In victory for Sanders, Ohio judge says 17-year-olds can vote in primary

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tunerX, Mar 11, 2016.

  1. tunerX Suspended


    Nov 5, 2009
  2. SusanK, Mar 11, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2016

    SusanK macrumors 68000

    Oct 9, 2012
    The local evening news stated that Kasich is appealing this decision. I'm not able to find a citation for that. Husted is appealing per several news articles.
  3. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6


    Aug 17, 2007
    I guess laws are only guidelines now. Pretty simple concept, if you are 18 you can vote if you are not then you can't vote. I hope this gets overturned on appeal.
  4. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a


    Dec 29, 2014
    So if a kid is old enough to drink in July then he's good to go starting in January then?

    What the hell. This will get tossed.
  5. Gjwilly macrumors 68030

    May 1, 2011
    SF Bay Area
    The CNN piece didn't explain it very well but it seems that the rule in Ohio has been that those going to be 18 by election day may vote in primaries but only vote on nominations, not actually vote on electors.

    Looks like the judge disagreed with that distinction.
  6. tunerX, Mar 11, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2016

    tunerX thread starter Suspended


    Nov 5, 2009
    Actually you at wrong. voting in primaries and caucuses is allowed at 17 if you are old enough and registered to vote before Election Day for the general in quite a few states. Ohio actually allowed 17 year olds this option but it was specifically stopped for the 2016 election cycle. Primaries and caucuses are not elections.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 11, 2016 ---
    Apples and oranges.

    If a kid will be old enough to drink in July he should not be barred from suggesting possible inventory to the bar or store owner because he is not old enough.

    Hey I am going to be 21 next week, I would really like to try " random brand" could you get me some for next week...
    --- Post Merged, Mar 11, 2016 ---
    I don't think Husted has enough time to appeal. Husted is a republican, I would imagine he has the same fear of Trump beating the establishment as a democrat supporting Hillary has for Bernie beating the establishment. Minimizing entry of new voters would only favor the establishment in 2016.

    It is actually quite disgusting that Husted passed the directive in December that banned the 17 year olds the right to vote, specifically for the 2016 primary elections.
  7. APlotdevice macrumors 68040


    Sep 3, 2011
    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
    Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    As you can see, the 26th Amendment only says that states cannot deny people above a certain age the right to vote. It doesn't actually establish a minimum voting age. Furthermore the only election that is actually established in the Constitution is Election Day. Primaries have nothing really to do with the Constitution.
  8. thewitt macrumors 68020


    Sep 13, 2011
    It's liberal interpretation like this that underlines why Supreme Court appointments are so vital to the future of the nation.

    Wordsmithing the Constitution is not law.

    The 26th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed the right to vote for those citizens of the United States who were 18 years of age or older.

    Two things here are critical.

    You must be a citizen, therefor you must be able to prove citizenship - already usurped by the liberals who need the illegal vote to maintain their power base.

    You must be 18 or older - now being attacked because of written semantics in the wording of the amendment - again in an attempt to control the outcome of an election.
  9. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Jun 20, 2010
    Liberals depend upon bully liberal judges to to give the Constitution a belly-blow and uppercut to satisfy the Liberal agenda.
  10. SusanK macrumors 68000

    Oct 9, 2012
    Local late news Friday reported that Husted will not appeal the decision.
  11. jerwin macrumors 68000

    Jun 13, 2015
    It's an asinine distinction. Ohio has already established that almost-18 year olds can vote in the primaries. That political question has already been answered. It might not be answered to your satisfaction, but it has been answered.

    This court case is about the distinction between a primary election that nominates candidates. and a primary election that elects delegates to a nominating convention. I think it's petty.
  12. APlotdevice, Mar 12, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2016

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040


    Sep 3, 2011
    For Pete's sake, could you please bother to actually read the 26th amendment? I just posted it in full for you to see. Nowhere within it will you actually find a prohibition on people under the age of 18 voting. It only says that states can't deny the right to vote for those over that age. If a state wanted to let 12 year olds vote, there is nothing in those 53 words to prevent it.

    And to reiterate, you cannot use primaries in a discussion of strict constitutional readings, as they are not part of the Constituion! As far as the founding fathers were concerned, you were only supposed to vote on Election Day. And all these people are going to be 18 on that day anyway.
  13. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Jan 28, 2009
    sounds like a sara Pailin tossed salad reply.
  14. thermodynamic Suspended


    May 3, 2009
    Yeah, and the conservative judges never once bullied. Spare us the double standard of Scalia and his ilk.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 13, 2016 ---
    "Sarah Palin".

    And I'd say it's more like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh than Palin...

Share This Page