Some Seek To Lower Missouri’s Voting Age

In early December news came out about a proposed change to Missouri’s voting age:

Democratic Rep. Karla May of St. Louis this week filed a joint resolution to amend the state constitution to reduce the legal age to vote from 18 years old.

If passed by both the state House and Senate, the measure would go to a public vote. (Missouri lawmaker wants to lower voting age to 16)

Currently you need to be 17-1/2 to register, 18 to vote. Decades ago the minimum voting age

The long debate over lowering the voting age in America from 21 to 18 began during World War II and intensified during the Vietnam War, when young men denied the right to vote were being conscripted to fight for their country. In the 1970 case Oregon v. Mitchell, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the right to regulate the minimum age in federal elections, but not at the state and local level. Amid increasing support for a Constitutional amendment, Congress passed the 26th Amendment in March 1971; the states promptly ratified it, and President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law that July. (History.com)

The following is an argument in favor of lowering the voting age:

FairVote supports expanding suffrage to 16 and 17-year-olds in municipal elections. The proposal to extend voting rights to people after they turn 16 may surprise some, but the latest research is a revelation. All evidence suggests that cities will increase turnout by allowing citizens to cast their first vote after turning 16. The reason is simple. Many people at 16 and 17 have lived in their communities for years and are taking government classes in high school. That combination results in more people exercising their first chance to vote if they are 16 or 17 than if they are unable to vote until they have left home and school.

A voting age of 18 means that many people won’t get a chance to vote in city elections until they are nearly 20. A detailed study of voting age and voters in Denmark found that 18-year-olds were far more likely to cast their “first vote” than 19-year-olds, and that every month of extra age in those years resulted in a decline in “first vote” turnout. Allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections will enable them to vote before leaving home and high school, and establish a life-long habit of voting.

Lowering the voting age to 16 is becoming an international movement. A growing number of nations like Austria, Argentina, Germany and the United Kingdom that have extended voting rights to people at 16 for national, regional or local elections. Evidence from Austria confirms that extending voting rights to people after they turn 16 promotes higher turnout for first-time voters and over time. Austria’s experience also shows that 16- and 17-year-olds are ready for voting as far as making choices that accurately reflect their views.

Long-time backers of a lower voting age, like the National Youth Rights Association, make a fairness argument as well. Turning 16 has special significance in our culture. At age 16, we can drive, pay taxes and for the first time work without any restriction on hours. Many states already allow citizens under 18 to vote in Democratic and Republican primaries for president, Congress and governor. (FairVote)

I hadn’t read the above before the poll, I’m liking the idea of 16 for local elections, 18 for state & national, just not sure if that would be an administrative nightmare or not.

When I checked the Sunday Poll results about 3-4 hours before it closed the number of votes was low and keeping the age at 18 had a majority of votes, but by bedtime it was clear a group decided to push the “15 or lower” answer.

Q: What should the voting age be in Missouri?

1. 15 or lower: 50 [65.79%]
2. 18: 18 [23.68%]
3. 16: 5 [6.58]
4. 21: 1 [1.32%]
5. 22 or higher: 1 [1.32%]
6. Unsure/No Opinion: 1 [1.32%]

I would’ve been pleased if the total of all votes was 50, but that’s how many voted for 15 or lower late in the day, it had maybe 1 vote earlier. To my knowledge no state vote to lower the voting age below 18 has been successful.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: What should the voting age be in Missouri?

In the news last month was a report that a Missouri legislator wants to change the voting age. I’m being vague on purpose, so as not to influence today’s poll: What should the voting age be in Missouri?

The poll is in the right sidebar, mobile users can switch to the desktop view at the bottom of the mobile layout (not visible within apps like Facebook). Check back on Wednesday Tuesday for the results, specifics on the current & proposed voting age, and a bit of local political history.

— Steve Patterson

4th Anniversary of Local Smoking Bans

I can understand that the ‘Good News Friday’ topic for today might be a matter of viewpoint, but it’s my blog and I think it is good news. Four years ago clean air/smoking bans in St. Louis City & County became effective. This has allowed me to visit places that I’d previously considered off-limits, such as:

The St. Louis exemption for small bars will expire in just one year, on Saturday January 2, 2016 establishments that had been granted exemptions to continue allowing smoking will no longer be exempt. Will they be ready or will they be surprised at how quickly five years has passed by? No doubt some will squander the next 12 months but hopefully others are completing patios and such.

Casinos in the city & county, unfortunately, remain exempt. Other Missouri counties in the region aren’t yet smoke-free. The entire state of Illinois is smoke-free, including casinos.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: Limiting NLEC to 32 Beds is Fair, Alternatives Exist

A week ago today the city’s Board of Adjustment ruled the New Life Evangelistic Center homeless shelter must 1) limit beds to the licensed 32 beds 2) seek a new license that would allow more emergency beds or 3) close. Larry Rice, however, wants to continue as he has been — stuffing far more people into a rundown facility after coercing them to do lots of free labor.

Here are the results from Sunday’s poll:

Q: Thoughts on the city calling Larry Rice’s NLEC a “nuisance”? (pick up to two)

1. TIE:
   1. Limiting the licensed occupancy to 32 beds is fair, considering the conditions. 28 [25.69%]
   2. There are other/better alternatives to NLEC available. 28 [25.69%]
2. Rice’s TV televangelism empire depends on a large visible homeless population 18 [16.51%]
3. NLEC was there before the condos & apartments 15 [13.76%]
4. Where will the homeless sleep if NLEC is limited to 32 beds? 10 [9.17%]
5. NLEC should be able to sleep 300, or more, if they want 3 [2.75%]
6. Other: 3 [2.75%]
   1. If NLEC had better job training and mental service, open all day Add as a poll answer
   2. it’s high time for NLEC to cease and desist. It’s not a church but a flop house
   3. It and he are nuisances.
7. NLEC is a religious facility, no government license should be required. 2 [1.83%]

The #2 answer is closest to the truth — Rice desperately needs to maintain the exterior appearance of lots of homeless. Without a visible homeless population he doesn’t have a hook to get donations.

In 2009, court documents estimated New Life has assets between $40 million and $50 million, including radio and television stations. In 2008, the center reported receiving more than $1.8 million in cash contributions. (stltoday.com)

I can assure you other non-profits do more for the homeless with a fraction of the total assets, social workers & researchers are now realizing there is a much more effective & humane way to help the homeless than how Rice has operated NLEC for nearly 40 years:

• Permanent housing, not a hard cot in a room crowded with hundreds of men
• Hot meals prepared by a trained chef in an inspected kitchen, not sandwiches out of a trunk on the street
• Social workers & occupational therapists to find & resolve problems, not free labor & religion
• Secure places to store belongings, not encouraged to carry bags to increase visibility
• Daytime space & activities, not being out on the street for 12 hours.
• Security inside & outside during operations, not ignoring everything that happens just outside.

In these examples the former is how other agencies in St. Louis are trying to end/reduce homelessness, the latter is how Rice maintains the visible problem that keeps millions in coming in. I don’t expect this to be over in May, Rice will fight to maintain his status quo.  He misses the old days of vacant warehouses, lack of restaurants, jobs and any sort of measurable economic activity downtown.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Thoughts on the city calling Larry Rice’s NLEC a “nuisance”?

Tuesday afternoon the city’s Board of Adjustment, after of 12+ months of hearings on a citizen petition, concluded Larry Rice’s New Life Evangelistic Center (NLEC) was a nuisance:

A city board ruled Tuesday that Rev. Larry Rice’s homeless shelter downtown is a nuisance and will be closed effective May 12, 2015, unless he complies with city terms.

Rice’s occupancy permit allows him to have a maximum of 32 beds. Many nights, Rice allows upwards of 300 people to stay in the shelter. (stltoday.com)

A perfect subject for the final poll of 2014: Thoughts on the city calling Larry Rice’s NLEC a “nuisance”? The poll is in the right sidebar, vote until 8pm.

I have thoughts on this, but I’ll save my views for Tuesday when I post the results.

— Steve Patterson