Texas is often touted as a state with strong civic participation and voter turnout. However, there is still room for improvement, especially among young voters. Currently, in Texas, citizens must be 18 years old by Election Day in November to be eligible to vote in both the primary and general elections. This means many young people who will turn 18 later in the year are left out of the primary process, unable to have a say in choosing the final candidates they will see on the November ballot.
To address this gap in civic participation, Texas State Senator Judith Zaffirini has proposed a constitutional amendment to allow 17-year-olds to vote in primary elections as long as they will be 18 by the date of the general election. This proposal, S.J.R. 7, would give more young Texans a voice in choosing their elected leaders and could boost youth voter turnout in the long run (Loughran et al.). An analysis of the key arguments around this proposal provides insight into the potential benefits and drawbacks of opening up primaries to 17-year-old future voters.
Support for Increasing Youth Participation
There are several compelling reasons why many legislators, community leaders, and youth advocates would support Senator Zaffirini’s proposed amendment to expand access to voting in primary elections.
Encouraging Early Civic Participation
Allowing 17-year-olds to participate in primaries would encourage more young people to get involved in the civic process at an earlier age. Voting is habit-forming; research shows that if young citizens start voting early, they are more likely to become regular voters as they get older. By bringing 17-year-olds into primaries, Texas has the opportunity to boost youth turnout for elections to come. The earlier young voters get started, the more time they have to build long-term civic participation habits.
Promoting Democratic Values
Expanding voting to more young people also helps promote foundational democratic values like inclusion and equal representation. Seventeen is the age when most high school students are studying government and learning what it means to participate in the democratic process (Allison). Giving them real-world experience with voting allows for more authentic civic learning and sets an example of how elected leaders should value representation and input from people of all eligible ages.
Driving Platform Changes
Allowing 17-year-olds to help select primary candidates could drive changes in party platforms and campaign outreach as politicians compete for the youth vote. Right now, general election candidates have little incentive to cater platforms or messaging to 17-year-olds (Loughran et al.). But if this age group gains voting power in the nomination process, more candidates may focus attention on issues young future voters care about, like the economy, climate change, education, and civil rights. This could ultimately lead to more youth-centered policies.
Upholding Consistency
Finally, some supporters argue this policy change upholds consistency in Texas voting eligibility – if you are eligible to vote in the November general election, you should have a voice in determining the candidates on that ballot. It makes little civic sense to bar young citizens who will be of voting age for the general from participating in the primary stage (Pislar). Running primaries open to 17-year-olds institutes more reasonable eligibility timelines tied to the final election.
Concerns About Implications
Despite the merits of encouraging youth civic engagement, there are some potential downsides to allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primaries that must be thoughtfully considered.
Life Experience Questions
The biggest concerns stem from questions around maturity and life experience. Primary elections play a gatekeeping role for the general election; primary voters are tasked with deciding each party’s nominee. Some question if 17-year-olds have the political awareness or judgement needed to evaluate candidates’ experience, positions, electability, or potential effectiveness in office (Wagner et al.). Without the benefit of completing high school civics courses, turning 18, moving out of their parents’ home, or experiencing “real world” financial independence, do 17-year-olds have sufficient context for such an important electoral decision?
Minimal Turnout Impact
Another counterargument notes that opening up primaries may not actually increase youth voter turnout in a meaningful way. Young people are already eligible to vote in general elections at age 18 but still have much lower turnout rates than older citizens. Supporters hope that voting at 17 instills long-term habits, but if overt barriers like registration hassles or lack of excitement about candidates still dampen turnout at 18, allowing primary voting at 17 may not drive substantial impact (Priest). Essentially, eligibility does not always lead to participation. Some analysts argue resources would be better spent on civic learning in schools, making registration easier, allowing election day registration, or other reforms with more guaranteed turnout returns.
Weighing Impact vs Investment
Ultimately, the biggest question legislators face on this policy proposal deals with return on investment and opportunity cost. Changing the state constitution is no simple feat; it requires 2/3 approval in both legislative chambers and support from a majority of Texas voters. That’s a lengthy process requiring focus, campaigning, and coordination. Some legislators or citizens may argue there are more pressing voting reforms than one allowing a small population of 17-year-olds to vote in primaries months before they’d be able to vote anyway. They have to weigh the costs of the amendment process and implementation against the small, difficult-to-quantify gains in youth turnout and long-term civic engagement. There are certainly strong civic arguments on both sides.
Voting Yes from the Legislature
If I were a member of the Texas State Legislature considering this proposed constitutional amendment, I would ultimately vote yes. The arguments around upholding consistency, promoting genuine democratic values of representation, and encouraging life-long civic habits in young voters are hugely important. The concerns around maturity and turnout returns may have validity, but structured civics education can help develop context and awareness in 17-year-olds. And even small, consistent gains in youth voting habits can pay dividends for engaged citizenship over time.
There is also symbolic value in telling young citizens that their elected officials believe their voices deserve to be heard. This amendment tells 17-year-olds that they are valued members of Texas’ civic community. The cost and effort of a constitutional change always requires weighty consideration. But the balance seems to tip towards the societal benefits of early voting access for young people and the statement it makes about young Texans deserving an equal seat at the table.
Voting Yes as a Voter
If this proposed amendment makes it through the legislature and onto the statewide ballot, I would enthusiastically vote yes as a Texas citizen as well. Supporting youth voting aligns closely with my personal values around inclusion and civic participation.interface
Expanding primary voting access would give 17-year-olds a low-stakes chance to practice voting and see the process in action. Starting the habit even earlier improves their chances of becoming informed, engaged voters for years to come.
There will always be some skeptical arguments around readiness or qualifications when expanding the vote. But history shows our civic community has tremendous capacity to adapt and include new groups when their voices demand to be heard. This country saw similar concerns around preparedness and judgement when voting rights moved towards including Black citizens, women, and 18 to 20-year-olds after the 26th amendment. In each case, expanding participation brought more people into civic society in meaningful ways, even if the initial turnout gains were incremental.
Now is the time to open access for more young voters again. Each generation faces new economic, social, and political realities that earlier generations cannot fully anticipate. Young people deserve a chance to evaluate primary candidates through the lens of the world they are inheriting and select nominees they feel will understand their perspectives.
This amendment is not going to fix all obstacles to youth participation; that must be an ongoing battle fought on multiple fronts. But it is one concrete way Texas can tell 17-year-olds that their voices and choices matter. I would be proud to support that signal as a Texas voter.
The Path Forward
Amending the Texas Constitution is difficult by design, requiring overwhelming legislative approval and majority statewide support. This ensures changes are not made lightly without broad consensus from citizens. While this proposed expansion of youth voting eligibility faces logistical obstacles and some philosophical opposition, the arguments rooted in consistent democratic values provide compelling motivation. Ultimately, all policy changes involve tradeoffs in costs and benefits. But the long-view civic benefits of bringing 17-year-olds into primary electorates could outweigh near-term growing pains. Even if initial turnout gains are small, signaling to young citizens that their voices are valued from the earliest age possible is an investment in democracy itself. With some voter education and administrative diligence
Works Cited
Allison, Natalie. “Vivek Ramaswamy Wants to Raise the Voting Age. Even His Staff Doesn’t like the Idea.” POLITICO, 10 May 2023, www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/ramaswamy-raise-voting-age-00096266.
Eichhorn, Jan, and Johannes Bergh. “Lowering the Voting Age to 16 in Practice: Processes and Outcomes Compared.” Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 74, no. 3, July 2021, pp. 507–21, https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab019.
Loughran, Thomas, et al. “Public Opinion, Political Partisanship and the Votes-At-16 Debate in the United Kingdom.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 123, no. 22, July 2021, p. 136914812110212, https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211021216.
Pislar, Yevgeniy. “Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment Proposition 18: Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment Allows 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary Elections Allows 17-Year-Olds.” California Initiative Review (CIR), vol. 18, no. 2, 2020, p. 6, scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=california-initiative-review. Accessed 22 Jan. 2024.
Pislar, Yevgeniy, and Rachel Puleo. “Proposition 18: Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment Allows 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary Elections.” California Initiative Review (CIR), vol. 2020, no. 1, Oct. 2020, scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/california-initiative-review/vol2020/iss1/6/. Accessed 22 Jan. 2024.
Priest, Maura. “WHY CHILDREN SHOULD BE ALLOWED to VOTE.” Public Affairs Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 3, 2016, pp. 215–38, www.jstor.org/stable/44732770.
Wagner, Markus, et al. “Voting at 16: Turnout and the Quality of Vote Choice.” Electoral Studies, vol. 31, no. 2, June 2012, pp. 372–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.01.007 .
write