CHANGE MY LOCATION
Politics
Examiners
California News
Multimedia News
Voting eligibility at 17 varies by county in Md.
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Less than a month from now, thousands of civic-minded Maryland 17-year-olds will have the opportunity to help choose the new leader of the free world.
But in Montgomery and in seven other counties statewide this year, those same teens will not be allowed to vote on who runs their local school system.
Maryland law will allow 17-year-olds who turn 18 before the November general election to vote in the state’s Feb. 12 primary.
That right had been stripped from 17-year-old would-be voters as a result of a 2006 opinion from the attorney general’s office saying that primaries must be run in the same way as general elections.
But in December, suffrage was restored to 17-year-old voters at the urging of the state Democratic and Republican parties and Attorney General Doug Gansler, who said in a memo that political parties have a First Amendment right to assembly that allows them to decide who can participate in their primaries.
The decision was heralded by hundreds of local teenagers who had objected to the 2006 change. And on Tuesday, the Montgomery County Board of Education passed a resolution urging the system’s 25 high schools to encourage students to register to vote.
But because nonpartisan races are governed by the state constitution, which says no one under 18 can vote in an election, 17-year-olds will no longer have a say in nonpartisan races, including choosing among school board candidates whose names will appear on ballots in February, state Elections Board Deputy Administrator Ross Goldstein said.
“The parties don’t get to dictate who votes in that,” Goldstein said. “That’s then decided by the state constitution.”
Ben Moskowitz, the 18-year-old student representative on the county school board, called that “an incomplete vote” because those same 17-year-old primary voters will later be allowed to vote for a narrowed field of school board and other nonpartisan candidates as 18-year-olds in November.
“It limits their ability to decide in the general election if they don’t have input to decide on who the nominees are,” Moskowitz said. “The way I see it, it’s really an incomplete vote.”
cmabeus@dcexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
7:33 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Icy extension may lose county election judges"
Report as inappropriate
2:23 PM MST on Tue., Feb. 12, 2008
re: "Students take to radio airwaves to encourage their peers to vote"
Report as inappropriate
9:04 AM MST on Mon., Feb. 11, 2008
re: "New independent voters outnumber new Republican voters in Maryland primary"
Report as inappropriate
6:51 AM MST on Mon., Feb. 11, 2008
re: "Court upholds 17-year-olds’ right to vote"
Report as inappropriate
11:23 PM MST on Sun., Feb. 10, 2008
re: "Independent voters outnumber new Republican voters in Md."
Report as inappropriate
2:27 PM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "Students take to radio airwaves to encourage their peers to vote"
Report as inappropriate
9:35 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "Students take to radio airwaves to encourage their peers to vote"
Report as inappropriate
4:41 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "Students take to radio airwaves to encourage their peers to vote"
Report as inappropriate
3:16 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "Election officials: Voting problems will not reoccur"
Report as inappropriate
3:07 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "Students take to radio airwaves to encourage their peers to vote"
Report as inappropriate
10:23 AM MST on Tue., Jan. 22, 2008
re: "Election officials: Voting problems will not reoccur"
Report as inappropriate
9:51 PM MST on Fri., Jan. 18, 2008
re: "Bill would require residency proof for voters"
Report as inappropriate
10:41 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 18, 2008
re: "Bill would require residency proof for voters"
Report as inappropriate
10:38 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 18, 2008
re: "Bill would require residency proof for voters"
Report as inappropriate
9:52 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 18, 2008
re: "Bill would require residency proof for voters"
Report as inappropriate
9:42 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 18, 2008
re: "Bill would require residency proof for voters"
Report as inappropriate
8:55 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 18, 2008
re: "Bill would require residency proof for voters"
Report as inappropriate
6:42 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 18, 2008
re: "Bill would require residency proof for voters"
Report as inappropriate
6:26 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 18, 2008
re: "Bill would require residency proof for voters"
Report as inappropriate
5:53 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 18, 2008
re: "Bill would require residency proof for voters"
Report as inappropriate
4:55 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 18, 2008
re: "Bill would require residency proof for voters"
Report as inappropriate
9:42 AM MST on Fri., Dec. 21, 2007
re: "Some in state can vote at 17"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
How about we keep the polling sites open for a month. Will that be enough time to vote? This is getting out of hand. If one wants to vote, they will find a way to vote.
79 agree | 82 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mark said:
9:04 - Unless you really have thought about the repercussions of your choice please do not. Then again if you're just going to blindly pull a lever for anyone with a D next to their name (resulting in ever expanding "social" programs and ever increasing taxes) then you just fit in with the vast majority of Maryland voters. Educate yourself first and not by assuming everything your left leaning teacher tells you is gospel. Socialism is evil and destructive. It keeps the poor down and overtaxes the middle to support them.
85 agree | 77 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Can we, or can we not vote in this years primary in Maryland??
116 agree | 101 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
No surprise. The court just added more functionally illiterate, inexperienced, socialist voters to support the Democrats who these "judges" on the bench. Just look at 2:27 PM on the subject of health care. These children are fine with nationalizing about 7 percent of the US economy and don’t see the connection to their freedom. It’s time to be very scared.
97 agree | 100 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Maryland is about as Socialist as they come, to expect change there? That's like hoping that test scores will improve. LOL. Chris
85 agree | 75 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I'm sorry, but have you seen the movie "Sicko"? obviously not. Having a centralized healthcare does not mean that we the people of America, are giving up our rights. So what if they take out more in taxes. it will save everyone lots of trouble, and the whole country will be better off. all i know is that something needs to be done. anything is better than what we have now. thanks for expanding your narrow, anger-distorted views ever so slightly. concerned American
114 agree | 116 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
IMAGINE THAT, a bunch of uninformed barely educated kids fall for the promise of health care and education reform. There is no way I want this guy as my president. He is a socialist. He wants the govt. to handle health-care. They cant even get DMV right. But I shouldnt be surprised by the want of these kids to have someone take care of them. They have mostly been raised by the STATE and think that being on the Govt. dole is ok. I have no problem helping someone get back on their feet, but I am sick and tired of carrying people. Govt. needs to stay out of the way and stop raising govt. dependent children who become govt. dependent "adults". But I guess that is exactly what liberalism is, making dependents so that the powerful get to stay powerful. Just my thoughts.
108 agree | 108 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Voting SHOULD be an informed choice. If someone must be motivated or encouraged to vote, it is likely they will not be sufficiently informed about the candidates. I suggest we inform students about WHY to vote and leave the cajoling to their parents. I DO NOT expect the schools to provide a FAIR and BALANCED debate about the party differences.
109 agree | 94 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Agree, these kids should be taught to vote in school instead of just to take test after test.
112 agree | 111 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
avid reader said:
This is a very good thing but I hope somewhere in there is a person directing these young folk to also stand up and run for some of the offices that they are voting for. To vote is one thing but to have your vote taken seriously is another and all of us don't have that right now. Their generation can get some of these trifling mothers out of office so a vote can really mean something. keep up the good work young people.
113 agree | 98 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I hope Rosenberg's bill passes. Then, maybe we can stop all of his election day dirty tactics.
102 agree | 103 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I am missing the point, as always. All I need is a genuine ID to vote and sign my ballot. What about a change of name and address card?? I am missing something, Gee, who cares. Its all politics as usual. One day you politicians will get a clue and stop nmaking everything so strict and complicated.
99 agree | 79 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
when you need id to get into most any building, no one at the aclu omplains at all. when you need id to vote , suddenly that is wrong, what am i missing??????
92 agree | 95 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
the dems and aclu agree, suppressing any potential vote, regardless if it is a leagal vote, supreesses the vote for more liberal candidates. nothing more nothing less
94 agree | 71 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mark said:
What's needed is proof of citizenship not residence. That will never get past our commie legislature will it ?
100 agree | 73 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Who ever has done the great work for our county is legal. The lazy theives must go!
94 agree | 81 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
With the tremendous number of illegals in this country now, this is a must. Part of being a responsible citizen and enjoying the privileges of a democracy society includes being able to prove who you are and your right to be here.
90 agree | 71 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
legal citizen said:
This is long overdue. I'm sure the Dems will oppose it since it curtails voter fraud. As for the ACLU, as usual they distort the facts. The MVA issues ID cards for Non-Drivers. But Ms. Boersma ignores that fact since it doesn't fit the agenda of the ACLU wackos.
99 agree | 76 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
avid reader said:
Well talk is cheap fellas. If you want to impress the voting public then make these conversations laws and soon.
102 agree | 80 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Jeff, an Independent said:
Wow, somebody in the state government has some common sense?! It is not unreasonable to require proof of one's identity, regardless of what the bleeding heart nimrods at the ACLU think. Kudos, Senator Colburn.
94 agree | 79 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Tinker said:
What a novel idea!!!!
108 agree | 81 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is rich. Suddenly, it's a First Amendment right for the political parties to decide who votes in their primaries, but it's NOT a right for ANYONE to vote in their primary UNLESS they are registered with that party? I wish politicians would stop talking out of both sides of their mouths so frequently.
124 agree | 103 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree