Don't drop voting age, except for primary

If 60 percent of Illinois lawmakers vote to support the idea before May, voters could have a chance in November to amend the state Constitution and lower the voting age to 17.

All youthful enthusiasm for the current presidential race aside, this is a bad idea, and one that feels far more political than responsive to any sort of demand.

No 17-year-olds are demonstrating in the streets, demanding the vote. And even enthusiasm for a youth-attracting Democratic presidential candidate does not necessarily equate to wisdom on the matter of presidential politics at 17.

That said, though, if the amendment were designed to allow those who will be 18 at general election time to vote at 17 in the primary leading to that general election, that would be a supportable change. Already, 11 states allow under-18 primary participation if a voter will be 18 by the general election. But Illinois would be unique in allowing those age 17 to vote with no strings attached.

As this presidential season has shown in rather dramatic terms, the primaries are where the winnowing is done. Not being able to participate until the choices are down to two means only partial participation in the election process.

There is a difference, too, in 17, when most people of that age still live with their parents, and 18, when many move on to college or to their own living spaces. The distinction is a big one, putting far more responsibility for day-to-day decisions, including political ones that shape the future, in the hands of the individual. It is also at 18 that young men must register with the Selective Service.

In fact, it was a military draft, another war and the argument that if young people are old enough to die for their country they ought to be old enough to vote within it that led in 1971 to the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It lowered the voting age to 18 nationwide, as it stands now. States can lower that age if they wish, as Illinois is now considering.

Just before the national amendment, Illinoisans had opted for 21 as the voting age during a 1970 Constitutional Convention. Thus, the state's history does not lead one to think its residents necessarily think younger is better.

Beyond that, history shows young people don't exactly leap at the chance to vote even when they have the power to do so. Not that finding ways to engage them wouldn't be beneficial, but lowering the voting age to those of questionable knowledge, independence and maturity isn't necessarily the best way to address that apathy.

This presidential election season may have provided the simple answer -- a leader or two with enough appeal to catch the eyes and ears of the younger voter. They didn't lower the voting age. They offered a sense of engagement to those who've never felt it before.