Bill Overview
Title: Youth Voting Rights Act
Description: This bill expands voting access for youth. Specifically, the bill establishes a private right of action to enforce the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which prohibits denying or abridging the right to vote based on age. Additionally, the bill directs each state to designate as voter registration agencies all offices within public institutions of higher education (IHEs) that provide assistance to students, implement a preregistration process to allow minors who are 16 years or older to register to vote in federal elections that take place when or after the preregistered individual turns age 18, and ensure the availability of polling places on campuses of IHEs (with the availability of waivers). The bill prohibits durational residency requirements for voting in all federal elections. Currently, this prohibition applies only to voting for the offices of President and Vice President. States and local jurisdictions with voter identification requirements must treat IHE-issued student identification cards as voter identification. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) must make grants to states to increase the involvement of individuals under age 18 in public election activities. The Government Accountability Office must report to Congress on trends related to voter registration, absentee voting, and provisional voting. The EAC must also collect and make publicly available certain data from states.
Sponsors: Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]
Target Audience
Population: Youth aged 16 and older in the United States
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The bill targets youth, specifically individuals aged 16 to 24, by simplifying the voting registration process and enforcing voting rights for this age group.
- In the U.S., there are approximately 40 million individuals aged 16 to 24.
- This age group includes minors who are 16 or older who can preregister to vote and young adults attending public institutions of higher education.
- Globally, the effects of this law would be minimal since it is legislation specific to the United States.
Reasoning
- The Youth Voting Rights Act primarily targets youth aged 16 to 24, aiming to ease voting access and increase engagement in democratic processes for this age group.
- The population distribution includes individuals at different socio-economic and educational backgrounds, from various states with differing existing voting laws.
- The policy's budget must be considered in terms of reaching a substantial fraction of this youth demographic effectively given the number of public institutions and the unique demands of each state.
- Factors such as the variation in availability of educational institutions in urban versus rural areas, state policy compliance, and technological infrastructure play a role in determining the policy's success.
Simulated Interviews
High School Student (New York, NY)
Age: 17 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this bill is great because it allows me to register and vote as soon as I turn 18 without the hassle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
College Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes it easier for students like me to use our student ID for voting, which will definitely improve turnout.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief that they will accept our college IDs as valid identification for voting.
- This policy encourages me to participate more actively in elections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Recent Graduate (Chicago, IL)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to make voting accessible from a young age, even though I might not be directly affected by this bill.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
High School Student (Portland, OR)
Age: 16 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It gives a voice to young people who often feel overlooked in advocacy discussions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Freshman at State University (Denver, CO)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled this policy considers campus locations for polling; this enhances our ability to vote conveniently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Part-time worker and college student (Miami, FL)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting youth engagement in political processes is crucial for a thriving democracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Postgraduate student (Boston, MA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although this law doesn't impact me much, it is a staunch reminder of the importance of youth involvement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Barista and part-time student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The recognition of student IDs helps me vote without extra ID requirements that might have been barriers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
High School Student (Rural Alabama)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might not have immediate benefits for me, but the opportunity to preregister is empowering.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $180000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $210000000)
Year 2: $170000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $190000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Implementation costs may vary significantly between states depending on existing infrastructure and systems.
- Long-term societal and democratic benefits may offset costs but are hard to quantify monetarily.
- The success of increasing youth participation depends on effective state implementation and outreach efforts.