Nearly three quarters of Wellesley Annual Town Meeting members in attendance on Tuesday night this week were confident that the session would mark an end to this spring’s gathering, as indicated in their answers to a test question at the outset to make sure the electronic voting system was working. Turns out they were thiiis close to being right, but it wound up taking a third session this week to address one final article, #48. Town Meeting voted at the end of Tuesday night’s session not to try to finish off that last article before midnight.
So on to night #6 and a citizen petition submitted by two Wellesley teenagers, one a Wellesley High School student (Skye Jacobs), the other a Dana Hall School student (Anya Khera). They were seeking to convince Wellesley Town Meeting to lower the voting age for local elections to 16 from 18 (we wrote about their effort in March: See Teens seek to convince Wellesley Town Meeting to lower voting age for local elections).
Their effort is part of a national movement to get voters politically involved at a younger age, an effort that in part seeks to establish voting habits that will last into adulthood. The proponents were introduced to Town Meeting by member Michael D’Ortenzio, who more than a decade ago began serving as a member while a teenager .
The argument in favor of lowering the local voting age includes that youths are greatly affected by and involved in issues such as climate change, gun violence, school curricula, and immigration. It’s a more inclusive approach to voting, the advocates say, and would serve to develop a more educated electorate. “This younger generation has been raised in a more inclusive society, and our voices will reflect that,” Khera told Town Meeting.
If Town Meeting were to approve this citizen petition in Wellesley, a home rule petition would then need to be sent to the state by the town. The legislature and Governor would need to approve the change. A handful of other Massachusetts communities are advocating for a lower voting age in their local elections, and there’s a move afoot via a proposed “Empower Act” to ditch the home rule process for this issue. Though as Assistant Executive Director Corey Testa (whose background is in state politics) told Town Meeting, so far every home rule petition on this matter in Massachusetts that has been approved locally has died in the committee process at the state level.
It was shared during the session that the League of Women Voters of Wellesley may soon approve a study on the topic of lowering the voting age.
Town Meeting discussed the article for about two hours before rejecting the motion by a 69/104 count.
Whew, we plowed through 8-plus hours of Town Meeting this week: Please support your local news source, The Swellesley Report
The Advisory Committee had earlier voted favorable action by 11-3, though Chair Madison Riley noted during his comments explaining the vote, that there was a concern about young people making decisions that could affect real estate taxes they don’t pay. Advisory also met earlier this week after learning that one ramification of such a voting age change going into effect, is that those ages 16 and 17 would also be allowed to run for offices that they currently can’t, including Select Board, Moderator, and Board of Assessors. Advisory stuck with its recommendation, but wanted to raise these new issues to Town Meeting.
Town Meeting member Jenn Fallon started off the comments and questions period by describing the proposal as “a beautiful idea.” Self-described as a “child of the ’80s” who had no civics education, Fallon lauded the civics education that Wellesley Public Schools students receive in 8th grade (those students have recently filled our Letters to the Editor section for an assignment).
Ezra Englebardt also spoke in favor of the article, saying he hopes his two elementary school students one day will “embody a similar spirit of service” as the teens who brought this article forward. Those teens have demonstrated “a genuine concern for our town’s wellbeing,” he said.
Town Meeting member Kourosh Farboodmanesh, who said he’d soon be turning 16, spoke in favor of the article for several reasons, including that young people in Wellesley are more engaged in town issues than many people may think.
Town Meeting member Julia Hicks de Peyster, who has found low voter turnout for local elections shocking, said allowing younger voters could provide a new opportunity for families to learn together about election issues, and might even spur more voting from other age groups if they feel threatened by the direction of a new voting bloc.
(Town Clerk KC Kato, responding to another Town Meeting member’s question, said Wellesley has been getting about 27% turnout for local elections, though pulled in 35% in the most recent one, probably because it was paired with the presidential primary election.)
One member in favor of the article asked whether it might be possible to include a sunset provision in whatever the state could approve, allowing the town to test the process out for a few years, then reevaluate (town counsel said this would be possible). Though another feared the idea of experimentation for something as significant as voting, and preferred that the town do a deeper dive before making any such decision.
Among those not in favor of the motion was Sheila Olson, who shared respect for the proponents, but said “many students are mature enough for this, but so many, many are not at the age of 16 or 17 years old.” She added that civic engagement doesn’t require civic participation, but can include joining organizations such as the League of Women Voters. “I don’t think we need to conflate civic participation with the right to vote. I think the ability to vote does demand a certain level of life experience and maturity…,” said Olson, a former high school teacher who has seen the difference between 16 and 18 year olds.
Christine Hammel, a Town Meeting member who identified herself as a parent of five children, thanked Khera and Jacobs for putting forth the proposal, but rose against it. “As so many educators have said, we are in the midst of a mental health crisis with our youth,” she said. “I believe one reason for that is that we keep pushing down mature conversations and responsibilities onto our children at younger and younger ages that should remain in the adult arena.” She added that constant internet access can easily lead youths down “the political rabbit hole” and into divisive discourse.
Bea Bezmalinovic said she struggles sometimes as a Town Meeting member with articles like this that are more about principles and values than say, budget and oversight topics. She asked if there might be another path forward on this proposal, and town counsel said a non-binding referendum could be put to voters, but that ultimately it would need Town Meeting approval to get that far.
One concern raised was the potential financial cost to the town of having separate ballots, etc., for younger voters (since you wouldn’t be able to use ballots with state stuff on it). But Town Clerk Kato said the cost of special ballots would be negligible in the scheme of things, maybe a few hundred bucks. (Like in the range of the new stormwater fees.)
D’Ortenzio, who introduced the proponents at the start, commented toward the end of the night in support of the article, reflecting on his own experience as a teenage Town Meeting member, interested more in school system improvements than financial articles at the time. He recalls in 2010 being introduced to John Schuler, the very longtime Town Meeting member who recently passed away, and after telling Schuler it was nice to meet him, Schuler replied: “It’s not nice to meet you…Because if I had known that I could have run for Town Meeting instead of waiting until I was 21, I would have done that.” What was important for both Schuler and himself, D’Ortenzio said, “was that you gave us a stake.”
For Town Meeting’s Elizabeth Lange, her opposition came down to economics—she’d rather see young people in an advisory role. “In my view, these folks don’t have a stake in the town in the same economic way as those people who own property or pay rent here do have…,” she said.
With the subsequent vote going 69-104, Town Meeting made it through the warrant, and the meeting was dissolved.
More:
- Wellesley Town Meeting Week #1: Loving the balanced budget; Technical difficulties; Stormwater fee coming; Delayed projects get their day
- Wellesley Annual Town Meeting night #4: Spending priorities; Fired up about fire chief reporting structure
- Wellesley Annual Town Meeting night #5 puts focus on housing: MBTA Communities motions OK’d; Plus, bonus condos
