2020 Popular Props: Peninsula Students Share Their Perspective on Propositions 16, 17 and 18
PROPOSITION 16
Proposition 16 would bring back affirmative action, the practice of favoring individuals in groups that have been previously discriminated against; thus allowing race, ethnicity, original nationality and sex to be considered in admissions to colleges and universities, in state contracts and the hiring process of public jobs. This proposition may be considered discriminatory by some, as certain groups will receive more benefits than others. However, the proposition also presents an opportunity that benefits underprivileged groups. Senior Komal Kaur hopes that students will be put on a level field where only qualifications and merit will determine the outcome of both job and college applications.
“I am against affirmative action because it involves race and sex, and it is completely unfair when we are looking to see the future of tomorrow,” Kaur said. “It [would lead] to a lot of unqualified people in top jobs where more qualified people would be able to perform [better] had race or sex not been considered. Saying that, there do need to be more opportunities for women and minorities, but I do not believe we should be [placing] race and sex over qualifications [and merit].”
Supporters of Proposition 16 argue that bringing back affirmative action will allow public institutions to work towards greater diversity within their demographics. According to ABC News, the proposition could potentially benefit historically underprivileged groups, such as women and racial minorities. According to Public Policy Institute of California, 25 percent of African Americans and 20 percent of Latinos have a bachelor’s degree among Californians. Proposition 16 could allow these percentages to increase, so it more accurately represents the diversity in the U.S.
PROPOSITION 17
On the 2020 California election ballot, Californians have the choice to vote for or against Proposition 17. This proposition grants parolees suffrage upon completion of their prison sentence. According to Alejandro Padilla, the California Secretary of State, those serving parole are currently not permitted to register to vote. Opposition to this proposition believes that it is not moral to give rights to recently incarcerated Californians. Senior Kelsie Burruss, however, believes that it is important for parolees to gain permission to vote in future elections.
“They are [working toward] transitioning back to a normal life,” Burruss said. “I also [feel] that parolees will be more motivated to positively participate [in integrating back into] their communities if they voted.”
According to a recent parole commission report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), citizens who finish their prison terms and have regained their voting rights are less likely to commit crimes in the future. Underrepresentation amongst minority groups also remains an issue relating to this proposition. According to the PPIC, by the end of 2016 African American Californians made up six percent of the state’s adult population and also 26 percent of the state’s parole population. This indicates the large amount of minorities that are parolees and therefore unable to vote. If Proposition 17 passes, all parolees will be granted the opportunity to vote in California.
PROPOSITION 18
If Proposition 18 is approved, 17-year-old American citizens will be able to vote in primary and special elections if they are 18 by the proceeding general elections. The national voting age was 21 until 1971, when the U.S. Constitution’s 26th Amendment was ratified; this amendment established that the right to vote for 18 year olds will never be denied or abridged. By passing Proposition 18, voting opens to 17 year olds who do not make registration age cutoff.
According to the University of Rochester Medical Center, the prefrontal cortex, or the part of the brain that responds to situations with an awareness of long-term consequences, is not fully developed until age 25. Others assume if the voting age is brought down, the age limit for other age-restricted activities like smoking could potentially be decreased. Older people generally want the voting age raised, as the average age most engaged in politics is 38.
Proponents argue if teenagers are old enough to take part in general elections, they should be allowed to participate in the full electoral process. Letting them vote in specific election cycles could potentially increase voter turnout and youth civic engagement. Senior Paulina Garmute agrees with keeping the current age-limit, as students gain more extensive political knowledge towards the end of high school.
“As a 17-year-old, especially given the political climate this election, I would love to vote,” Garmute said. “At the same time, I think the voting age of 18 [to register for primary and special elections] makes sense. [Seniors who] take government classes or have already graduated and finished these credits, therefore are probably more politically engaged with civil liberties.”
