If we trust a 17-year-old to be behind the wheel on the roads, shouldn't we be able to trust them inside the voting booth?
We should. However, a bill being proposed by Democratic state Rep. Cory Mason of Racine would cause more confusion at polling places than is necessary for the benefit it would create.
The Associated Press reported last week that Mason is seeking co-sponsors to a proposal that would allow 17-year-olds in Wisconsin the right to vote in state and local elections. Mason said 17-year-olds commonly are in their senior year in high school, and they should be able to put their civics lessons to work by exercising their civic duty to vote.
His logic certainly makes sense. As last year's presidential election proved once again, young Americans can become engaged and informed in politics. President Obama's campaign sparked an interest from teens in politics and campaigns that isn't often seen. It's an opportunity that should be seized upon, to allow and invite more Americans into the political process.
And, yes, if a 17-year-old is deemed responsible enough to drive a car, he or she should be trusted to vote. The opposition argument often made that 17-year-olds don't know enough about issues and politics isn't valid. There are a lot of people older than 17 who vote and are uninformed.
The problem with Mason's proposal, though, is that it still would not allow 17-year-olds to vote in presidential elections. The U.S. Constitution requires voters in national elections to be 18 years old. Mason's law, obviously, wouldn't change that, and there seems to be no movement nationally to lower the voting age.
So if Mason's bill were to pass, Wisconsin 17-year-olds would be able to vote in some elections but not others - thus adding confusion for voters and for those conducting elections, not to mention the costs involved in printing separate ballots and educating the public about the difference.
The benefits of Mason's proposal, while well-intentioned, don't outweigh the drawbacks. It should not be approved.
We should. However, a bill being proposed by Democratic state Rep. Cory Mason of Racine would cause more confusion at polling places than is necessary for the benefit it would create.
The Associated Press reported last week that Mason is seeking co-sponsors to a proposal that would allow 17-year-olds in Wisconsin the right to vote in state and local elections. Mason said 17-year-olds commonly are in their senior year in high school, and they should be able to put their civics lessons to work by exercising their civic duty to vote.
His logic certainly makes sense. As last year's presidential election proved once again, young Americans can become engaged and informed in politics. President Obama's campaign sparked an interest from teens in politics and campaigns that isn't often seen. It's an opportunity that should be seized upon, to allow and invite more Americans into the political process.
And, yes, if a 17-year-old is deemed responsible enough to drive a car, he or she should be trusted to vote. The opposition argument often made that 17-year-olds don't know enough about issues and politics isn't valid. There are a lot of people older than 17 who vote and are uninformed.
The problem with Mason's proposal, though, is that it still would not allow 17-year-olds to vote in presidential elections. The U.S. Constitution requires voters in national elections to be 18 years old. Mason's law, obviously, wouldn't change that, and there seems to be no movement nationally to lower the voting age.
So if Mason's bill were to pass, Wisconsin 17-year-olds would be able to vote in some elections but not others - thus adding confusion for voters and for those conducting elections, not to mention the costs involved in printing separate ballots and educating the public about the difference.
The benefits of Mason's proposal, while well-intentioned, don't outweigh the drawbacks. It should not be approved.
