Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would give citizens aged sixteen and older the right to vote and would repeal the existing amendment that sets the voting age at eighteen. If approved by the required supermajorities in Congress and ratified by the states, the proposed amendment would become part of the Constitution. The text also gives Congress the authority to pass laws to enforce the amendment.
A constitutional amendment joint resolution must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate and is not sent to the President; after congressional approval it must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures (or state conventions). This particular proposal includes a seven-year deadline for state ratification.
This joint resolution proposes a Constitutional amendment to repeal the 26th Amendment and extend the right to vote to U.S. citizens aged sixteen or older.
It gives Congress power to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation and requires ratification by three-fourths of states within seven years.
As a constitutional amendment changing voter eligibility, it faces very high procedural thresholds and likely partisan resistance; state ratification is a large additional barrier.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill presents a clear and narrowly drafted constitutional amendment: it repeals the 26th Amendment, establishes an explicit right to vote for citizens 16 and older, and includes a ratification timeframe and a congressional enforcement clause. It provides the essential constitutional text without operational detail.
Whether 16-year-olds have sufficient maturity and independence
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether 16-year-olds have sufficient maturity and independence
Likely broadly supportive as an expansion of democratic participation for a cohort with long-term stakes in public policy.
Sees youth enfranchisement as a means to increase civic engagement and representation on issues like climate and education.
Would push for complementary measures like civics education and access protections.
Cautiously open but pragmatic; welcomes increased participation in principle while seeking evidence and practical plans.
Wants clear implementation details, cost estimates, and safeguards to ensure votes reflect independent judgment.
Favors compromise measures and phased approaches if needed.
Likely opposed or skeptical, viewing the amendment as lowering maturity standards and expanding federal oversight of elections.
Concerns focus on readiness of 16-year-olds, possible politicization in schools, and partisan consequences.
Prefers states retain control and resists federal enforcement overreach.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
As a constitutional amendment changing voter eligibility, it faces very high procedural thresholds and likely partisan resistance; state ratification is a large additional barrier.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether 16-year-olds have sufficient maturity and independence
As a constitutional amendment changing voter eligibility, it faces very high procedural thresholds and likely partisan resistance; state ra…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill presents a clear and narrowly drafted constitutional amendment: it repeals the 26th Amendment, establishes an explicit right to vote for citizens 16 and older, and in…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.