DOCSLIB.ORG

2018 Overseas Citizen Population Analysis Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2018 Overseas Citizen Population Analysis Report 2018 Overseas Citizen Population Analysis Report July 2020 FORS MARSH GROUP | 2018 Overseas Citizen Population Analysis 0 . INTRODUCTION The Overseas Citizen Population Analysis (OCPA) is an effort sponsored by the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) to learn more about the U.S. overseas citizen population and the ways in which they navigate the voting process.1 FVAP is statutorily mandated to report on the registration and voting activities of the populations it serves—including U.S. citizens living overseas—after each general election. A four-step process is used to better understand this population: 1. estimate the participation rate of the Overseas Citizen Voting Age Population (OCVAP) in the 2018 General Election; 2. compare the level of participation to that of the voting age population living in the United States; 3. determine to what degree that estimated difference in participation between the two populations is due to voting obstacles unique to the OCVAP; and 4. assess the extent to which policies designed to mitigate these obstacles are successful. Overseas Citizen Citizens of the United States who are living or located in another country. Overseas Citizen Voting Age Population (OCVAP) The subset of overseas citizens who are at least 18 years of age. This constitutes the voting-eligible population for the purposes of this study. Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) The corresponding population of voting age individuals living within the United States. This group serves as a comparison point for the OCVAP. Participation Rate The fraction of the voting age population that submitted a ballot and had a vote recorded within state vote history records. Estimating the voting participation rate of the OCVAP is difficult because the nature of living abroad makesVolume it hard to know 1: Populationhow many overseas citizensand Participationthere are, where they are Estimates located, and the numberand that Features are eligible to vote. of EstimatesOverseas produced Ballot by host countryRequesters statistical agenciesOverseas for the total number of U.S. born or U.S. citizen population are available from some countries for some years, but comprehensiveCitizen Citizens estimates of the forUnited any givenStates election who are year living are or generally located in unavailable another country. and information on the more relevant subpopulation of U.S. citizens who are voting age is even harder to obtain. The OCPAOverseas addresses Citizen this problem Voting Ageby using Population a statistical (OCVAP) model The averaging subset methodologyof overseas ci totizens estimate who both the arenumber at least of OCVAP 18 years individuals of age. This as well constitutes as their thedistribution voting-eligible across population countries. for the purposes of this study. Using this method results in a 2018 estimate of approximately 2.9 million voting age citizens living abroadCitizen. At the Voting same Age time Population there were (CVAP) an estimated The corresponding 135,507 votes population attributed of to voting individuals age with non- U.S.individuals addresses livingidentified within in thestate United and lStates.ocal government This group a servesbsentee as ballot a comparison records. Thispoint yields for the an OCVAP. 1 TheParticipation OCPA was first conducted Rate for The the fraction2014 General of theElection voting and was age released population in February that 2016. submitted The report cana ballot be found and here: https://www.fvap.gov/uploads/FVAP/Reports/FVAPhad a vote recorded within state vote-OCPA_201609_final.pdf history records. The report for the 2016 General Election, released September 2018, can be found at: https://www.fvap.gov/uploads/FVAP/Reports/FVAP-2016-OCPA-FINAL-Report.pdf FORS MARSH GROUP | 2018 Overseas Citizen Population Analysis 1 Volume 1: Population and Participation . Estimates and Features of Overseas Ballot estimated 2018 OCVAP voting rate of 4.7%, as compared to a 2018 General Election voting rate of approximately 65% for the CVAP—implying a substantial difference in participation between the overseas and CVAPs. To what degree is this voting gap due to systemic obstacles to voting unique to the OCVAP as opposed to individual factors such as differences in motivation? The answer lies, in part, in country- specific population estimates and vote totals derived from state and local absentee ballot request and voter files. In particular, by comparing the OCVAP voting rates between countries with different levels of international mailing-related obstacles to voting, the relationship between these obstacles and voting rates were estimated at the country level. These estimated relationships were used to generate a prediction for what the voting rate would have been without the OCVAP-specific obstacles for each country. These estimates are combined to create a predicted, obstacle-free OCVAP estimated participation rate of approximately 31.7%. The difference between the estimated predicted participation rate and the estimated actual OCVAP participation rate (27.0%) implies that over half of the estimated 60 percentage point voting gap between overseas and CVAP is due to obstacles to voting specific to OCVAP. The OCPA also relies heavily on data from the Overseas Citizen Population Survey (OCPS) to gain insight into how overseas citizens mitigate these obstacles—and thus how policy changes might help this group. The OCPS is conducted as a part of FVAP’s analysis of the overseas citizen population and is distributed to overseas citizens who requested an absentee ballot for the 2018 General Election. The OCPS asks respondents to share the means by which they requested and returned their absentee ballots. Data from the OCPS is analyzed in conjunction with overseas population estimations to reveal geographic patterns in obstacles to voting and to help better understand how various policies can affect voting from around the world. Survey results are discussed below, and full cross-tabulations can be found in Volume 2. Analysis of the OCPS data reveals that absentee ballot requesters located in countries where mail or geography make receiving a physical ballot a challenge are more likely to receive and return their absentee ballot electronically. These findings suggest that policies permitting electronic ballot receipt and return are able to overcome issues of international mailing reliability. And yet, this does not reflect the majority of overseas voters’ experiences; many absentee ballot requesters did not receive their ballot electronically, and only a minority of voters with the option to return their ballot electronically actually did so. This suggests that knowledge about electronic modes of absentee voting may be imperfect, and points to a potentially significant role that FVAP can play in reducing the voting gap. FORS MARSH GROUP | 2018 Overseas Citizen Population Analysis 2 . Volume 1: Population and Participation Estimates and Features of Overseas Ballot Requesters FORS MARSH GROUP | 2018 Overseas Citizen Population Analysis 3 . Volume 1: Population and Participation Estimates and TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERSEAS CITIZEN POPULATION ESTIMATES ......................................................................................................... 5 The Total Overseas Citizen Population ..................................................................................................... 5 The OCVAP ................................................................................................................................................ 8 2018 OVERSEAS CITIZEN BALLOT REQUEST AND VOTING RATES .......................................................................... 11 EXAMINING THE CVAP–OCVAP VOTING GAP ....................................................................................................... 14 Defining the CVAP–OCVAP Voting Gap ................................................................................................... 15 The Obstacles Gap .................................................................................................................................. 17 Impact of Voting Obstacles in 2018 ........................................................................................................ 17 IMPACT OF CHANGES IN BALLOT DELIVERY AND RETURN MODES ....................................................................... 23 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 27 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................... 27 FEATURES OF OVERSEAS BALLOT REQUESTERS: EVIDENCE FROM THE OVERSEAS CITIZEN POPULATION SURVEY 27 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Who are Overseas Ballot Requestors?.................................................................................................... 30 Participation in the 2018 General Election ............................................................................................. 32 FVAP Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Sources of Voting Information ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lawmakers Are Mulling Multiple Bills That Would Let Cities and Towns Allow
    for purchasing tobacco products. Lyons added that lowering the voting age would be detrimental to “all the great work that has been achieved,” on age-related issues. “On the one hand, they don’t trust people under 21 to buy tobacco products, but, on the other, they want to give much younger people the right to vote,” Tuerck said. “We have to wonder where this thinking comes from.” People also have to be 21 to buy alcohol and marijuana in Massachusetts. The age limit for the juvenile justice system was raised from 17 to 18 in 2013, and lawmakers have looked at raising it to 21. While in high school, Vargas was involved in a five- year campaign with UTEC, the state have asked to be given formerly known as United Teen Lawmakers are mulling Equality Center, advocating multiple bills that would let cities the authority to lower the voting age for municipal elections. alongside other young adults in and towns allow teens as young Lowell to lower the voting age to as 16 to vote in local elections, “It is time to give municipalities the option to empower their own 17. The city passed a home rule a move critics are calling petition in 2015, but it ultimately “frivolous” and “absurd.” young people,” Chandler said. “Cities and towns stalled in the Legislature. Two bills that would “This is about local allow “every citizen 16 or 17 have asked for this option for years, and I believe that control,” Vargas said. “You years of age, who is a resident don’t have to agree with in the city or town where he or young people deserve a voice in their local
    [Show full text]
  • Why We Should Raise the Marriage Age Vivian E
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 2013 Why We Should Raise the Marriage Age Vivian E. Hamilton William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Hamilton, Vivian E., "Why We Should Raise the Marriage Age" (2013). Popular Media. 123. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/123 Copyright c 2013 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media 5/14/13 Concurring Opinions » Why We Should Raise the Marriage Age » Print - Concurring Opinions - http://www.concurringopinions.com - Why We Should Raise the Marriage Age Posted By Vivian Hamilton On January 30, 2013 @ 6:31 pm In Family Law,Uncategorized | 6 Comments [1]My last series of posts [2] argued that states should lower the voting age, since by mid-adolescence, teens have the cognitive-processing and reasoning capacities required for voting competence. But that is not to say that teens have attained adult-like capacities across all domains. To the contrary, context matters. And one context in which teens lack competence is marriage. Through a single statutory adjustment — raising to 21 the age at which individuals may marry — legislators could reduce the percentage of marriages ending in divorce, improve women’s mental and physical health, and elevate women’s and children’s socioeconomic status. More than 1 in 10 U.S. women surveyed between 2001 and 2002 had married before age 18, with 9.4 million having married at age 16 or younger. In 2010, some 520,000 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Drinking Age
    Vermont Legislative Research Shop Lowering the Drinking Age The minimum legal drinking age fluctuated throughout the second half of the 20th century, yielding mixed results. After prohibition was repealed in 1933, almost every state set the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) at 21 years.1 In 1970 Congress lowered the voting age to 18, which began a movement to lower the drinking age, as well. During the Vietnam era, many people were outraged that 18 year‐olds were fighting overseas yet could not have a drink. In the period between 1970 and 1975, 29 states lowered their MLDA to 18, 19 or 20. A study by Alexander Wagenaar revealed that in states that had lowered their minimum age there was a 15 to 20% increase in teen automobile accidents.2 This information influenced 16 states to raise their MLDA to 21 between 1976 and 1983. Pressure from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) led to the signing of the Uniform Drinking Age Act by President Ronald Reagan on July 17, 1984.3 This act mandated a significant decrease in federal transportation funding for states that did not raise their MLDA to 21. Worldwide, the United States has the highest MLDA, with others ranging from birth to age 20.4 The majority of countries have a MLDA of 18. In most of these countries, however, the family teaches responsible drinking from a very young age. Since 1960, over one hundred studies have been conducted to analyze the effects of raising the MLDA. This research was examined by Alexander Wagenaar to determine the trends that appeared in the conclusions.5 Some of these studies provided evidence supporting a MLDA of 21, while most others found no conclusive results.
    [Show full text]
  • Forum Election Observer Team Vanuatu 2016
    PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT VANUATU NATIONAL ELECTIONS 2016 REPORT OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM ELECTION OBSERVER TEAM INTRODUCTION At the invitation of the Government of Republic of the Vanuatu, the Pacific Islands Forum deployed a Forum Election Observer Team to Port Vila Vanuatu, from 14 - 25 January, to observe the Vanuatu snap-elections on 22 January 2016. The Forum Election Observer Team (the Forum Team) comprised Mr Pita Vuki, Electoral Commissioner and Supervisor of Elections of the Kingdom of Tonga (Team Leader); Mrs Taggy Tangimetua, Government Statistician and Chief Electoral Officer of the Cook Islands; and Forum Secretariat staff (the list of members is attached at Annex 1). 2. The Forum Team was based in Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, and met with a wide range of stakeholders including senior Government representatives; the Vanuatu Electoral Office; civil society (including youth, women and disability groups) and faith-based organisations; private sector: election candidates; development partners; media representatives; the University of the South Pacific; and members of the diplomatic corps based in Port Vila. A list of stakeholders consulted is attached at Annex 2. On 22 January, Election Day, the Forum Team deployed across the island of Efate and neighbouring Moso Island. The Team observed all aspects of the elections in rural and urban areas – the pre-polling environment, the opening of polls, casting of votes, closing of polling, and the counting of votes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 3. The Forum Election Observer Team recommends for the consideration of the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu, the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office, as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconsidering the Minimum Voting Age in the United States
    Reconsidering the Minimum Voting Age in the United States Benjamin Oosterhoff1, Laura Wray-Lake2, & Daneil Hart3 1 Montana State University 2 University of California, Los Angeles 3 Rutgers University Several US states have proposed bills to lower the minimum local and national voting age to 16 years. Legislators and the public often reference political philosophy, attitudes about the capabilities of teenagers, or past precedent as evidence to support or oppose changing the voting age. Dissenters to changing the voting age are primarily concerned with whether 16 and 17-year-olds have sufficient political maturity to vote, including adequate political knowledge, cognitive capacity, independence, interest, and life experience. We review past research that suggests 16 and 17-year-olds possess the political maturity to vote. Concerns about youths’ ability to vote are generally not supported by developmental science, suggesting that negative stereotypes about teenagers may be a large barrier to changing the voting age. Keywords: voting, adolescence, rights and responsibility, politics Voting represents both a right and responsibility within tory and rooted in prejudiced views of particular groups’ ca- democratic political systems. At its simplest level, voting is pabilities. Non-white citizens were not granted the right to an expression of a preference (Achen & Bartels, 2017) in- vote until the 1870s, and after being legally enfranchised, tended to advance the interests of oneself or others. Voting literacy tests were designed to prevent people of color from is also a way that one of the core qualities of citizenship— voting (Anderson, 2018). The year 2020 marks the 100th participation in the rule-making of a society—is exercised.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Criticisms of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age 21 Laws in the United States from a Traffic-Safety Perspective
    An Examination of the Criticisms of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age 21 Laws in the United States from a Traffic-Safety Perspective National Highway Traffic Safety Administration October 2008 Adapted from: Fell, J.C. (1986). Discounting the Myths of the 21 Drinking Age. Traffic Safety, 86 (2), March/April 1986: 6-9, 27-30, and Wagenaar, A.C. and Toomey, T.L. (2002). Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement #14, 2002: 206-225. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date An Examination of the Criticisms of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age 21 October 2008 Laws in the United States from a Traffic-Safety Perspective 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. James C. Fell 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation 11720 Beltsville Drive, Suite 900 Calverton, MD 20705-3111 11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Perhaps no alcohol safety measure has attracted more research and public attention or shown more consistent evidence of effectiveness than the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) 21 law in the United States. MLDA laws were established in the States after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 (21st Amendment to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix: France
    APPENDIX: FRANCE DEMOGRAPHICS AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION France is a parliamentary democracy with a population of 63.8 million people.1 In the 2007 presidential election, 44.4 million people — 91.4% of the voting age population — were registered to vote,2 and 84% of the voting age population turned out to vote.3 At the national level, the Ministère de l’intérieur et de l’Aménagement du Terroire (Ministry of Interior) is charged with overseeing the technical aspects of election administration and providing electoral guidance. Election administration, however, including voter registration, is largely decentralized.4 Voter lists are compiled and maintained by election officials at the municipal level; there is no national voter list.5 VOTER REGISTRATION Election officials assume responsibility for registering the vast majority of eligible voters.6 Election officials automatically register 18 year old citizens using information compiled by the department of defense for military conscription purposes.7 Any subsequent updates to voter information, such as address changes, are the responsibility of individuals.8 Voter registration for an election closes December 31 of the previous year.9 Adding New Voters French election officials automatically register eligible citizens when they reach the voting age. 18 year olds are summoned and required to attend la journée d’appel de préparation à la defense, a day-long defense preparation day now known as Citizens Day, similar to the selective service in the United States.10 The Ministry of Defense reports information about individuals who attended to the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques (National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies), the national statistics agency the agency that collects and analyzes population information and serves as an information clearinghouse for other agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Should the UK Lower the Voting Age to 16? a Democratic Audit Collection – Edited by Richard Berry and Sean Kippin
    Should the UK lower the voting age to 16? A Democratic Audit collection – edited by Richard Berry and Sean Kippin www.democraticaudit.com Should the UK lower the voting age to 16? Foreword Dr Andrew Mycock The proposition supporting the lowering of the voting age for all public elections across the United Kingdom has gained considerable political momentum over the past decade or so, largely due to the concerted campaigning of some leading youth organisations together with an increasing number of young people and politicians. With the majority of mainstream political parties now supporting the introduction of ‘votes at 16’, it is a proposal whose time appears to have come. That 16 and 17 year-olds will be able to vote on the constitutional future of Scotland in September 2014 suggests the ‘genie is out of the bottle’ and the move towards a universal lowering of the voting age to 16 across the UK is imminent. Such a view should however be tempered by a number of issues that might compromise the adoption of votes at 16. First, the Conservatives appear steadfastly opposed to its introduction and are unlikely to adopt the cause if they form the next government in 2015. Second, two noteworthy UK government-sponsored independent commissions on lowering the voting age over the past decade – The Russell Commission of 2004 and the Youth Citizenship Commission of 2008-9 - have both found against the proposition. Both commissions raised important questions about the increasingly fractured age limits for a range of rights and responsibilities and also questioned whether ‘votes at 16’ would induce greater youth political literacy and participation.
    [Show full text]
  • Voter Turnout Trends Around the World
    Voter Turnout Trends around the World Voter Turnout Trends around the World Voter Turnout Trends around the World Abdurashid Solijonov © 2016 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance International IDEA Strömsborg SE-103 34 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46 8 698 37 00, fax: +46 8 20 24 22 Email: [email protected], website: www.idea.int The electronic version of this publication is available under a Creative Commons Attribute-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 licence. You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the publication as well as to remix and adapt it provided it is only for non-commercial purposes, that you appropriately attribute the publication, and that you distribute it under an identical licence. For more information on this licence see: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/>. International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, or those of its Boards or Council members. Cover photograph: ‘Voting queue in Addis Ababa’ (© BBC World Service/Uduak Amimo) made available on Flickr under the terms of a Creative Commons licence (CC-BY-NC 2.0) Graphic design by Turbo Design, Ramallah ISBN: 978-91-7671-083-8 Contents Acronyms and abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 7 Preface ..........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Time to Havetwo Categories for Voter Registration
    TIME TO HAVETWO CATEGORIES FOR VOTER REGISTRATION Presented by l\h.lJt..... Singh Gill (l'etired edncationist) at the PSC onElectoral ~forlDS Public Hearing in Penangon 15-16 D<!cember 2011 1. AUTOMATIC REGISTRATION . 1.1 This shall be applicable for 'bonafide' MALAYSlAN BORN Citizens only. 1.2 All those who renew theirMyKAD upon reaching the age of18 shall be eligible for automatic registration. 1.3 Registraticm $han be dOne by the NRD ..pon issuance of the newMyKA.D • 1.4 Preferably,the voter's registration details should be incorporated in the new MyKAD chip. 1.5 Subsequently, the onus shall be STRICTLY on the registered voter to update any change ofaddress from time to time. 2. NORMAL REGISTRATION 2.1 All the other Malaysian Citizens who are 21 and above, but are not eligible for automatic registration, shaD have to follow the present registration process. 2.2 And for the purpose ofeasier verification, the names of these voters in the electoral roll are to be printed in a DIFFERENT COLOUR from the automatically registered voters. VOTING AGES AROUND THE WORLD .•. comtesy Wikipedia Afghanistan 18 Colombia 18 IGreece 18 Liechtenstein 18 Oman 21 Sri Lanka 18 Algeria 18 Comoros 18 Greenland 18 Lithuania 18 Sudan 17 American Samoa 18 Congo Dem Re 8 Guadeloupe 18 LllXernbourg 18 Pakistan 18 Suriname 18 Andorra 18 CougoRe 18 Guam 18 Palau 18 Swaziland 18 Angola 18 Cook Islands 18 Guatemala 18 Macau 18 Panama 18 Sweden 18 Anguilla 18 Cos'''' Rica 18 Guernsey 16 Macedonia 18 P.New Guinea 18 Sweden 18 Antigua 18 Cote d'lvoirc 18 Guinea 18 Ma.dagaskar 18 Paraguay 18 Switzerland 18 Argentina 18 Croatia 18 Guyana 17 Mala,,; 18 Peru 18 Syria 18 Annenia 18 Cuba 16 MALAYSIA 21 Philippines 18 Aruba 18 Curacao 18 Haiti 18 Maldives 18 Pitcairn Is 18 Taiwan' 20 Australia 18 Cyprus 18 Hooduras 18 Mali 18 Poland 18 Tajildstan 18 Austria 16 Czech Repnblic 18 Hong Kong 18 Malta 18 Portugal 18 Tanzania 18 Azerbaijan 18 Hoogary 18 Marshallls 18 Puerto Rico 18 Thailand 18 Denmark 18 JI1artinique 18 Togo 18 Bahamas 18 Djibouti 21 Iceland 18 Mauritania 18 Qatar 18 Tokelau 21 Bahrain 18 .
    [Show full text]
  • Suffrage for Sixteen-Year- Olds Within the EU
    Sufrage for sixteen-year- olds within the EU [should the EU lower the voting age to sixteen in future elections?] Rosanna Zwolsman 6VP2 | C&M/E&M, Montessori Lyceum Amsterdam | [2015-2016] 2 Sufrage for sixteen-year-olds within the EU [should the EU lower the voting age to sixteen in future elections?] Rosanna Zwolsman 6VP2 September 2015-January 2016 3 4 Index I. Introduction ............................................................................................................7 II. The History of democracy and voting in Europe and the United States ....................9 III. Countries that granted sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds the right to vote .........19 IV. Pros and Cons of lowering the voting age in future European elections and national elections. ..................................................................................................................25 V.Teen Sufrage in European elections ......................................................................31 VI.Opinions ..............................................................................................................35 VII.Interview .............................................................................................................47 VIII.Conclusion .........................................................................................................53 Evaluation ................................................................................................................55 IX.Sources ................................................................................................................57
    [Show full text]
  • Youth Suffrage: in Support of the Second Wave
    Akron Law Review Volume 53 Issue 2 Nineteenth Amendment Issue Article 6 2019 Youth Suffrage: In Support of the Second Wave Mae C. Quinn Caridad Dominguez Chelsey Omega Abrafi Osei-Kofi Carlye Owens Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Quinn, Mae C.; Dominguez, Caridad; Omega, Chelsey; Osei-Kofi, Abrafi; and Owens, Carlye (2019) "Youth Suffrage: In Support of the Second Wave," Akron Law Review: Vol. 53 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol53/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Quinn et al.: Youth Suffrage YOUTH SUFFRAGE: IN SUPPORT OF THE SECOND WAVE Mae C. Quinn*, Caridad Dominguez**, Chelsey Omega***, Abrafi Osei-Kofi****, and Carlye Owens∗∗∗∗∗ Introduction ......................................................................... 446 I. Youth Suffrage’s 20th Century First Wave—18 and Up to Vote ....................................................................... 449 A. 26th Amendment Ratification, Roll Out, and Rumblings of Resistance..................................... 449 B. Residency Requirements and Further Impediments for Student Voters ............................................... 452 C. Criminalization of Youth of Color and Poverty as Disenfranchisement Drivers...............................
    [Show full text]