Skip to content Skip to footer
Menu Close
Close
Donate

Campaigns By State

Explore our interactive map to state-by-state voting requirements.

 
  • Denotes states where Vote16USA has current campaigns.
  • Denotes states where Vote16USA has current campaigns.

Active
Campaigns

The movement to lower the voting age is growing rapidly, with campaigns active in cities and states across the country. Each campaign reflects the leadership of young people who are organizing in their schools and communities, working alongside allies to make their voices heard in the democratic process. These efforts showcase the energy, vision, and commitment of a new generation determined to shape the future.

From city councils to state legislatures, current campaigns are gaining traction and driving important conversations about civic participation. Here you can explore where campaigns are happening now, follow their progress, and discover how you can support or join the work in your own community. Together, these campaigns are laying the groundwork for a more inclusive democracy where 16- and 17-year-olds have a seat at the table.

  • California
  • Connecticut
  • Georgia
  • Hawaii
  • Illinois
  • Iowa
  • Kentucky
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Maine
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • New Jersey
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Texas
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • Wisconsin
  • Washington D.C
  • Vermont
  • Rhode Island
Get Involved

CALIFORNIA

  • 2016: Berkeley, CA (school board only)
  • 2020: Oakland, CA (school board only)
  • 2024: Albany, CA (all municipal elections)

MARYLAND

  • 2013: Takoma Park, MD  
  • 2015: Hyattsville, MD
  • 2018: Greenbelt, MD
  • 2019: Riverdale Park, MD
  • 2021: Mount Rainier, MD
  • 2021: Chevy Chase, MD
  • 2023: Somerset, MD
  • 2024: Cheverly, MD
  • 2025: College Park, MD
  • 2025: Berwyn Heights, MD

VERMONT

  • 2023: Brattleboro, VT

NEW JERSEY

  • 2024: Newark, NJ (school board only)

MASSACHUSETTS

  • Massachusetts municipalities that have sent home‑rule petitions to the state Legislature seeking to lower the voting age to 16, but the state has not approved it.
  • 2012 – Lowell
  • 2017 – Shelburne
  • 2017 – Wendell
  • 2017 – Ashfield
  • 2018 – Northampton
  • 2019 – Concord
  • 2019 – Brookline
  • 2019 – Somerville 
  • 2020 – Cambridge
  • 2022 – Boston
  • 2023 – Lawrence
  • 2024 – Medford
  • 2024 – Swampscott
  • 2024 – Whately
  • 2025 – Acton

Vote16
International Timeline

The Vote16 International Timeline highlights how countries, states, and local communities across the globe have embraced a lower voting age of 16. From early adopters in Latin America and Europe to more recent expansions in the U.S. and beyond, this history shows a growing recognition of the power and importance of youth voices in shaping democracy.

By tracking these milestones, the timeline offers a clear picture of how the movement has spread over time and across borders. Each step represents a community that chose to empower its youngest citizens, proving that when young people are trusted with the ballot, they rise to the occasion and strengthen democratic participation for all.

Alabama

State Constitution does not provide for any degree of home rule.

Alabama’s Constitution phrases the voting age provision as a grant, with the statute merely referencing the Constitution. Notably, Alabama does not extend any degree of home rule to its municipalities, meaning the state legislature retains the authority to pass “local acts” that apply to individual municipalities. However, for home rule to be granted, an amendment to the Constitution would be required, which is unlikely to occur. While individual cities may advocate for “local acts” to lower the voting age, these acts would still need to be passed as constitutional amendments.

Alaska

Home rule statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.
Alaska’s Constitution presents the voting age requirement for voting as a grant (Art. 5 § 1), but the statute that provides voter requirements for state elections is less clear (15.05.010). A strict reading of the statute may interpret it as a grant, but the way the statute is structured makes it seem like a restriction. Further, there is a specific statute about voter qualifications for municipal elections (29.26.050). It does not mention age but refers back to the state election statute, and uses more restrictive language, lending credence to the more restrictive interpretation of the state election statute. Alaska’s Constitution provides broad power to home rule cities, but a statute prohibiting home rule cities from acting to supersede specific statutes includes the municipal voter qualification statute mentioned above (29.10.200). So, for a home rule city in Alaska to lower its voting age, the statute concerning restriction of home rule powers must be changed, and the general voter qualification statute may need to be changed as well. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Arizona

State Constitution specifically prohibits voting by those under 18.

The Arizona Constitution and election code both clearly restrict voting to only those over 18 years of age. Advocacy efforts in Arizona would have to start with an amendment to the state constitution, which is rather unlikely. A majority of each House must approve the amendment, and then it must be approved by the state’s voters.

Arkansas

Counties may be able to lower the voting age for their local elections.

Arkansas’ Constitution and statutes do not deny a city or county the ability to lower the voting age for its local elections. First class cities can exercise power related to “municipal affairs” as long as it does not conflict with state law (14-43-601). Act 1187 of 2011 repealed Dillon’s Rule. This gave municipalities the authority to “perform any function and exercise full legislative power in any and all matters of whatsoever nature pertaining to its municipal affairs.” However, Arkansas does not allow for 16-year-old voter pre-registration, and the state constitution’s voter registration provisions require citizens to be 18 by the time of the next election to register. This would complicate voter registration for 16-year-olds to vote in local elections.

California

Charter cities can change their local voting ages through charter amendments.

The California Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. California gives its charter cities (nearly every major city is a charter city) broad home rule authority. Elections are not specifically addressed, but municipalities “may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs” (Calif. Const. art. XI, § 5a) and case law supports the determination that elections are considered municipal affairs. This indicates that California charter cities may lower their local voting ages through city charter amendments, as San Francisco is pursuing now.

Colorado

Due to a 2020 referendum, the State Constitution now specifically restricts voting to only those 18 and older.
In 2020, a political group gathered signatures to place a proposed state constitutional amendment on the ballot, to change the wording of the state’s voter qualification clause to specify that only U.S. citizens ages 18 and older can vote in Colorado elections. This was part of a coordinated political effort by an organization that ran similar efforts in several states. Unfortunately, the amendment (Amendment 76) passed, meaning it would now take another state constitutional change to give cities the ability to lower the voting age for local elections. This amendment also had the effect of nullifying the state’s existing policy of allowing 17-year- olds who will turn 18 by the general election to vote in primary elections—a policy in place in 19 states and which had seen great success in Colorado, with 17-year- olds turning out at high rates. Despite the setback, youth organizers in Colorado continue to push for great youth representation in politics and to boost civic engagement among young people.

Connecticut

Home rule statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.
The Connecticut Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. Additionally, Connecticut does grant home rule to its municipalities. However, the law specifically prohibits municipalities from taking action that affects “matters concerning qualification and admission of electors” (Title 7, Chapter 99, Section 7-192a). It may be possible for one or more specific cities to seek enabling legislation, but this is unclear because Connecticut’s Constitution contains a provision that limits the general assembly’s ability to enact special legislation specific to a single city (Article 10 Section 1). Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Delaware

Home rule statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

Delaware’s Constitution phrases the voting age requirement as a grant, and the statute does contradict it, so the question turns to home rule. Delaware does give its cities a degree home rule powers, but cities are specifically prohibited from amending a municipal charter to “change the qualifications of those entitled to vote at municipal elections” (§ 835). Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Florida

Voter qualification statute and home rule statute prevent cities from lowering local voting age.

The Florida Constitution does not specifically prohibit those under 18 from voting, but the state’s election code reads “A person may become a registered voter only if that person is at least 18 years of age” (Chapter 97) (emphasis added). Florida municipalities have home rule, but cannot take action that is preempted by or in conflict with state law. The way the election code is written, it would almost certainly either preempt or conflict with a municipality’s action to lower the voting age. Thus, it appears that the law would have to be changed to allow those over 18 to vote, while not specifically denying that right to those under 18. This may still leave enough ambiguity for a legal challenge—a more certain strategy would be to also change the home rule law to specifically state that municipalities have authority over their local elections. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Georgia

Voter qualification statute and home rule statute prevent cities from lowering local voting age.

Georgia’s Constitution grants the right to vote to those over 18 and does not specifically prohibit those under 18 from voting. The Georgia code contains a statute listing voter qualifications that clearly restricts those under 18 from voting (§ 21-2-216). Further, while Georgia gives its municipalities some home rule powers, the home rule law lists specific powers that are reserved for the state, including “action affecting … the procedure for election or appointment of the members [of the municipal governing authority]” (§36-35-6). For municipalities in Georgia to lower their local voting ages, the state legislature would need to pass bills changing both the voter qualification law and the home rule law. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Hawaii

Counties can likely lower the voting age for their local elections through charter amendments, although more research is needed to verify.

Hawaii’s Constitution grants the right to vote to those 18 and up and does not specifically prohibit those under 18 from voting. The state statutes do not contain a provision on the voting age. Local government in Hawaii is mostly administered on the county level, and counties have broad power to self-govern via charters, as long as charter provisions do not conflict with general laws of the state. It does not appear that there are any state laws that would prohibit a county in Hawaii from lowering the voting age for its local elections, but this needs to be confirmed with more research on related statutes, including voter registration laws.

Idaho

The election code appears to disqualify those under 18 from voting, but it is not entirely clear. City-specific enabling legislation may be an option.

The Idaho Constitution grants the right to vote to those over 18 and does not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting (Idaho Const. art. 6, § 2). The Idaho election code, however, contains a provision titled “Disqualified Electors Not Permitted to Vote” (Idaho Code. Ann. § 34-403) This provision states that “no elector shall be permitted to vote if he is disqualified as provided in article 6, sections 2 and 3 of the state constitution.” Article 2 says, among other things, that all citizens over the age of 18 are qualified to vote. Taken together, this could very well be interpreted as meaning that one who is not qualified to vote under article 2 is disqualified. In this case, the Disqualified Electors statute would need to be changed. Regarding home rule, the Constitution states that “Any county or incorporated city or town may make and enforce, within its limits, all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with its charter or with the general laws” (Idaho Const. art. 12, § 2). This could likely be interpreted to give cities the ability to change the local voting age. City-specific enabling legislation could be an alternative to changing the Disqualified Electors statute. Further research is also needed on provisions related to implementation, including voter registration statutes.

Illinois

Charter cities have home rule authority to lower the voting age, but state law about voter registration would prevent implementation.

The Illinois Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. The state Constitution states that home rule units (counties and municipalities with populations over 25,000) “may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to [their] government and affairs” except as expressly limited, and that home rule powers “shall be construed liberally” (art. 7 § 6). Neither the constitution nor state statutes explicitly preempt municipalities from lowering their voting ages, so it seems that municipal units in Illinois can lower the voting age for their local elections, through charter amendments. However, the state Constitution requires that “laws governing voter registration and conduct of elections shall be general and uniform” (Const. art. 3, § 4). Voter registration forms are required to include a space where the prospective voter affirms that “I will be at least 18 years old on or before the next election” (Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/1A-16). A home rule unit could not use a different registration form without an amendment to state registration law. State legislation could amend the registration provision to affirm that home rule units that exercise their home rule authority to enact 16-yearold voting may also implement corresponding registration procedures.

Indiana

Home rule statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

The Indiana Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. The state has home rule, but it is extremely limited and specifically prohibits municipalities from conducting elections, or from regulating “conduct that is regulated by a state agency,” which would include elections (IC 38-1-3-9-7). Thus, advocacy efforts in Indiana would have to begin with changing the home rule law to allow municipalities to exercise control over local elections. Given the limited nature of the current law, this seems particularly unlikely. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Iowa

Voter qualification statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

Iowa’s Constitution phrases the voting age provision as a grant, but the election code phrases it as a restriction (§ 48A.5). The state Constitution has an amendment granting municipal corporations “home rule power and authority, not inconsistent with the laws of the General Assembly, to determine their local affairs and government” (Section 38A). However, the election code provides that “county commissioner of elections shall … conduct the election pursuant to the provisions of [the state election code]” (376.1). It appears that, if the voting age statute was changed to make it a grant rather than a restriction, a city could take action to lower its voting age. While the county commissioner would still conduct elections pursuant to the state laws, a lower voting age would no longer be contrary to those laws. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Kansas

Voter qualification statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

The Kansas Constitution phrases the voting age requirement as a grant, but the election code presents it as a clear restriction. Fortunately, Kansas does have relatively broad home rule powers. If the law regarding the voting age were changed to phrase the requirement as a grant, like the state Constitution does, it appears that cities would be able to use their home rule power to lower the voting age for local elections. Statewide or cityspecific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Kentucky

Open to interpretation, but home rule law likely prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

Kentucky’s Constitution phrases the voting age requirement as a grant. The voter qualification statute refers back to the Constitution, but in a way that may possibly be construed to restrict voting to only those above 18 (KRS § 116.025). Kentucky grants home rule via statute 82.082(1), which says, “A city may exercise any power and perform any function within its boundaries […} that is in furtherance of a public purpose of the city and not in conflict with a constitutional provision or statute.” Additionally, cities do not have power where there is a “comprehensive scheme of legislation on the same general subject” (82.082(2)). Although the state election code does not specifically address municipal elections, it is certainly arguable that it is a “comprehensive scheme of legislation on the same general subject” as municipal elections. In sum, it would be possible for a city in Kentucky to take action to lower its voting age, declaring that doing so is “in furtherance of a public purpose of the city” and that the state election code does not represent a “comprehensive scheme of legislation on the same general subject” as municipal elections. But, these declarations are subject to court challenges, and it is possible a court would reject the city’s claims, preventing it from lowering its voting age. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Learn More

Louisiana

Voter qualification statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

Louisiana’s Constitution phrases the age requirement for voting as a grant, but a statute in the state’s election code specifically states that “no one, under the age of eighteen years shall be permitted to vote in any election” (Title 18 § 101). If that statute were changed, local governments (parishes and municipalities) with home rule charters may be able to lower the voting age in their local elections through charter amendments, because they can exercise any power that is “necessary, requisite, or proper for the management of its affairs, not denied by general law or inconsistent with this constitution” (Const. Art. 6 § 5e). However, whether changing the local voting age falls under this description is subject to interpretation. In sum, advocacy in Louisiana must start with changing the statute that prohibits those under 18 from voting, and then it may be possible for local governments to take action. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Maine

Voter qualification statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

Maine’s state Constitution phrases the voting age as a grant, but the state election code presents it as a restriction. Further, while Maine’s Constitution provides for municipal home rule, the state election code specifically states that “The qualifications for voting in a municipal election conducted under this Title are governed solely by [the state election code’s voter qualification statute, which is phrased as a restriction]” (Title 30-A § 2501). Therefore, in order for municipalities to lower their voting ages in Maine, the state election code must be changed to phrase the voter qualification provision as a grant. To eliminate ambiguity, the statute previously mentioned (§ 2501) could also be eliminated or changed to specifically state that the qualifications for voting in municipal elections are not governed by state laws. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Maryland

Cities can lower the voting age for local elections by city council vote, except for Baltimore.

The Maryland Constitution grants the right to vote to those over 18, and does not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. Further, the Maryland election code states that: “Except for the City of Baltimore, the provisions of this section do not apply to a municipal corporation in the State in which the municipal or charter elections are regulated by the public local laws of the State or the charter of the municipal corporation” (Md. Code § 2-202). This gives cities the ability to regulate their local elections, and is what allowed Takoma Park and Hyattsville to lower the voting age with just a city council vote.

Massachusetts

Cities need the state legislature's approval for home rule petitions.

The Massachusetts Constitution and election code phrase the voting age requirement as a grant. Cities in Massachusetts have the ability to adopt home rule charters, but to amend a charter to lower the voting age, cities must send home rule petitions, also referred to as special act charters, to the state legislature (Chapter 43B). First, the city council must form a study committee, which recommends the home rule petition to the council. Then, if the city council votes in favor of the petition, it goes to the state legislature and is treated as a piece of legislation. If it passes the House and Senate and is signed by the Governor, the petition is returned to the city for implementation. Cities can write their petitions to make the proposal subject to approval by voters after being passed by the state legislature, but don’t necessarily have to. See this paper’s discussion of Lowell’s effort to lower the voting age for more details on the process in Massachusetts.

Michigan

Voter qualification statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age. Home rule law is open to interpretation, but may also prevent cities from lowering local voting age.

The Michigan Constitution phrases the voting age as a grant, but the election code says that to vote a person must be “not less than 18 years of age,” which is a restriction (Ch. 168 Sec. 492). Cities have a degree of home rule, but “No provision of any city or village charter shall conflict with or contravene the provisions of any general law of the state” (MCL 117.36; 78.27), and charter amendments must be submitted to the governor for approval. First, the voting age statute must be changed to phrase the age as a grant rather than a restriction. Even if this happens, it would be unclear whether a city could take action to lower its voting age, or if that would still conflict with or contravene the state law. To avoid this uncertainty, the home rule law would need to be changed to specifically give cities authority over elections. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Minnesota

Voter qualification statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age. More research is needed on home rule.

The Minnesota state Constitution phrases the voting age requirement as a grant, but the state’s election code phrases it as a restriction (Ch. 201.014). There is a state statute (Ch. 205.02) regarding the applicability of state election law to municipal elections, but further analysis is needed to understand how this affects cities’ ability to lower the voting age. Regardless, statewide or cityspecific enabling legislation could be a viable option.

Learn More

Mississippi

Home rule statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

The Mississippi Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. However, the Mississippi home rule law specifically prohibits cities from changing “the requirements, practices or procedures for municipal elections,” unless specifically authorized by another statute (Miss. Code Ann. § 21-17-5). Thus, the home rule law would have to be changed to allow municipalities to exercise home rule authority over local elections. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Missouri

The city of Kansas City may be able to lower the voting age for its local elections through either a charter amendment or a local ordinance.

The Missouri Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. The state has a specific statute that gives any city with a population over 400,000 the right to regulate its own elections (§ 122.650.1). The only such city in Missouri is Kansas City. Other charter cities “shall have all powers which the general assembly of the state of Missouri has authority to confer upon any city, provided such powers are consistent with the constitution of this state” (Art. 6 § 19a), but it is unclear whether this provision grants authority over local elections. The existence of the statute specific to cities over 400,000 suggests it does not. Kansas City’s charter includes a provision stating that state election laws shall apply to all city elections, “except as provision is otherwise made by this Charter or ordinance” (§ 601). So, it appears that Kansas City can lower its voting age for local elections. However, City Council staff for Kansas City shared commented to Vote16USA staff that they are not confident in the city’s authority to make this change. Further research is also needed on provisions related to implementation, including voter registration statutes.

Montana

Voter qualification statute and home rule statute prevent cities from lowering local voting age.

Montana’s state Constitution phrases the voting age requirement as a grant, but the state statute phrases it as a clear restriction (13-1-111). Further, while cities in Montana can adopt charters, they are still subject to state laws concerning elections, and charters “shall not contain provisions establishing election, initiative, and referendum procedures” (§ 7-3-708). So, for a municipality in Montana to have the ability to lower its local voting age, both the state law on voter qualifications and the home rule law would need to be changed. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Nebraska

Voter qualification statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

Nebraska’s Constitution presents the age requirement for voting as a grant, but the election code defines an elector as a citizen “who is at least eighteen years of age.” Cities with populations greater than 5,000 are allowed to adopt charters. City councils can propose charter amendments, which must be approved by referendum (Const. Art. 11-4), but charters are still subject to the Constitution and state laws. Therefore, the statute defining an “elector” must be changed before cities can take action to lower their voting ages through charter amendments. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Nevada

More research is needed on home rule law.

The Nevada Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. Nevada does not provide home rule through its Constitution, but it does give incorporated cities (the classification of city with the most autonomy in Nevada) certain powers listed under NRS 268.008. Authority over local elections is not listed. But, the state law about city elections says that “conduct of any city election is under the control of the governing body of the city, and it shall, by ordinance, provide for the holding of the election, appoint the necessary election officers and election boards and do all other things required to carry the election into effect” (NRS 293C.110). This may mean that cities can lower the voting age for their local elections through charter amendments or ordinances, but the law is particularly open to interpretation. Further research is also needed on related provisions like registration statutes.

New Hampshire

Home rule statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

New Hampshire’s Constitution phrases the voting age provision as a grant, and the statute simply refers to the Constitution (Const. Art. 11 and § 654:1). However, while New Hampshire’s towns and cities have the ability to adopt charters, charters do not give towns or cities any additional powers other than to determine the organization of their local government (§ 49-C:15). Further, New Hampshire law provides for the qualifications of voters in municipal elections (49-C:5). Additionally, in 2000, voters did not approve a proposed constitutional amendment that would have given cities and towns broad home rule powers. For a New Hampshire municipality to lower its voting age for local elections, the legislature would have to pass a bill specifically giving municipalities the authority to regulate local elections. Statewide or cityspecific enabling legislation may also be an option.

New Jersey

Cities operating under optional plan municipal governments appear to have the ability to change their local voting ages through charter amendments.

The Constitution grants the right to vote to those over 18 and does not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting (NJ Const. art. 2, § 1.3) and the election code refers back to the Constitution (N.J. Rev. Stat. § 19:4-1). Regarding home rule, Title 40, section 40:69A-29 lists specific powers granted to optional plan municipal governments, and this list does not include the power to regulate elections. But, Title 40, section 40:69A-30 states that this list is not exhaustive, and the powers of municipalities should be construed liberally. This provision is written in a generous way and appears to let cities do anything that is not in conflict with other state law. So, it appears that New Jersey cities operating under optional plan municipal governments can lower the voting age.

Learn More

New Mexico

Charter cities may be able to change their local voting ages through charter amendments.

The New Mexico Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. The state Constitution allows cities to adopt home rule charters, and gives charter cities very broad authority (NM Const. art. 10, § 6). Further, the election code contains a section regulating municipal elections, but states that “The provisions of the Municipal Election Code shall not apply to home rule municipalities […] unless the Municipal Election Code is adopted by reference by such municipality” (NMSA § 3-8-1). This indicates that the nine home rule charter cities in New Mexico may be able to lower the voting age in their local elections, through charter amendments.

New York

Voter qualification statute and home rule statute prevent cities from lowering local voting age.

The New York Constitution phrases the voting age as a grant, but the state election code phrases it as a restriction. Additionally, while New York provides home rule, it is limited, and municipalities do not have control over voter registration requirements. Therefore, advocacy efforts in New York must aim to change both the state law on the election age and the state law on home rule. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option. This would be similar to the city-specific law that allowed New York City to extend voting rights to non-citizens for school board elections from 1969-2002, when the mayor took control of the schools.

North Carolina

Voter qualification statute and home rule statute prevent cities from lowering local voting age.

North Carolina’s state Constitution phrases the voting age requirement as a grant, but the state statute phrases it as a clear restriction (§163-55). North Carolina does not provide for home rule in its Constitution, and home rule authority has been given in a limited way through subject-specific statutes. No such statute exists concerning municipal elections, and the state election code contains sections governing municipal elections (Chapter 163 Article 24). To lower the voting age in cities in North Carolina, advocates would have to pass a bill changing the voting age statute and specifically granting municipalities the authority to regulate local elections. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

North Dakota

Home rule statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

North Dakota’s Constitution and election statutes grant the right to vote to those over 18 and do not specifically prohibit those under 18 from voting. But, state statutes list the powers that are given to home rule cities and counties, and both cities and counties have the power to “provide for all matters pertaining to [city or county] elections, except as to qualifications of electors” (40-05.1-06 and 11-09.1-05). So, for a city or county to lower the voting age in its local elections, these statutes would need to be changed. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Ohio

Charter cities can change their local voting ages through charter amendments but may be especially subject to court challenge.

The Ohio Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. The state Constitution provides that “municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government” (Art. 18 Sec. 3). The scope of “local self-government” is not defined and has needed to be determined by the courts. Generally, if an issue is a matter of “general and statewide concern,” it is outside the scope of home rule. There is no way to tell whether the voting age in local elections would be considered “general and statewide concern” or a “power of local self-government.” It appears that a city in Ohio could attempt to change its voting age through a charter amendment, declaring that doing so is a “power of local self-government,” and would then have to defend the action if it is challenged in court. More research is needed on related statutes, like voter registration laws.

Oklahoma

Charter cities can change their local voting ages through charter amendments, which need to be approved by voters and the Governor.

Oklahoma’s Constitution phrases the voting age provision as a grant, and the statute refers back to the Constitution. Regarding home rule, cities with populations greater than 2,000 are allowed to adopt home rule charters and amend them so long as they do not conflict with the state Constitution or statutes. Charter amendments must be approved by the city council, then approved by voters, then submitted to the governor for approval (Constitution Section 18-3(a)). The governor shall grant approval if the amendment “shall not be in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this State.” However, it is unclear how the governor decides to approve charter amendments in reality, and more local research is needed to determine the specifics of this part of the process.

Oregon

Statute on state election law's applicability to local elections prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

Oregon’s constitutional provision on the voting age is a bit ambiguous, but it can likely be interpreted as a grant (Art. 2 § 2). The state election code does not contain a voter qualification provision. Cities in Oregon have some degree of home rule, but the state election code states that “any primary election, general election or special election held in this state shall be conducted under the provisions of this chapter, unless specifically provided otherwise in the statute laws of this state” (§ 254.016). It seems that this provision prevents cities from enacting their own regulations related to elections, like lowering the voting age. In order to give cities in Oregon the power to lower their voting ages, either this statute or the home APPENDIX B Young Voices at the Ballot Box: Amplifying Youth Activism to Lower the Voting Age 32 rule laws would need to be amended. Statewide or cityspecific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Pennsylvania

Home rule statute prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

The Pennsylvania Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. Pennsylvania gives its municipalities a degree of home rule, but the state law specifically prohibits municipalities from exercising home rule authority over “the registration of electors and the conduct of elections.” Advocacy efforts in Pennsylvania would need to begin with changing that state law to give municipalities more control over their local elections. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Learn More

Rhode Island

State legislation is needed to give cities the authority to lower the voting age locally.

The Rhode Island Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting (Const. Art. 2 § 1 and §17-1-3). The state Constitution also says that any city can amend its charter and “enact and amend local laws relating to its property, affairs and government not inconsistent with this constitution and laws enacted by the general assembly” (Article 13, Section 2). On the surface, it appears this this should be interpreted to mean that cities do have the power to lower the voting age, since the provisions about the voting age are presented as grants. However, conversations with elected officials and elections administrators in Rhode Island reveal that in reality the laws are interpreted to mean that the state controls all matters related to elections, despite cities’ apparent home rule powers. So, legislation on the state level would need to more explicitly give cities this power.

South Carolina

State Constitution prohibits municipalities from enacting provisions related to elections.

South Carolina’s Constitution and election statutes grant the right to vote to those over 18 and do not specifically prohibit those under 18 from voting (Const. Art. 2 § 4 and S.C. Code Ann. § 7-5-610). But, while the Constitution allows municipalities to adopt home rule charters, it specifically prohibits them from enacting provisions related to “election and suffrage qualifications” (Art. 8 § 14). City-specific enabling legislation may be a possibility, but this is unlikely due to the constitutional provision. Constitutional amendments must be approved by twothirds of each House, and then approved by the state’s voters.

South Dakota

Cities and counties can lower the voting age for their local elections through charter amendments.

The South Dakota state Constitution and election code both grant the right to vote to those 18 and older, and do not specifically prohibit those under 18 from voting (Const. Art. 7 § 2 and SDCL 12-3-1). Any county or city in South Dakota can adopt a charter, and “A chartered governmental unit may exercise any legislative power or perform any function not denied by its charter, the Constitution or the general laws of the state” (Const. Art. 9 § 2). A state statute lists the restrictions on the power of home rule units, and this list does not include elections. Therefore, it seems that home rule units (cities or counties) in South Dakota can lower the voting age for their local elections through charter amendments. Charter amendments must be approved by voters. Further research is also needed on provisions related to implementation, including voter registration statutes.

Tennessee

State legislation is needed to give cities the power to lower the local voting age under home rule authority.

Tennessee’s Constitution presents the voting age requirement as a grant, and the state’s statutes don’t address the voting age. Home rule is unclear. Art. 11 Sec. 9 of the Constitution gives any municipality the ability to become a home rule municipality, but it doesn’t elaborate on powers granted. Title 6, Chapter 53 regulates municipal elections, but does not say whether home rule municipalities can form their own regulations regarding elections. While not explicitly clear, this is likely enough to determine that cities in Tennessee do not currently have the authority to lower the voting age for local elections. It is likely that state legislation would be needed to affirm a city’s ability to lower the local voting age under its home rule authority.

Texas

State Constitution specifically prohibits voting by those under 18.

The Texas Constitution and election code both clearly restrict voting to only those over 18 years of age. Advocacy efforts in Texas would have to start with an amendment to the state constitution, which is rather unlikely. Twothirds of each House must approve of the amendment, and then it must be approved by the state’s voters

Utah

Cities may be able to lower the voting age for local elections, but the issue is especially open to interpretation.

The Utah Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. The Constitution also gives cities the ability to adopt charters for their local government. Cities with charters have “the authority to exercise all powers relating to municipal affairs, and to adopt and enforce within its limits, local police, sanitary and similar regulations not in conflict with the general law, and no enumeration of powers in this constitution or any law shall be deemed to limit or restrict the general grant of authority hereby conferred” (Const. Art. 11 § 5). This indicates cities might be able to use their home rule power to lower the voting age. However, local elections are included in the statutory definition of “election” in the state election code (20A-1-102), which could prevent cities from acting on the issue. Further interpretation and case law research are needed, as well as research on related statutes, like the voter registration laws.

Vermont

Cities need the state legislature's approval for charter amendments.

The Vermont Constitution and election code grant the right to vote to those over 18, and do not explicitly prohibit those under 18 from voting. Municipalities in Vermont do have the ability to amend their charters, but all charter amendments must be approved by the city’s voters as well as the state’s General Assembly (§ 2645). It is possible for a city to amend its charter through this process to lower the voting age, because the state’s election code says that charter provisions shall apply over state law when they provide for election procedures different than those outlined in the state laws (§ 2631).

Virginia

State Constitution specifically prohibits voting by those under 18, and does not provide for home rule.

The Virginia Constitution phrases its voting age provision as “Each voter shall be […] eighteen years of age” (Article 2 Section 1). This phrase clearly restricts voting to those over the age of 18, so advocacy efforts in Virginia would have to start with an amendment to the Constitution to change this provision. In addition, Virginia does not offer home rule to its municipalities, which makes lowering the voting age in cities in Virginia especially unlikely.

Washington

State law appears to grant cities the right to lower the voting age on the local level.

Washington’s home rule provisions permit municipal autonomy, and the state laws do not seem to prohibit cities from using this authority to choose to use a lower votig age for local elections.

West Virginia

State Constitution specifically prohibits voting by those under 18, and does not provide for home rule.

West Virginia’s Constitution and election code both clearly restrict voting to only those over 18 years of age (Const. Art 4 § 1 and WV Code § 3-1-3). Advocacy efforts in West Virginia would have to start with an amendment to the state constitution, which is rather unlikely. Two-thirds of each House must approve of the amendment, and then it must be approved by the state’s voters.

Wisconsin

It appears that cities can lower the voting age through charter amendments, but the election code and home rule and provisions are especially open to interpretation, complicated by case law.

The Constitution (Art. 3 § 1) and statute (§ 6.02) both phrase the voting age requirement as a grant. The Constitution (Art. 11 § 3) gives cities power to “determine their local affairs and government, subject only to this Constitution and to such enactments of the legislature of statewide concern as with uniformity shall affect every city or every village.” It is likely that state election statutes are of “statewide concern,” especially since (§ 5.02) defines “election” as “every public primary and election.” If this is true, cities may still be able to lower the voting age, since doing so may not directly conflict with the state law. On the other hand, cities may be prohibited from doing anything in an area of statewide concern where there already are statewide laws. Case law does not give very clear direction but leans toward a more limited interpretation of home rule. Research is also needed on state status related to implementation, such as voter registration laws.

Wyoming

Statute on state election law's applicability to local elections prevents cities from lowering local voting age.

Wyoming’s Constitution phrases the voting age requirement as a grant, but the state election code’s provisions on qualifications to register to vote is unclear (22-3-102). Regardless, the state election code does state that “a municipal election shall be governed by laws regulating statewide elections” (22-23-101). So, for a city in Wyoming to lower its voting age, that provision would have to be changed to give cities control over the regulation of their elections, and the registration qualification statute may need to be changed as well. Statewide or city-specific enabling legislation may also be an option.

Learn More