https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3720667 Some (mostly Ds) seek to increase the # of voters by lowering the voting age to 16. It would work, and it would make them lifelong voters, but it's dangerous to teenagers. Here's my second paper on the subject, just out in @BULawReview @Vote16USA thread 1/

2 reasons. History of campaigns to earn the vote, including Woman’s Suffrage + 18-year-old voting, suggests that a lower voting age will lead to comprehensive legal equality, meaning a lower age of majority, regardless of the current protestations of the Vote16 advocates. 2/

Lowering the voting age will therefore undermine the protective commitments we make to youth in school, in the justice system, and in the child welfare system. The age of majority dropped to 18 as an immediate consequence of lowering the voting age to 18. 3/

Age of majority influences treatment in the criminal justice system. That influences an array of life options. Age of majority determines right to be housed by parents or the state via foster care. Child welfare advocates are fighting to *raise these ages. Vote16 doesn't help. 4/

2d reason not to adopt Vote16: a right to vote includes an access to teens by campaigns. Campaign speech is protected, and 16-year old voting invites more unfettered access to minors by commercial, government, and political interests than current law tolerates. 5/

Opening 16-year-olds to campaign access undermines a considered legal system managing exploitation of adolescents, via direct reg of entities, + via parental right in both law and culture to manage, supervise, or block contacts with persons trying to communicate with a minor. 6/

Vote16 treats neuropsychology as the determinant of ages of access to the vote and to other legal obligations and rights. This misses the institutional analysis of the age of majority, which creates an imperfect but real protective shield against the exploitation of youth. 7/

Vote16 distracts by ages of license that preoccupy the popular imagination, such as driving or drinking alcohol. These are exceptions to more significant if less flashy meaning of legal childhood, with its support and protections including housing, support, and forgiveness. 8/

Vote16 advocates misunderstand the legal framework around childhood, and they threaten it. It has never been possible to isolate the meaning of the franchise. It has always had far-reaching implications for civil status. The paper explains. end/