces of legislation that included a forest conservation law that's a model for local and state leaders throughout Maryland. On Tuesday, the candidates were asked about a dozen questions, including their plans to redevelop the City Dock, how they would account for financial gaps created by federal government cuts and ideas on how to improve public transportation in the next four years. Phillip Ateto, who lives in the city's Ward 3, said after the debate he didn't hear the candidates provide specifics on housing. In addition, he said they didn't answer a question on how would they respond to a crisis like the current protests in Los Angeles. 'I was disappointed neither one of them really answered the question about what's going on in L.A. and if it happened here,' Ateto said. 'The community needs to know what we can expect from our law enforcement.' Carl Snowden, convener of the Caucus of African American Leaders that hosted the debate, had a message for voters. 'Any citizen who has a candidate knocking on their door should ask one question: 'If I elect you as a member of city council or mayor, how will the quality of life change for me and my family?'' Snowden said. 'And if that person is not able to speak in specificity, then you be minded.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Political notes: Torres steps down at CASA, bay analysts put their heads together, more news
Gustavo Torres, executive director of CASA (left), speaks to Del. Joseline Peña-Melnyk (D-Prince George's and Anne Arundel) in a photo from 2023. (File photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters) CASA's longtime executive director Gustavo Torres plans to retire in November. Torres began his work as an advocate with the immigrant rights group when it started out in a church basement in Takoma Park. Now, 34 eyars later, CASA is an organization with more than 170,000 members in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania — and in Atlanta, where it opened a welcome center in Atlanta in 2022. In a statement Friday, Torres said he wants to take a break and spend his time with family, to 'give the same love, attention, and presence to the people who've stood by me through it all.' 'I look around me and see a new generation of leaders that are ready to take the helm, and I am confident that CASA is strong, rooted, and ready for what's next,' his statement said. 'These powerful, young, diverse Black and brown leaders in our organization are going to move forward with the same boldness these next 30 years.' The organization has become an authoritative voice on migrant issues and immigration legislation at the local, state and natioanl levels over the years. It did face controversy in November 2023, after some members issued statements and social media posts expressing solidarity with Palestinians during the war in Gaza that began Oct. 7 of that year. CONTACT US It led somelawmakers, including Montgomery Count's Senate delegation to publicly scrutinize CASA and threatened to pull public funding. Private donors also announced they would withdraw funding. CASA released a public apology from Torres in response. The organization has been busy this year. Even before President Donald Trump's (R) January swearing in, CASA held 'Know Your Rights' events to prepare for possible enforcement actions from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. CASA leaders were in Annapolis lobbing for legislation, including one to prohibit local police from entering into 287(g) agreements with ICE. On the last day of the legislative session in April, lawmakers passed a watered-down version of a bill that does not include the 287(g) ban, the biggest loss for immigration. advocates this year. CASA plans a nationwide search for someone to build on Torres' 'unshakeable legacy, carrying forward CASA's mission to build people power, advance equity, and drive lasting systemic change,' said Melissa Guzman, the organization's chief operating officer. 'We invite visionary leaders from inside CASA and across the country to apply and help shape the next chapter of this movement.' Torres will be honored at CASAs 40th anniversary celebration on Sept. 18. Unlike the typical student, the Chesapeake Bay has long received two report cards from two different schools: One from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and another from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. But that could be changing. At an event in Eastport on Tuesday to release the latest UMCES report card (which gave the bay a grade of 'C'), officials from the center and the nonprofit said they're looking to combine their efforts. 'We're really excited about this, because it will reduce the confusion of having two separate report cards and slightly different messaging,' said Heath Kelsey, director of the Integration and Application Network at UMCES. Bill Dennison, UMCES vice president of science application, said he approached the Bay Foundation decades ago about working together on a single report card, to no avail. 'With the new leadership at the Bay Foundation, I think that dream could be realized,' Dennison said. Hilary Harp Falk has been president and CEO of the foundation since 2022. She said Tuesday there's lots left to iron out, but the potential partnership between the two organizations is exciting. 'We've been talking a lot about our shared goals and the strengths of the different products, and how we can both show how the bay is doing and answer that question, but also show a path to success, which I think has been elusive,' Harp Falk said. 'We think the strength of our report card and our work and the UMCES science could really be a force multiplier.' Dennison said looming cuts at federal environmental agencies have made the collaboration more urgent. On April 1, the center held a workshop with the Bay Foundation, as well as some riverkeeper groups that also have their own regional report cards, to discuss the future of bay report cards. 'This is a tough time for us environmentalists. The federal budgets are being slashed, and so we have to — more than ever — we have to work together,' Dennison said. About 8,200 Maryland residents who use long-term care programs could soon pay more for services, as four life insurance companies are asking state officials to increase premium rates for those services. During a virtual meeting with Maryland Insurance Administration officials Tuesday, representatives from life insurance companies argued that because people are living longer and more people are using long-term care services for longer periods of time, those rate increases are justified. 'Mutual of Omaha understands premium adjustments are never welcome news and we do not take such actions lightly,' said Rylan Deemer, product director and actuary at Mutual of Omaha. 'Due to increasing use of long-term care services and longer open claims, we found it necessary to file this rate adjustment. In other words, more policyholders are recognizing the benefits of their long-term care insurance policies, using benefits more often and for longer than anticipated.' Those justifications were shared by representatives from the other insurance companies Tuesday: – Metropolitan Life Insurance, Prudential Insurance Co. and Transamerica Life Insurance Co. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Requested rate increases range from 24% to 52%, depending on company and plan. The requests are not unusual for long-term care plans, but they come at a time when insurers are also looking to increase premiums on certain health care plans due to the possible loss of a federal subsidy under the Trump administration. State regulations prohibit insurers from raising premiums more than 15% in a 12-month period, meaning that larger increase proposals would be spread out over the course of a couple years, if approved. Each of the insurers Tuesday said they were sympathetic to policyholders who would not be able to afford long-term care plans at the higher rates, and said they would offer lower-priced, lower-coverage plans to those who could not afford to keep their current plans. The rate increases are not finalized. MIA officials raised concerns that some of the rate requests could be too steep. The proposed rate increases are open to public comments until next week. In the first use of a new state emergency fund, state officials announced Tuesday that they will award $459,375 in financial assistanceto Allegany County to help victims of May 13 floods that swamped homes, schools and businesses and forced evacuations in Allegany and Garrett counties. The funding is coming from the Maryland State Disaster Recovery Fund, a form of state-assisted financing for county and local governments 'for the purpose of providing essential assistance to individuals, households, businesses, and local governments affected by disasters,' according to a news release from the governor's office. Local governments can request aid from the fund, which is administered by the Maryland Department of Emergency Management. 'These funds will help Marylanders get back on their feet in the wake of historic flooding,' said Gov. Wes Moore in the release. 'I encourage all affected Marylanders to learn if they're eligible for additional resources and supports.' Allegany County officials requested the funds after damage assessments showed recovery needs were beyond the county's means, the governor's office said. Heavy rains from May 12-14 led rivers and creeks in the region to flood, with Georges Creek reaching a near-record level of 12.41 feet. Rising waters forced evacuations in Garrett and Allegany counties, with the town of Westernport hit particularly hard. Floodwaters caused significant damage to more than 200 homes and businesses in the region. 'The comprehensive assistance — from multiple state departments — has been extraordinary, and this monetary award through the new Disaster Recovery Program is both timely and impactful,' Allegany County Commission President David J. Caporale said in the news release. 'As the first recipients of this program, we recognize the significance of this moment, and we are committed to putting these resources to immediate use to help our neighbors and communities rebuild stronger than before.' The Maryland Department of Emergency Management is also working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and state agencies in recovery efforts to mitigate the risk of flooding due to the impacts on the local rivers and streams in the area. State officials estimate that volunteer organizations have provided more than $400,000 in support services, including muck-out and cleanup of residences and businesses across Allegany County. Area residents may also be eligible for disaster loans through the U.S. Small Business Administration Physical Loan program. A Disaster Loan Outreach Center, serving both counties, at 103 1st St. in Westernport will be open Monday through Friday from 8 a .m. to 5 p.m. and Saturday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Multiagency resource and support centers remain open at the Bruce Outreach Center in Westernport on Saturdays and Mondays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m and Wednedays from 1-7 p.m.; and at the Good Will Fire Co. Armory in Lonaconing from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Sundays and Tuesdays and from 1-7 p.m. Thursdays.

4 hours ago
Arizona governor vetoes bill banning teaching antisemitism, calls it an attack on educators
PHOENIX -- Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a proposal that would have banned teaching antisemitism at the state's public K-12 schools, universities and colleges and exposed educators who violate the new rules to discipline and lawsuits. The proposal would have prohibited teachers and administrators from teaching or promoting antisemitism or antisemitic actions that create a hostile environment, calling for the genocide of any group or requiring students to advocate for an antisemitic point of view. It also would have barred public schools from using public money to support the teaching of antisemitism. Educators would have personally been responsible for covering the costs of damages in lawsuits for violating the rules. Hobbs, a Democrat, said Tuesday that the bill was not about antisemitism but rather about attacking teachers. 'It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits," she said in a statement. "Additionally, it sets a dangerous precedent that unfairly targets public school teachers while shielding private school staff." Hobbs described antisemitism as a very troubling issue in the U.S., but said students and parents can go through the state's Board of Education to report antisemitism. The measure cleared the Legislature last week on a 33-20 vote by the House, including a few Democrats who crossed party lines to support it. It's one of a few proposals to combat antisemitism across the country. Democrats tried but failed to remove the lawsuit provision and swap out references to antisemitism within the bill with 'unlawful discrimination' to reflect other discrimination. The bill's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Michael Way, of Queen Creek, called the veto 'disgraceful,' saying on the social media platform X that the legislation was meant to keep 'egregious and blatant antisemitic content' out of the classroom. 'To suggest that it threatened the speech of most Arizona teachers is disingenuous at best,' he added. Opponents said the bill aimed to silence people who want to speak out on the oppression of Palestinians and opened up educators to personal legal liability in lawsuits students could file. Students over the age of 18 and the parents of younger pupils would have been able to file lawsuits over violations that create a hostile education environment, leaving teachers responsible for paying any damages that may be awarded, denying them immunity and prohibiting the state from paying any judgments arising from any such lawsuits. Last week, Lori Shepherd, executive director of Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center, wrote in a letter to Hobbs that if the bill were approved it would threaten teachers' ability to provide students with a full account of the holocaust. Under the bill, 'those discussions could be deemed 'antisemitic' depending on how a single phrase is interpreted, regardless of intent or context,' she said. The bill would have created a process for punishing those who break the rules. At K-12 schools, a first-offense violation would lead to a reprimand, a second offense to a suspension of a teacher or principal's certificate and a third offense to a revocation of the certificate. At colleges and universities, violators would have faced a reprimand on first offense, a suspension without pay for a second offense and termination for a third offense. The proposal also would have required colleges and universities to consider violations by employees to be a negative factor when making employment or tenure decisions. Under the proposal, universities and colleges couldn't recognize any student organization that invites a guest speaker who incites antisemitism, encourages its members to engage in antisemitism or calls for the genocide of any group. Elsewhere in the U.S., a Louisiana lawmaker is pushing a resolution that asks universities to adopt policies to combat antisemitism on campuses and collect data on antisemitism-related reports and complaints. And a Michigan lawmaker has proposed putting a definition of antisemitism into the state's civil rights law.