! "# $ % & % ' % !' ' "# ' '% $$(' Mobilization and Youth Political Engagement: An analysis of mobilization efforts utilizing political ads aimed at youth during the 2000 and 2004 fall presidential election campaigns A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Department of Political Science Of the College of Arts and Sciences By Bart A. Biroschak B.A. Political Science, Hiram College, 1999 MPA Northern Kentucky University, 2004 May 2010 Committee Chair: Barbara A. Bardes, Ph.D. Abstract Despite historically low turnout rates youth showed up in the 2004 presidential election at a rate 13 percent higher than in the 2000 presidential election. This study explores the factors related to the increase in turnout specifically in terms of mobilization in the form of political ads through a comparison of political ads sponsored by candidates, parties and interest groups in 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. The findings indicate that in the 2004 presidential election youth issues were given greater attention than in 2000. This increase in activity towards youth issues was associated with an increase in youth interest in the election and thus an increase in youth turnout. iii iv Table of Contents Chapter 1: The Twenty-sixth Amendment and Youth Participation 1 Chapter 2: Data and Methods 18 Chapter 3: Exploring Political Ads and Youth Issues 2000& 2004 31 Chapter 4: Comparing Political Ads, Youth Issues and Youth Turnout 2000 & 2004 52 Chapter 5: Findings and Concluding Remarks 64 Bibliography 70 Appendices 76 Appendix A Table of Data Kaiser Family Foundation/MTV Youth Voting and the 2000 Election (Toplines, Survey Questions and Coding) MTV/CIRCLE Report: The 2004 Presidential Election and Young Voters (Toplines, Survey Questions and Coding) Data Tables and Figures for Chapter 2 Appendix B Codebooks from Wisconsin Ad Project Political Advertising in 2000 Presidential Advertising 2003-2004 Appendix C Data Tables for Chapter 3 Appendix D Data Tables and Figures for Chapter 4 Appendix E Data Tables and Figures for Chapter 5 v Chapter 1: The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and Youth Participation In 1971 the twenty-sixth amendment was ratified effectively lowering the legal voting age to 18 and dramatically increasing the population of eligible voters. The amendment was not a new idea. Legislation to drop the voting age had been introduced for three decades prior to ratification of the twenty-sixth. The events of the time such as the anti-war movement pressured Congress to push through this amendment. In addition, there were state-federal tensions which supported the change. This time a confluence of interests and events pressured Congress and the states legislatures to act. Congressional representative Jennings Randolph of West Virginia introduced the first resolution offering to change the voting age to 18 in 1942. The Congressman continued to introduce the resolution in every Congress through 1971. The oft- introduced resolution garnered the support of Presidents Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon, all of whom touted the line that those old enough to fight and die for their country should be allowed to vote. The peace process during the end stages of the Korean War also provided impetus, but the resolution never went far enough in Congress. In 1963 President Kennedy commissioned a report on registration and voting participation. The findings of the report expressed concern for the state of youth in politics1. The report claimed that having the voting age set at twenty-one facilitated political apathy in youth. Apathetic youth were too far removed from current events and issues to formulate a proper vote choice or might never vote. The report contended that the age of twenty-one was too late to begin voting and recommended lowering the voting age to eighteen. The 1 President’s Commission on Registration and Voting Participation, “Report on Registration and Voting Participation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. 1 Kennedy Commission on Registration and Voting Participation concerns were validated a year later in the Bureau of the Census’s Current Population Report in 1964. Section 143 of the report titled Voter Participation in the National Election: November 19642, set out to identify racial disparity in voting in hopes of pressuring Congress to pass another version of the Voting Rights Act, which was accomplished in 1965. The Report uncovered voting disparity between ages as well, an unexpected yet troubling finding that again raised the question of voting age that the Kennedy Commission on Registration and Voting Participation expressed a year earlier. From 1965 to 1971 Congress discussed and debated the issue and moved closer to lowering the voting age to eighteen. Jane Eisner details the mood in Congress in Taking Back the Vote (2004). This attempt to extend suffrage for 18 year olds was more than an attempt at voting equality or alleviating vote disparity3; it was based on a belief that youth would energize and improve electoral politics in the United States. The amendment was necessary because federal legislation passed in 1970 to lower the voting age was challenged as unconstitutional. Article 1, section 4, of the Constitution grants states the rights to set voting qualifications in state and local elections, and federal legislation lowering the voting age in all elections would conflict with such rights. In the case of Oregon v. Mitchell4 the Supreme Court decided that Congress had the right to lower the voting age in federal elections but not in state elections. With most states maintaining the voting age at twenty-one, ballots for state and federal elections would have to be 2 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P-20, 143, “Voter Participation in the National Election: November 1964.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. 3 Eisner, Jane. (2004). Taking Back the Vote: Getting American Youth Involved in Our Democracy. Beacon Press, Boston. 4 Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 1 12 (1970). 2 counted separately which could cause undue complications and errors. This impending political nightmare coupled with the youth anti-war movement prompted Congress to pass the twenty-sixth amendment and send it to the states for ratification. The twenty- sixth was ratified faster than any other Constitutional amendment in history. The initial excitement over an expanded youth vote was short lived as participation rates dropped drastically in the subsequent elections. The newly enfranchised population represented a challenge to political parties. Younger voters are less likely to participate in political activities than other age cohorts. Youth apathy was exemplified fully in the 2000 presidential election as youth turnout fell to 28 percent. However in the2004 presidential election youth turnout increased nearly 13 percent. The purpose of this research project is to investigate whether candidates and parties increased their efforts to address youth in 2004 and whether that increased effort also increased youth turnout. This question will be explored through analyzing political ads in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections to determine if there is an increase in attention towards youth issues through political ads. This comparison is the basis for the first hypothesis; H1: candidates and parties increased activity to engage youth. If the first hypothesis holds and an increase in activity can be observed then this increase will serve as the basis for the second hypothesis; H2: The increase in activity is associated with the increase in youth participation. The increase in youth turnout from 2000 to 2004 has already been acknowledged. The question remains what factor or factors contributed to the increase. This is an important question because scholars and campaigns alike have been struggling to explain low youth turnout since the inception of the twenty-sixth amendment. 3 Although the overall number of eligible voters increased due to the enactment of the twenty-sixth amendment, the population group that is least likely to vote increased the most. The twenty-sixth amendment increased the number of eligible voters that was least likely to vote and or participate in political activities; youth ages 15-25.5 At that time it was thought that the amendment would increase overall participation. It was also believed that the newly enfranchised 18-20 year old voters would energize the election. The Census Bureau began publishing reports on voter turnout in 1964 and scholars were eagerly awaiting the presidential election of 1972 to document the newly enfranchised voting cohort of 18-20 year old voters. The bureau’s surveys on voting and registration show that only 48 percent of the newly enfranchised voters turned out to vote. 6 The youth turnout rate was disappointing given the increased pressures over the past several years to gain access to vote. Even more disappointing is that 48 percent turned out to be a high number for youth participation. Even though youth turnout was less than half of the youth population group, 48 percent was a rate higher than the average turnout for this age group during the next eight elections when youth turnout averaged only 35 percent.7 In the 1976 election, youth turnout for ages 18-20 dropped 10 percent while youth turnout for ages 21-24 dropped 5 percent. The decline in turnout continued until 1992 where both age -groups saw a bump. Turnout for those aged 18-20 jumped to 39 percent from a dismal 33 percent in the elections of 1988. Turnout for those aged 21-24 jumped 8 percent from 1988 (38%) to 1992 (46%). The bump was short lived and in 2000 turnout had declined again to a record low of 28 percent for those aged 18-20. Youth still remain the population group least likely to vote and are outvoted nearly 2-1 by voters in 5 Rosenstone & Hansen, (1993).