Political lens of the ‘December baby’ 

Imagine, for a moment, that you are a high school senior during a national election year. You sit in the same classrooms as your peers. You study for the same exams. You learn from the same teachers and are set to walk across the stage together on graduation day.  

Then Election Day arrives. 

One of your classmates can vote. You cannot. 

 
The difference? They were born in October. You were born in December. 

You may only be a month younger, possibly even just a few days. You belong to the same community and received the same education, but when November arrives, your birthday determines whether you have a voice in the country’s future.  

 
Is that not arbitrary? 

Birthdays are a traditional milestone. When you turn 13, you become a teenager. When you turn 16 you can get your driver’s license. When you turn 18 you are granted adulthood — along with the right to vote. Age requirements establish necessary boundaries, and there are good reasons for having them. However, when applied strictly to civic life, they limit a young person from participating in the democratic process. 

This issue is especially relevant ahead of the November elections, as voting rules have become a major legal subject across the country. Last month, the Supreme Court blocked federal restrictions on mail-in ballots from taking effect ahead of the midterm elections. Meanwhile, federal and state courts continue to bicker about what makes a state properly representative of the people — such as Louisiana v. Callais back in April and the Missouri cases in September. While these cases address differing legal questions, they highlight the reality of contemporary American politics: The rules surrounding elections heavily influence how people participate in democracy and how they are represented.   

Under the 26th amendment, you must be 18 by Election Day to vote in a federal election. This creates an easily administered standard. Realistically speaking, the government cannot evaluate every young adult and determine their civic maturity. A clear age requirement is a practical solution, but it also creates unintended conflict.   

Young Americans already participate in elections at lower rates than older age groups. According to a Pew Research Center analysis of the 2024 election, young adults represented a disproportionately large number of nonvoters: Citizens under 30 made up roughly 20% of the eligible voting population yet only accounted for 15% of voters. These figures are an eyesore. It screams about the disconnect between ideal and actual voter turnout in the American youth.  

Now, place yourself back in that high school classroom.  

You have spent years studying American history and government. Depending on your state, you may have been required to pass a civics course to graduate. You have either independently or in class formed opinions on modern issues. Yet you are forced to sit and watch your classmates who had the exact same preparation vote in the election.  

This gap has lasting effects. By missing that first opportunity, you are forced to wait another two to four years, long after you moved away for college or work and leaving you physically and emotionally less connected to the community you were raised in. How can society make the transition from civic education to participation easy and motivating? How do we build early voting habits that last?  

One possible reform is to extend the voting eligibility to any citizen who turns 18 during the calendar year of a national election. Under this system, someone born in December could vote in November, turning 18 just weeks later. The age requirement remains objective and easy to administer: if you turn 18 by Dec. 31 of the election year, you can vote.  

There are counterarguments. Any cutoff line creates tension. Why should someone born in late December vote while someone born in early January cannot? Furthermore, critics might ask whether newly eligible high schoolers would actually show up at the polls.  

Research shows that young people would vote more often if we made the process simpler. Studies from CIRCLE show that beginner-friendly policies — such as registering online, getting registered automatically at the DMV, or signing up before turning 18 — boost youth turnout. High schools can also better bridge the gap to the ballot box. Curricula should emphasize practical, nonpartisan instruction: registering to vote, evaluating the news and engaging in local politics. 

While strict rules create obstacles that push young people away, adjusting the cutoff date opens the door to the remaining seniors blocked off by an arbitrary birthday. Pushing the cutoff date to Dec. 31 may only affect a specific age group, but it is a meaningful step towards a more participatory democracy that empowers young adults to hold institutions accountable.  

A difference of a few weeks shouldn’t dictate whether a young person has a voice. Closing that gap is a practical, powerful step forward.