This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to repeal the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and to lower the voting age to 16 or older. It establishes that the right to vote for citizens aged 16 and up cannot be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age, and it authorizes Congress to enforce the amendment through appropriate legislation.
The proposal must be ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years of submission for ratification to take effect. This is a direct, substantive shift in national suffrage policy with significant administration and civic implications.
At a Glance
What It Does
The proposal repeals the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and establishes that citizens aged 16 and older have the right to vote, subject to ratification and future enforcement legislation by Congress.
Who It Affects
All U.S. citizens aged 16 and older who participate in federal, state, and local elections, and the state and local election systems that administer those elections.
Why It Matters
It resets the minimum voting age nationwide, expanding the electorate and altering election dynamics, while giving Congress a tool to enforce the change once ratified.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is a constitutional amendment that would remove the current age floor set by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and replace it with a new standard: anyone 16 years or older can vote in all elections. It specifies that neither the United States nor states may block this right based on age.
The amendment includes a standard ratification process, requiring approval from three-fourths of the states within seven years of submission, and it grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment through appropriate legislation. If ratified, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
The document is tightly focused on expanding suffrage and providing a federal enforcement tool, with attention to the administrative and political implications of extending voting rights to younger voters.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, removing the age-based voting limit.
The right to vote would be extended to citizens aged 16 and older in all elections.
The amendment requires ratification by three-fourths of the states within seven years of submission.
Congress would have power to enforce the amendment via appropriate legislation.
The amendment becomes part of the Constitution once ratified by the required number of states.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Repeal of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment
Section 1 repeals the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, removing the existing clause that prohibits denying the right to vote on the basis of age for those 18 and older. This creates a constitutional baseline in which age is no longer a blanket bar to suffrage, pending the new article’s ratification. The practical effect is to reset the constitutional floor for voting age once the amendment is ratified, superseding the prior amendment.
Voting rights for citizens sixteen and older
Section 2 guarantees that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any level of government on account of age for citizens who are 16 years or older. This sets a universal baseline across federal and state elections, requiring state governments to align their voter eligibility rules with the new constitutional standard and to adjust registration and ballot processes accordingly.
Enforcement powers for Congress
Section 3 provides that Congress shall have the power to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. This creates a federal enforcement mechanism to oversee compliance with the new standard, enabling Congress to address gaps, disputes, or implementation challenges that arise as states and jurisdictions adjust to the expanded franchise.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- 16- and 17-year-old U.S. citizens who would gain full suffrage in federal, state, and local elections.
- Civics education programs and schools that promote youth participation and engagement.
- Youth advocacy organizations and student governments focused on expanding youth rights and political involvement.
- State and local election officials who will implement updated registration and voting procedures under a clearer federal framework.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local election offices may incur costs to update voter rolls, registration systems, and voter outreach to younger voters.
- Election technology vendors and IT teams may need to modify software and databases to accommodate additional eligible voters.
- Public funds may be used to support outreach, education, and transitional training for election staff and poll workers.
- Civics education providers may incur costs to ensure curricula and programs align with the expanded enfranchisement.] },
- theFinePrint/text
- 2-3 paragraphs on tensions, trade-offs, and unresolved questions.
- The central challenge of this bill is balancing a significant expansion of the franchise with the practical realities of administration, civic readiness, and political outcomes. By repealing the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and extending voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds, the bill requires jurisdictions to align their voter registration, ballot design, and election worker training with a newly enlarged electorate. While the federal enforcement power helps ensure consistency, states retain primary responsibility for election administration, which could lead to transitional challenges, variation in implementation, and potential disputes over eligibility in certain jurisdictions. The seven-year ratification window also raises questions about the pace of state ratification and the possibility that the amendment would fail to achieve the necessary consensus in time, leaving the status quo in place.)
- coreTension
- The central tension is between expanding suffrage to younger citizens and managing the administrative, educational, and political implications of a larger electorate, all while navigating the boundary between federal enforcement and state election administration.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Expanding the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds while preserving state control over election administration creates a tension between universal federal standards and diverse, state-specific implementation realities, with cost, readiness, and political considerations all in play.
The bill triggers a classic federalism trade-off: a grand expansion of the franchise coupled with a reliance on state election systems to implement and administer the policy. While Section 3 grants Congress enforcement authority, the practical rollout would depend on states’ readiness to adjust registration, polling procedures, and education efforts for 16- and 17-year-olds across a wide variety of election contexts.
This raises concerns about uniformity, administrative burden, and the potential for inconsistent rules between states and even within states across federal, state, and local elections. Administrators may face a learning curve and upfront costs, while educators and youth organizations would need to align curricula and outreach to a newly eligible electorate.
Questions remain about the scale of implementation costs, the pace of reform, and how disputes between federal standards and state practices would be resolved in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.