Photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

This piece was written by an individual contributor and does not represent the official views of New Voters. It is intended to encourage civic dialogue and engagement.

The New York City mayoral primary results seemed to come out of nowhere, but that’s because polls surveyed 2021 voters, not 2025 voters. The difference between those two blocs? The presence of Gen Z and Millennial voters, who largely favored Zohran Mamdani.

When young voters are energized and mobilized, they change the outcome of elections. Point blank. That underlying belief is what powers the work of New Voters, and New York City is showing that reality is already here.

The Mamdani campaign echoes a lesson from Georgia during the 2020 presidential election and 2021 Senate runoff: voter registration is a powerful campaign tactic. Mamdani’s campaign intentionally targeted new voters, and though it didn’t discriminate by age, those first-time registrants were largely young people. Young people who went on to break turnout records on election day.

Plenty of thinkpieces have already been written about how Mamdani connected with young people. His strategy was noted by commentators for his relatable messaging and digital outreach. What we need to start talking about is why youth voters matter and why we can’t continue to be ignored.

Youth voter turnout has been on the rise; almost half of voters aged 18-29 voted in the 2024 presidential election, but in New York City, this is the first time the youth vote made up such a large percentage of the electorate. That shift cannot be ignored. New York City needs to be a catalyst, changing the way the political sphere thinks about young voters and changing the way young voters think about themselves.

In possibly the first major election in recent memory, voters under 40 years old outvoted those over 60, and that turnout is what analysts tied to Mamdani’s victory. New York City is a lesson: to politicians, to pollsters, and to voters.

Young people formed a significant part of Zohran Mamdani’s voting base and were critical to his success in the New York City mayoral primary. (Photo: Shuran Huang/New York Times)

Politicians: young voters can win you an election, so stop ignoring youth issues. Paying for college. Affording housing. Planning for a future that may be dictated by climate change. That’s what young people are worried about, and that’s what you need to start worrying about to stay in office.

Pollsters: survey new voters. Young people are taking to the polls and changing elections. New York City showed that when the polls focus on historical election demographics and ignore the next wave of young voters, the results are far from accurate. As we head into midterm elections, remember that young people are voters, too.

And voters, especially young voters: remember how much power you hold. Don’t let New York be a fluke. Don’t return to a status quo of electoral apathy. Every day is proof that election outcomes matter, and New York City is proof that every individual voter matters. If young people had stayed home, the election could have swung another way.

Youth voters should carry that knowledge with them in the next election cycle, and in the election after that. We must continue to exceed expectations. More than 40 million Gen Z voters were eligible in 2024, and that number will only continue to grow. By 2028, it is estimated that Gen Z and Millennials will make up the majority of eligible voters. That power needs to be harnessed.

My senior year of high school is almost here, yet all I can do is sit in my summer conundrum.

So much has happened in my junior year that has propelled me into the world of politics. I’ve sat through 179 days of AP Gov in a creaking chair; I’ve been to Philadelphia’s City Hall numerous times, from rallies to protests to testimonies; and now, I’m interning at New Voters. But as I recount these events, a sense of impostor syndrome hangs over me.

I see politics with my own eyes. I see live events right in front of me. However, does that alone mean I’m actually a good fit for the civic world?

My lack of understanding of the ‘whys’ in the events happening in our world is not merely a rare occurrence, but a common phenomenon I’ve observed throughout my life. In the 2016 presidential election, I was only a third grader when I had to walk into our town’s voting booth twice, once for each of my parents, so I could translate to them what all those buttons and candidate names meant and whatnot. Impressive, maybe, but my nine-year-old self had no interest in pondering too much about this event.

Fast-forward to just several months ago:

(Translated from Chauzhou and broken English) “Jeffrey, where are the papers for the vote?” my mom asked.

I responded, “I threw them in the trash because I thought you guys didn’t wanna vote!”

A presidential election was the least of our family’s worries. And it still might have been. But on November 5th, the three of us were in my middle school as I assisted my parents in filling out provisional ballots. And for a candidate I highly despised.

I could have secretly filled in a different circle on the bubble sheet before enclosing the envelope inside the ballot. But I didn’t.

The definition of civics, according to the League of Women Voters, is “the study or science of the privileges and obligations of citizens.” By that description, I feel like there exists at least some merit in my decision on November 5th.

By changing my parents’ votes, I felt that I would have interfered with their political rights as voters, and therefore their obligations to uphold political freedoms. I cling to this sentiment in ways that I have not before. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but I can still have my own. And that’s okay.

Ironically, feeling deprived and unmotivated to accomplish anything inspired me to reflect on how I’ve successfully immersed myself in civic engagement by thinking critically, albeit with the lack of credit I give myself. The bottom line (at least for me) is: Civics gets messy. Personal. And complicated. Being civically engaged does not always look polished and seamless in the form of large steps. Sometimes, it’s the small realizations of your own political identity and efficacy. That, too, is part of the civic journey — even if you feel like you’ve “jeffed up.”

This piece was written by an individual contributor and does not represent the official views of New Voters. It is intended to encourage civic dialogue and engagement.

By 2029, the United Kingdom may become one of the few democracies to enfranchise sixteen-year-olds in national elections, a formal expansion of the right to individual expression and a test of democratic trust. Already permitted to vote in Scotland and Wales for local and devolved elections, young people across the UK are now on the precipice of full electoral inclusion. If enacted, this reform would amend the normative foundations of suffrage itself, and in doing so, it would force both comparative observers and democratic theorists to ask: what are we enfranchising youth into, and are our civic institutions prepared to meet them?

Unlike in the United States, where sixteen-year-olds cannot work full-time under federal labor law, cannot enlist in the military without parental consent, and are increasingly restricted from marrying under state law, the UK’s justification for youth suffrage has often leaned on an alignment between rights and responsibilities. Young people in the UK may pay taxes, consent to medical treatment, or enter civil partnerships before they reach voting age. Their integration into the legal and economic fabric of the state precedes their inclusion in the political sphere, which renders the act of enfranchisement a regularizing process. In that context, the voting age remains the last exclusionary artifact of a democracy that already relies on its youth as a means of procedure and production.

Still, the enfranchisement of youth, even under seemingly rational conditions, is not ideologically neutral, and emerges from a broader political climate in which young voters tend to favor progressive policy positions, both socially and increasingly economically. Recent polling by YouGov finds that a majority of eighteen- to twenty-seven-year-olds in Britain tend to support a range of policies, including expanded public services, changes in industry ownership, and stronger environmental measures. It is not unreasonable to predict that similar attitudes will be present among sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, whose political consciousness is shaped by the same cultural ethos (e.g. concerns about climate change and its impacts, anti-racism, advocacy for gender equality and rights,, and questioning or mistrust of existing democratic institutions), but these values, often distilled through social media feeds and shaped more by moral proximity than fiscal literacy, risk creating what might be called a social-fiscal asymmetry: a worldview that is socially progressive, but economically conservative.

The asymmetry is not a critique of youth, but a diagnosis of a system that fails to connect these values to mechanistic responses, and in the absence of robust civic education programs, sixteen-year-olds may enthusiastically support wealth taxes without understanding tax brackets, or demand carbon neutrality without grasping regulatory design. This gap is not insurmountable, but structural. In Austria, where the voting age has been sixteen since 2007, a 2012 study found that young voters were just as informed and consistent as older cohorts, but only if they had access to quality civic education. In Scotland’s 2014 independence referendum, the first time sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds were eligible to vote, 109,533 people in this age group had registered to vote by polling day, a striking demonstration of civic engagement when youth are granted efficacy, not just rights.

Young people mirror the quality of civic environments they are raised within. If the UK succeeds in lowering the voting age nationally before 2029, its impact will depend less on the reform itself and more on the structure surrounding it: curriculum alignment, institutional trust, accessible registration, and cultural signaling that youth are welcome to engage with existing political structures.

The United States should be watching closely, but cautiously, as the structural preconditions for youth enfranchisement in the U.S. differ significantly. Civic education is fragmented across state lines, inconsistently implemented, and often underfunded. According to the Center for American Progress, only eight states require a full year of civics coursework, and students in low-income and racially marginalized districts are far less likely to receive instruction in government, law, or policy. As a result, youth in the U.S. may consume unprecedented volumes of political content without ever encountering the formal principles of governance.

Still, this is not an argument against lowering the voting age, but against doing so without the necessary institutional adjustments. Just as algorithmic equity in school admissions fails when it substitutes input correction for structural reform, so too will youth suffrage falter if it is not embedded in a broader framework of democratic education. The risk is not that sixteen-year-olds will vote irresponsibly, but that their votes will be untethered from a form of civic individualism and identity expression.

Even so, the normative case for youth suffrage remains compelling, and the social contract-based moral logic is clear: if a government governs you, you should have a say in how. Sixteen-year-olds are subject to criminal prosecution, school board policy, climate legislation, and reproductive law. They are regulated by the very institutions they cannot yet influence, and the idea that they must wait until eighteen to become political is contradicted by the reality that they already are. At its best, enfranchisement is an invitation into adult responsibility.

The UK’s pending reform, then, becomes a philosophical stance that suggests political authorship can precede adulthood, that democracy can be capacious without being disorganized. If implemented, it will likely shift the demographic composition of the electorate toward younger voters with distinct policy priorities, but it may also invite deeper reflection on what civic maturity actually means. Is it defined by chronological age, economic participation, or institutional fluency? Can it be taught? And what would it mean to prepare someone for a vote the system never expected them to cast?

For the U.S., these questions are not hypothetical. Cities like Takoma Park, Maryland, and Berkeley, California, have already extended local voting rights to sixteen-year-olds. Organizations like Vote16USA and Generation Citizen are mobilizing around the idea that lowering the voting age is not an unprecedented change, but one approach to expanding participation in a representative democracy that has leaned too heavily on its elders with deeply formed political identities. The lessons from abroad will matter, but only if they are contextualized. The U.S. must understand that voting-age reform without civic preparation will replicate inequality under the banner of inclusion, but when paired with curricular reform, political access, and civic mentorship, it becomes a tool of democratic reconstruction.

Yet beneath the promise of enfranchisement lies a reality that youth are voting less with each generation, not necessarily out of apathy, but out of disillusionment. Much of the content that animates youth politics today, spanning from critiques of existing economic systems to debates over criminal justice reform and environmental sustainability, is consumed not through civics coursework, but rather through distilled social media content. These platforms encourage ideological alignment, but often bypass institutional comprehension. In this frame, political identity formation becomes external and aestheticized before it becomes internal and structural, and belief is shaped more by affective resonance than procedural literacy. The result is a generation that may possess a perceived depth of morality, but little faith in the structure of governance itself. To offer them a ballot without first restoring that faith, or at least ripping them to interrogate it, is to risk mistaking political expression for identity formation.

What the UK may soon offer is a mirror to interpret. Their enfranchisement of sixteen-year-olds could expand the meaning of electoral legitimacy, inviting younger voices into the very mechanisms that shape their future, but its success will depend on structural support. If the United States follows, it must do so with reform in classrooms, registration systems, and in the cultural imagination of what a citizen can be.

This piece was written by an individual contributor and does not represent the official views of New Voters. It is intended to encourage civic dialogue and engagement.

I am not yet on campus, and already, I feel its pulse.

On June 14, as tanks rolled through Washington D.C. in celebration of the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary and chants rose from Bryant Park, students gathered at Columbia University’s gates, not only in protest, but in memory of an academic tradition rooted in intellectual autonomy, faculty governance, and the university’s historic role as a sanctuary for free inquiry. It was a tradition that once promised independence of thought and a nation that claimed dissent as a democratic virtue. The symbolism was unmistakable: an institution caught between federal authority and student resistance.

I read the article not as a bystander, but as an incoming student with a vested interest in the success of the institution. I come from Thornton, Pennsylvania, a small town where national politics feels distant, yet the consequences of institutional decisions are no less consequential. Even there, I’ve seen what it means for public trust to erode. For institutions to bow to pressure. For young people to wonder whether the future will belong to the brave or merely to the loudest voices in the room.

What we are witnessing on campuses now is not disorder. It is a moral instinct in search of structure. Protest is not the breakdown of civic life. It is its beginning.

In recent years, universities across the country have been forced to reckon with the same fundamental questions: Who defines dissent? What is the university’s role in a polarized civic landscape? And what does it mean, in practical terms, to defend freedom of expression? The protests at Columbia are part of a broader pattern, one headline in a growing archive of student action and administrative response:

• “Police disband pro-Palestinian camp at Swarthmore College and arrest nine activists” — a Guardian article detailing police intervention and the end of a four-day occupation in May 2025.

• “Should Students for Justice in Palestine Be a Recognized Student Organization?” — a Chicago Maroon op-ed challenging the University’s rejection of SJP and its broader implications in January 2024

• “About two dozen pro-Palestinian protesters arrested at UCLA, ordered to stay away from campus” — a Los Angeles Times report on arrests and legal fallout from UCLA’s spring encampment in June 2024,

Headlines accumulate, and the tempo quickens. The university becomes a loop of confrontation: encampment and removal, statement and rebuttal, demand and denial.

At Swarthmore, students were arrested after a multi-day encampment ended in police intervention, marking a sharp escalation on the traditionally quiet campus. At the University of Chicago, administrators reaffirmed the Kalven Report’s principle of political nonalignment even as students protested what they saw as silence in the face of a humanitarian crisis. At UCLA, footage of violent altercations, suspension notices, and legal action replaced the language of open discourse. Editorial boards, student governments, and federal agencies all weighed in, each drawing different lines between safety and censorship, between protest and policy violation.

Protests serve as the most visible expression of civic life as frustration and urgency become public. But the lasting work of democracy often reveals itself in actions less dramatic, yet no less consequential. In the wake of encampments and chants, the national conversation begins to shift from slogans to systems, from immediacy to infrastructure. The question, now, is not what sparked the movement, but what will sustain it once the banners are lowered and the cameras are gone.

In periods of institutional and political uncertainty, civic responsibility doesn’t recede; it changes form. Engagement reemerges in subtler, more persistent acts: helping a peer register to vote, researching a ballot, understanding the cascading effects of local policy decisions. These are not symbolic gestures, but the operating principles of democratic life.

Universities may be epicenters of protest, but they are not the only places where history is shaped. Civic space extends beyond the gate into classrooms, libraries, social gatherings, and the small but continuous exchanges where ideas are refined and decisions are made. Wherever students gather to think seriously about the world they want to live in, the work of citizenship is already underway.

The phrase No Kings resists the concentration of power, but democracy is not preserved by resistance alone. It depends on the presence and sustained, thoughtful attention to the institutions we inhabit and the roles we play within them.

Organizations like New Voters that support youth civic engagement step into that quieter aftermath not to end the story, but to continue it by helping students register, vote, and stay informed across elections, not just during moments of crisis. They do not dictate ideology or prescribe solutions. Instead, they equip students with the means to act, offering a path from awareness to agency, from reaction to responsibility: hosting a voter registration drive; beginning a conversation with a civic advisor; sharing a nonpartisan resource with a friend. These are not grand gestures, but intentional ones, and they matter.

The rights that make protest possible — freedom of speech, of assembly and of participation in public discourse — are not guaranteed by rhetoric alone, but are preserved by those who choose to remain engaged after the noise subsides.

Protest can mark the beginning of a movement, but it is civic participation that defines its trajectory. For this generation, the challenge is not whether we care, but whether we can translate passion into practice, whether our desire to challenge power will be matched by our willingness to participate in its redesign.

Bibliography:

Chen, H. (2025, June 14). Protestors gather at Columbia gates for nationwide 'No Kings' protests. Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/06/14/protesters-gather-at-columbia-gates-for-nationwide-no-kings-protests/

Coyne, J. A. (2024, January 23). Should Students for Justice in Palestine be a recognized student organization? The Chicago Maroon. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://chicagomaroon.com/41045/viewpoints/op-ed/should-students-for-justice-in-palestine-be-a-recognized-student-organization/

Hellmann, M. (2025, May 3). Police disband pro-Palestinian camp at Swarthmore College and arrest nine activists. The Guardian. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/02/swarthmore-students-suspended-pro-palestinian-camp

Tchekmedyian, A. (2024, June 10). About two dozen pro-Palestinian protesters arrested at UCLA, ordered to stay away from campus. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-10/ucla-pro-palestinian-protest

Starting from my elementary and middle school years, I’ve been exposed to a mainly liberal interpretation of politics, with influences from my community and immediate family. The main goals of East New Yorkers around me were to find candidates that mainly supported what we needed to flourish and since democrats were more likely to address these concerns compared to other parties, they tended to often lean left. My own family leaned left due to these issues as well as other issues affecting us such as immigration. Growing up in the leftist interpretation of politics, it consequently shaped my political socialization to lean left as well. 

I came into high school with my pure left mindset, unwilling to accept anything if it didn’t align or relate to the liberal way of thinking. For a while, especially due to COVID-19, it was easy to stick to one side due to lack of in-person interactions and remote learning. However, after coming out of COVID-19, I slowly became introduced to new political ideas, contradicting beliefs, and convictions. In most of my classes or free periods, the numerous debates that circulated on current events and even future events such as the 2024 presidential election exposed me to ideas being changed and challenged. Being in Brooklyn Tech High School for a few years, I often found myself in these debates as well, defending my understanding of current events and being in heated clashes. I quickly realized my preliminary understanding of politics was not enough to win these debates and remain woke in a society filled with nuances. With these debates challenging my mindset and my classes equally introducing to foreign ideas, I developed a new interest in adding to my political understanding. Through versing myself in the behind-the-scenes of politics, participating in my schools’ debate team, understanding precedents in Supreme Court cases I hadn’t heard of, and even involving myself in civics programs such as New Voters, I find myself getting closer to knowing how to navigate the world outside of my comfort zone. However, there’s still a long way for me to go and more things for me to learn.

For decades, women candidates have been attacked, criticized and villainized by the media. For example,  media’s stark differences in coverage between John McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin and then running mate Joe Biden in the 2008 election, to sexist and ageist attacks on Hilary Clinton’s 2016 election and finally, the current attacks on the unpopularity of Vice President Kamala Harris. Women politicians continue to have a disadvantage in media coverage compared to their male opponents. A report by the Utah Women & Leadership Project analyzed more than 380 articles written about female politicians and found that when reporters cover women candidates, they often focus on appearances, stereotypes and prohibit double standards. The report states, “Media coverage of female politicians that uses language focused on subtler forms of sexist language—ambitious, feisty, compassionate, first woman, or work-life balance—reinforces gender stereotypes, and women tend to be seen as either ice queens, grandmas, mothers, or “steel in a velvet glove.”” With these comments, a female candidate's integrity, dependability, character and likeability come into question. The media has created an environment where female candidates cannot succeed. They face baseless attacks on their appearances and personalities and less on their policies and leadership qualities. According to a Pew Research Center survey, “ most say men still have an easier path to the top and that women have to do more to prove their worth.” The reluctance to support female candidates from some voters is amplified by the media’s coverage.

This negative criticism of women can be attributed to the historically vast majority of men holding leadership positions. It wasn’t until 1918 that the first woman was elected to Congress.

When women do not hold political power women’s rights go backwards. It is vital that women have the ability to run for office to make their values heard and progress women’s rights. To support women candidates, it is essential that we create equitable and representational media coverage for women in the media. 

Work Cited 

“An Analysis of Utah Media: Women & Politics.” Utah Women & Leadership Project, 1 July 2021. Mitchell, Travis. "Women and Leadership 2018." Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, 10 July 2023, www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/09/20/women-and-leadership-2018/. "U.S. Senate: Jeannette Rankin." U.S. Senate, 7 Aug. 2023, www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/jeannette-rankin-se nate-campaign.htm#:~:text=No%20history%20of%20American%20representative,singular %20event%20occurred%20in%201916.

At the intersection of civic engagement, digital organizing, and technology lies the world of civic tech—the use of technology to educate, engage, and connect people with each other and the government to enhance civic life (Knight Foundation). Like civic engagement, it is difficult to limit civic tech to just one definition. According to Code for All, civic tech can broadly refer to technology made to leave a positive impact on society.

What I love about civic tech and digital organizing is that these spaces are intersectional and can be applied in various ways. We can build tools to help students register to vote, share resources, spread awareness about important issues and how to take action, and much more.

Within digital engagement, it is crucial for youth to have equitable access to technology, civic education, and inclusive and honest spaces online (Cho et al., 16). As Grace O’Hara from Code for Australia expressed, “People are 99% of civic tech.” Civic tech is rooted in connections, collaborations, and thoughtful solutions. It is crucial to design and develop solutions to social problems in collaboration with the community and the people who use these tools (Code for All). A civic tech project starts with finding areas where we can make a meaningful, positive impact. I appreciate how Code for All describes civic tech as a bridge: It is not the entire solution, but it helps us get there. Civic tech isn’t just for people who code—it’s a way for us to design equitable solutions through a collaborative and transparent process.

Works Cited

“About Civic Tech.” Code for All, 4 Aug. 2021, codeforall.org/about-civic-tech/.

Cho, Alexander, et al. 2020, Digital Civic Engagement by Young People. unicef.org/globalinsight/reports/digital-civic-engagement-young-people.

O’Hara, Grace. “To the Women of Civic Tech.” Medium, Code For Australia, 29 Jan. 2020, blog.codeforaustralia.org/to-the-women-of-civic-tech-f5961fd1eda2.

“Scaling Civic Tech.” Knight Foundation, 31 Oct. 2017, knightfoundation.org/features/civictechbiz/.

In 2020, young women of color consistently outperformed their peers in various aspects of civic engagement and social participation, often exceeding expectations for their age group and making significant contributions in society. Notably, young Asian women and young Latinas displayed outstanding levels of political involvement, expressing higher rates of engagement in political discourse, addressing issues of racism within their communities, demonstrating faith in the real-world impact of elections, actively participating in rallies and protests, and volunteering for political campaigns. Young Black women (61%) and young Latinas (57%) set themselves apart through their unwavering dedication to combating racial violence (“Young Women of Color Continue to Lead” 2022). They demonstrate an exceptional commitment to making the fight against violence targeting people of color a national priority and feel an urgent need to take concrete steps toward achieving racial justice. 

While young voters of color are becoming more engaged and determined to dismantle systemic racism, political forces are attempting to suppress their voices by restricting their access to vital educational resources. These efforts are particularly evident in the controversial push to ban Critical Race Theory (CRT) from classrooms, a move that raises concerns about potentially stifling essential conversations regarding our nation's history and the ongoing struggles against racial injustice, as well as impeding youth-led racial activism. 

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a theoretical framework that allows scholars to respond to racism, especially as it is codified in public policy. CRT examines how societal power structures and systemic racism intersect to perpetuate inequalities based on race. Presently, 18 states have banned CRT, nine are actively attempting to impose a ban, 17 are supportive of CRT, and seven have no restrictions regarding its implementation (World Population Review, 2023). We see two clear & distinct views regarding these bans. Conservative anti-CRT campaigns dub Critical Race Theory as "reverse racism," framing it as divisive and detrimental to white individuals. This campaign places a broad definition on CRT, encompassing any discussion on racial inequality. As a result, opponents use CRT bans to toss topics such as slavery, Jim Crow Laws, voter suppression, and segregation from school curriculums, despite their significant role in American history. 

The removal of historical and living topics from classroom discussions can fuel racial appeals and divisions in politics. Politicians, conservative think tanks, and media figures have used claims to parental rights, “reverse racism,” and ideology to brand any diversity, equity and social justice initiative as the dangerous “critical race theory.” These efforts pose a real and immediate threat to our democratic principles and educational integrity. By stifling crucial conversations about our history and racial disparities, we perpetuate ignorance, allowing discrimination to endure. Moreover, these divisive tactics can exploit racial tensions to influence elections and target racial activism. In the face of racial pushback, it's essential to recognize that young women of color remain at the forefront, leading the charge for racial justice. This is a call to action, urging our country’s youth to protect our shared history, fight against voter suppression, and work toward a more just, equitable, and united future.

Works Cited: 

“Critical Race Theory Ban Status.” Critical Race Theory Ban States [Updated April 2023], worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/critical-race-theory-ban-states. Accessed 9 Oct. 2023. 

“The Florida Senate.” Press Release, The Florida Senate, flsenate.gov/Media/PressRelease/Show/4387. Accessed 9 Oct. 2023. 

Kreiss, Daniel, et al. “The Anti–Critical Race Theory Movement Will Profoundly Affect Public Education.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 10 Nov. 2021, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-anti-critical-race-theory-movement-will-profoundly-affect-public-education/. 

Kristen Broady, Camille Busette, et al. “Trump Didn’t Invent Racism; Racism Invented Trump and Other Elected Hopefuls.” Brookings, 9 Mar. 2022, www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-didnt-invent-racism-racism-invented-trump-and-other-elected-hopefuls/. 

“Young Women of Color Continue to Lead Civic and Political Engagement.” Circle at Tufts, 3 Feb. 2022, circle.tufts.edu/index.php/latest-research/young-women-color-continue-lead-civic-and-political-engagement.

Much of this lack of participation amongst youth in Pennsylvania comes with a lack of understanding and exposure to government, particularly local government. With less exposure to midterms and the processes that surround state legislatures, youth lack understanding of how local government works, and an absence of connection to their local legislators at times can leave them feeling unheard and disconnected. 

That is why New Voters and the Policy team have been working towards a solution that remedies this issue by connecting students and teenagers across the state to their local legislators. The Youth Advisory Council Program gives Pennsylvania youth an intimate opportunity to become a part of local government within their constituency, and actively work with State Senators near them. Modeled after similar programs across other states like Massachusetts and New Jersey, the program gives students a chance to meet together regularly with their State Senator and do a variety of engaging activities. Whether it’s shadowing at official meetings, working on a capstone project on a topic they care about, or advising the Senator on issues they believe in, the YAC provides an outlet where representatives can heed advice from the youth in their district, and youth can learn about local government. 

To this point, New Voters has helped establish and garner support for the program in 10 different Senate offices all across Pennsylvania, ranging from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia and to everywhere in between. Throughout this upcoming school year, different offices will pilot the program, giving youth across Pennsylvania a chance to learn about local government, become civically engaged, and grow into future change makers at the ballots and beyond into their everyday lives. New Voters continues to look to expand into every office in PA, and create a lasting program that will impact countless students to come.

From mid-2020 to 2023, I was an intern turned manager-in-training for a local congressional campaign. The campaign asked a lot as an intern, and higher expectations would be set during the summer. Nevertheless, I found myself turning from a meek and stressed intern to a confident, motivated canvasser who found himself rising up the ranks reaching all the way to manager-in-training. My role in the campaign gave me a strong interest in politics and gave me a life-changing experience. However, an astonishing epiphany while canvassing was one that made an everlasting impact on me. 

As I fully grasped the art of political canvassing, I started paying attention to patterns among residents whom I encountered. A chunk would say they have heard of the candidate I worked for, and another handful would express their support for the incumbent congressperson (the competing candidate). However, when mentioning the candidate I worked for as well as the incumbent, a huge number of residents would often answer with “I never heard of those people” or something similar to that. Situations where people not only knew the candidates participating in their district’s upcoming congressional election but also their incumbent congresswoman hinted at a problem of voter apathy and a lack of civic activity in our community. 

I began to dwell on the issue and decided to write an article on it. After some research on statistics and reasons for voter apathy, I discovered that California (where I reside) had a voter turnout of 50% for the 2022 midterms, the lowest since 2014, and my county hovered just a few points above that. Reasons for voter apathy included voter fatigue (the feeling of being overwhelmed by the frequency of elections), lack of inclusivity, and the fear of not being able to make an impact. Nevertheless, the political candidates and the propositions that we vote on control a huge part of our daily lives and our community (ie. taxes, electricity, water, environment), and being apathetic to voting would also mean choosing to be silent on how we want our daily lives and our community to look like. The more I worked on the topic, the larger my passion for the issue grew.

Around mid-2023, I started to lose motivation for the campaign and experienced burnout after having to accomplish many tasks (both inside and outside of the campaign) in a very limited amount of time. Also around this time, productivity and organization in the campaign started to fall quickly. As a response to all this, my director suggested that I take an indefinite break from the campaign and come back after more structure was built into the campaign as well as when I would be ready. Keeping the issue of voter apathy in my community in mind, I decided to use my break to search and take part in opportunities that would help me address and solve the issue. I surfed on LinkedIn in search of these opportunities, and an organization called New Voters came to immediate interest. 

Focused on registering or pre-registering eligible high schoolers to vote and training high schoolers to run voter registration drives that would help with achieving the mission, I thought that New Voters would be a perfect place where I could become a problem solver for the issue in my community. After being accepted into the 2023 summer cohort, I was tasked to work in the Operations team, which was responsible for establishing valuable partnerships with other organizations/conferences/people and creating curriculums to train high school students to run voter registration drives. I felt a huge sense of fulfillment, as I was in the place where I could slowly work towards fixing the issue of voter apathy in my community and make solutions happen. 

To this day, I still am on my break from the campaign, and am busy working with New Voters to contribute to implementing sound solutions and resources to the communities around us to bring awareness of voting and its importance. The path to accomplishing the mission may still be farther than the moon, but until it is accomplished, our work is never done. 

Works cited: 

Khalid, Asma, et al. “On the Sidelines of Democracy: Exploring Why so Many Americans Don’t Vote.” NPR, NPR, 10 Sept. 2018, www.npr.org/2018/09/10/645223716/on-the-sidelines-of-democracy-exploring-why-so-many-americans-dont-vote. 

“Voter Apathy.” Polyas.Com, 3 May 2018, www.polyas.com/election-glossary/voter-apathy. 

Zavala, Ashley. “A Look at Voter Turnout in California’s Now Certified Election.” KCRA, KCRA, 17 Dec. 2022, www.kcra.com/article/california-voter-turnout-election-november-state-county/42271634#.

Alex’s interest in youth voting, in comparison to his mother President Ellen Claremont (played by Uma Thurman) during her reelection campaign, demonstrates how a new voter turn-out can affect elections. Only able to win when finally concluding the 2020 election cycle with 301 301 electoral votes, President Claremont receives the support of Texas, largely in part due to Alex's work to mobilize 1 million first-time voters. While certain states turning blue or red may not be accurate within the movie, the story offers insight into how all parts of society should be involved in the process of voting. Media, stories, and narratives that involve this conversation of voting promise more new voter consciousness of how inclusion becomes a necessity in both personal and political identities. 

The Administrations and Cost of Elections Project voices the need for the emergence of youth in politics since "inclusive political participation is not only a fundamental political and democratic right but also is crucial to building stable and peaceful societies and developing policies that respond to the specific needs of younger generations." 

However, structural obstacles remain through the complicated process of youth voter registration, the struggles of lacking enough information, and facing barriers to vote, as reported by Tufts University. Almost 1/3 of the youth voter population did not vote in 2022 due to not having enough information on where to vote or who to vote for (21%) or issues with in-person and absentee voting (9%). One in five youth mentioned having trouble registering, as 21% answered not knowing how to register, missing the registration deadline (9%), or having issues accessing the voter registration application (4%). Among the youth (18-29) surveyed on why they did not register in 2022, many reported that the matter of registering was "not important to me" (25%) or they "didn't have time" (17%) and "forgot/was too busy" (38%). 

Politician Bushra Amiwala on PBS mentions her experience running for office on Cook County's Board of Commissioners. She emphasizes "Young voters care about all the same issues that any other voter would care about. The difference is that young voters are not at the center of traditional politicians’ strategies." In creating stories, new films, and new avenues of introducing youth to vote in media, the growth of new voters exists through enabling social media strategies, normalizing the process of registering to vote, and educating through the films we consume as audiences on the screen. We see how the actors who represent the stories in our lives streamline actionable change, how we create change by registering more voters and curating stories demonstrating how we can exist to enable movements of change. As politician Amiwala states, “We leaned into social media as a tool to mobilize first-time and young voters who found my campaign online and decided to follow it based on what they saw.” Social media promotes the films that have created incentives to change the world we have existed in.

Works Cited:

“Youth and Elections.” Are Young People Politically Apathetic? -, aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/yt/yt10/yt230/are-young-people-politically-apathetic. Accessed 27 Aug. 2023. Robinson, Garrett. “Summary of ‘Red, White & Royal Blue’ by Casey McQuiston.”

Medium, Medium, 19 July 2023, medium.com/@gurtrobinson/summary-of-red-white-royal-blue-by-casey-mcquiston-dad75112471e. Medina, Alberto, et al. “Youth in 2022: Concerned about Issues but Neglected by Campaigns.” Edited by Abby Kiesa, Circle at Tufts, Tisch College, 19 Dec. 2022,

circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/youth-2022-concerned-about-issues-neglected-campaigns. Amiwala, Bushra. “Engaging Young People in Politics.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 1 Jan. 2023, www.pbs.org/education/blog/engaging-young-people-in-politics.

Much to my surprise and relief, state constitutions quickly emerged as a tool to protect abortion rights, even in the South, where many anti-abortion laws were put in place almost immediately after the Dobbs decision. In January 2023, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy enshrined in their state constitution included a right to abortion, thereby overturning the state’s previous abortion policy, which banned abortions past six weeks after conception. State constitutions tend to establish more constitutional rights than the United States Constitution, and as a result, abortion rights groups have attempted to utilize state constitutions to legalize abortion on a more micro level.

However, anti-abortion groups are simultaneously trying to amend state constitutions to ensure they prevent access to abortion. Soon after the court decision in South Carolina, the Idaho Supreme Court held that their state constitution did not allow for a right to abortion, and maintained their abortion ban. Because of the battle between pro and anti-abortion groups in state courts, the deciding factor on whether abortion is protected has become the state voters. In a recent special election in Ohio, Ohio citizens voted to reject Issue 1, which would have required any proposed amendments to the state constitution be supported by 60% of voters, rather than the simple majority. This would have made it much more difficult to amend the Ohio State Constitution, stalling abortion rights groups’ attempts to amend the Ohio state constitution to include the right to an abortion. The no vote was victorious, 57% no to 43% yes.

Both supporters and opponents of abortion access have now turned their attention to the November election. Ohio voters will vote on the proposal to explicitly add reproductive rights to the Ohio constitution. The situation in Ohio continues to demonstrate the influence voting can have on shaping governmental policy, and going forward, youth voter turnout could play a huge role in whether proposals to protect abortion pass in Ohio and other states. On the whole, most data sources state that young voters (ages 18-29) are the voter age group most likely to be supportive of abortion rights. A 2022 CBS/YouGov national survey found that 68% of people ages 18-29 did not believe Roe v. Wade should have been overturned, and 72% believed that abortion should be legal in most or all cases. 2 in 5 of young people ages 18-29 said that the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade made them more likely to vote. Young voters have the ability to make a huge impact on civic issues, particularly abortion, by voting in their local elections, so it is imperative that young Ohio voters show up to the polls in November, and that young voters place ballots for their local elections throughout the country.

Works Cited

BeMiller, Haley, and Lily Carey. “Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1, Scoring Win for 

Abortion-Rights Supporters Ahead of November.” The Columbus Dispatch, 9 Aug. 2023, www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/08/ohio-issue-1-special-electionresults-voters-decide-tuesday-on-august-8-ballot-issue/70487461007/.

“Major National Issues like Abortion May Spur Youth Mobilization.” Circle at Tufts, 28 June 2022, circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/major-national-issues-abortion-may-spur-youth-mobilization.

Quinn, Melissa. “What the Rejection of Ohio’s Issue 1 Could Mean for Abortion Rights in the State.” CBS News, 8 Aug. 2023, www.cbsnews.com/news/issue-1-ohio-special-election-ballot-abortion-rights-state-constitution/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab4i.

Zernike, Kate. “A Volatile Tool Emerges in the Abortion Battle: State Constitutions.” The New York Times, 29 Jan. 2023, 

www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/us/abortion-rights-state-constitutions.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare.

Is affirmative action still necessary in today's society? According to the Supreme Court, which overturned the controversial policy in a landmark ruling last month, the answer is no. Affirmative action has aimed to level the playing field for historically marginalized groups, particularly people of color and women, for several decades. While affirmative action strives to promote equal opportunities for these groups, recent news about SCOTUS’ attack against the policy has sparked controversy, causing heated debates between advocates and opponents.

Affirmative action was initially proposed by President Kennedy in 1961 through Executive Order 10925. The order aimed to ensure that federal contractors hired individuals based solely on their qualifications, without discrimination based on demographics such as race, religion, or gender. In 1965, President Johnson further institutionalized affirmative action for government contractors and demanded its implementation in education. Since then, affirmative action has become entangled in debate, with many moves to abolish it and equal attempts to uphold its place in society.

The policy has elicited two opposing views. Supporters of affirmative action argue that it provides equal opportunities for historically marginalized groups who have suffered from patterns of discrimination based on race, gender, and ethnicity. They also argue that affirmative action’s discontinuation would negatively impact diversity in colleges and universities since schools and businesses could overlook minority groups when admitting or hiring students and employees. Moreover, ending affirmative action would only perpetuate discrimination and keep existing hierarchies in place, further shutting out minority voices. This argument suggests that affirmative action aims to decrease the systemic discrimination that often prevents marginalized individuals from reaching their full potential. 

On the other hand, opponents of affirmative action contend that the policy promotes “reverse discrimination,” arguing that it grants preferential treatment to minorities. They believe that admissions-based decisions should be based solely on merit and qualifications, rather than on demographics. Opponents also suggest that affirmative action creates an uneven playing field for certain demographics, such as white and Asian-American candidates, who may be denied opportunities despite their excellent qualifications due to their race or ethnicity. Opponents propose that ending affirmative action would help create equal opportunities for all without giving preferential treatment to minorities. 

Affirmative action has played a vital role in promoting diversity and providing equal opportunities for minority groups who have historically experienced discrimination in education and employment. However, the decision to end affirmative action is a contentious and heavily debated topic that will undoubtedly reshape the way education and employment are structured in the future. The policy’s discontinuation raises concerns about the existing structures of privilege, systemic racism, and diversity. It is essential for policymakers and stakeholders to consider all sides of the argument, weigh the pros and cons, and arrive at a reasonable decision that ensures that equal opportunities exist for all individuals, regardless of their ethno-cultural background. Each group has their own opinion on affirmative action, and it is crucial to strike a balance that considers the best interests of all involved. A fair and balanced system that promotes equality is necessary for the progress of the nation and the overall welfare of its people. Policymakers and stakeholders must prioritize diversity and ensure that everyone has an opportunity to succeed; it is only through such actions that a truly just and equitable society can arise.

Works Cited:

 
"Affirmative Action." Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 31 July 2020, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action. “Affirmative Action: Definition & College Admissions.” History.Com, www.history.com/topics/us-government-and-politics/affirmative-action. Accessed 23 July 2023. Hartocollis, Anemona. “How the Term ‘Affirmative Action’ Came to Be.” The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/us/politics/affirmative-action-history.html.Michaelson, Jay. “What Was Affirmative Action Really about? And What Happens Now?” Rolling Stone, 29 June 2023, www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/what-is-affirmative-action-supreme-court-ruling-1234780723/. 

So many young people are passionate about current issues and are taking action in their communities. Leading up to the 2020 election, a poll by Tufts University’s CIRCLE found that 31% of young people placed climate change in the top three issues impacting their vote for president (Suzuki et al., 2022). Racism and healthcare accessibility/affordability also hovered at the top (Suzuki et al., 2022). Young people are not apathetic; we are engaged and taking action. 

However, we also face various barriers and may feel helpless about making a meaningful impact. In a 2021 study of 10,000 young people across ten countries, 84% responded that they were at least moderately worried about climate change and around 64% felt that the government was not taking their concerns seriously enough (Hickman et al., 2021). Additionally, young people from less affluent countries experiencing the effects of climate change more directly tended to indicate that their climate anxiety negatively influenced their daily lives (Hickman et al., 2021). Forming solutions to challenging global issues should be inclusive and intersectional. Young people - bringing their own complex stories, experiences, and expertise on issues like climate change - should be heard and lead in creating positive change.

My understanding of civic engagement substantially changed since my first voter engagement project. While I initially believed civic engagement was just about voting, I’ve since expanded my understanding. I now know civic engagement includes volunteering in my community, talking about current issues with friends and family, making art that reflects issues I care about, communicating with legislators, and so much more. Civic engagement is open-ended and expansive. We all have a voice. Similarly, my understanding of climate action has also shifted, expanded, and transformed as I’ve learned alongside incredible youth activists. We can address climate change by educating peers, posting on social media, advocating for climate justice policies, and shaping innovative solutions. Civic engagement and climate activism are part of an interconnected network of education, action, and social change, where young people should have opportunities to be heard and take leadership in creating solutions. After all, young people are not just the leaders of tomorrow—We are the leaders of today (Wathuti & Prowse, 2022).

Works Cited:

Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., Wray, B., Mellor, C., & van Susteren, L. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. The Lancet. Planetary health, 5(12), e863–e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00278-3

Suzuki, S., Medina, A., & de Guzman, P. (2022, March 18). Youth concern about climate change drives civic engagement. Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/youth-concern-about-climate-change-drives-civic-engagement

Wathuti, E., & Prowse, L. (2022, February 9). Stop calling young people “leaders of tomorrow.” World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/stop-calling-young-people-leaders-of-tomorrow/

When a new political issue arises under our current system, each party chooses a position which aligns with their constituents and their conscience. That’s the idea, anyway. Voters only have two realistic options to choose from: red or blue. Therefore, both parties are incentivized to take up diametrically opposed positions so that they maximize the contrast between them and the only serious opposition. All complex issues boil down to strict binary choices: Pro-life vs Pro-choice, more taxes or less taxes, welfare or bootstraps, etc. In short, everyone must pick a side. Those citizens who have the time and resources to come up with a nuanced opinion have no political outlet and are often left to decide between the “lesser of two evils.” 

Now imagine for a moment there were a handful of political parties instead of just two. As in the previous case, the parties will consult their constituents and conscience to determine what is the most politically advantageous position to take. Since there are several different options to choose from, parties are forced to introduce more nuance in order to stand out. Standing apart from the competition is a matter of survival for political parties. As a result, voters now have five or six options instead of two. The number of options—five or 10—is unimportant. What’s important is that having only two options enables us to map out issues onto a strict binary. 

Here’s how this duopoly plays out in the real world. Take the “politicization” of masks for example. Since there were only two options politically—Democrats Pro and Republicans Anti—any action or inaction can be easily tied to political affiliation. There are two parties: Democrat and Republican. There are two options: wear a mask or not. When people saw others walking around not wearing masks you could predict with a large degree of certainty what their political affiliation was. This ability to predict political affiliation based on action or inaction feeds into itself: it’s cyclical. People became aware of the message their decisions communicated to others on the street. The simple choice to wear a mask, or not, became a signal about one’s political affiliation. Independents and moderates living in highly populated urban areas, which tend to lean to the left, were incentivized to wear masks even if they didn’t particularly agree with the policy to avoid being perceived as a Republican. The reverse was true in rural areas. This political signaling is only possible under a system with two contrasting political parties.

 Take the same issue in a country with a handful of political parties and such correlations are much weaker. If someone chooses not to wear a mask, they’re more likely to have conservative values, but it cannot be easily determined which political party they may be a part of. Therefore, the political signaling incentive is much weaker. People don’t need to worry as much about what their actions communicate to others about their political affiliation. And, ultimately, people are less incentivized to identify themselves and others with a particular party. Once a person’s political affiliation is tied to their identity it is difficult hard to avoid polarization.

 The solutions are not simple. This mechanism of polarization goes beyond confronting your own biases and rethinking your assumptions. A good-faith debate is not going to solve this. It will take extensive policy changes to reform the duopoly, which is one of the few things both parties agree is a bad idea. In any case, it helps us understand why everything becomes political so quickly and, in so doing, better informs how we engage with the system overall.

In 2022, the Philadelphia 76ers unveiled an ambitious plan to build a new stadium for fans. Sitting between the 10th and 11th Streets on Market Street and dubbed 76ers Place, the privately funded $1.3 billion establishment will hold up to 18,500 spectators and is slated to open its doors in 2031. Less than a block away sits the century-old homes and businesses of Chinatown, an ethnic community at risk of extinction. This predatory development needs to end.

76ers Place is detrimental to the everyday lives of residents in a plethora of ways. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, gentrification can lead to public health effects such as socioeconomic inequality, noise pollution, and the exposure of vulnerable populations to hazardous construction materials such as lead paint. Furthermore, gentrification contributes heavily towards rising housing inequality as it displaces residents by causing living costs to spike.

The arena's construction firm, 76 Devcorp, has voiced in its inclusivity statement that they want to “form a long-term partnership with the community” and “collaborate to address local priorities.” This is not the case as the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the firm's attorneys tried to sneak a clause into a parking garage bill that would have fast-tracked the arena’s construction by requiring the garage owners to consent to future demolition to clear space for building. In fact, the initial proposals of the arena were never even shared with Chinatown residents, as the majority found out through the news.

 Five months after the bill was announced, the Sixers finally decided to hold a meeting with the Chinatown community. However, none of the three owners showed up and instead, they sent a representative who left early. It’s paramount to involve the voices from the community while constructing near it, yet these developers have done the bare minimum, echoing promises that were nothing but empty rhetoric.

Sister communities across the nation are also facing this problem. According to the Washington Post, the population in Washington D.C. Chinatown dropped from 3000 to just 300 due to the construction of a basketball stadium. Similarly, Manhattan has also seen declines, with the New York Times reporting that their Chinese population experienced a decrease from 51,000 to 34,000 caused by higher housing costs.

The solution is simple: Don’t build a stadium at all. What good would a new arena even serve? For the chairman of the arena development corporation David Adelman, the answer is to encourage more customers to visit restaurants and stores in Chinatown. However, what Adelman doesn’t understand is that Chinatown isn't a tourist attraction, it's a cultural haven with a fragile and rich history. 

What started out as a single laundromat blossomed into a vibrant community protected from prejudice and hate. Playing my part, I also shout the same seven words as my brothers and sisters.

There must be no arena in Chinatown.

Works Cited:

Busterna, Matteo. "New 76ers arena sparks concerns of gentrification in Philadelphia's Chinatown." The Daily Pennsylvanian. 27 July 2022. 

https://www.thedp.com/article/2022/07/new-76ers-arena-gentrification-chinatown. Accessed 16 Apr. 2023.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Health Effects of Gentrification" Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 15 Oct. 2009.

 https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm. Accessed 16 Apr. 2023.

Chen, Elaine and Chen, Stefanos. "Chinatown’s Civic Groups Have Held Developers at Bay. Can They Survive?" The New York Times, 25 Apr. 2022.

 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/nyregion/chinatown-new-york-real-estate.html.

Gammage, Jeff and Massarah, Mikati. "Chinatown residents loudly denounce Sixers arena proposal at contentious meeting." The Philadelphia Inquirer, 15 Dec. 2022. https://www.inquirer.com/news/chinatown-sixers-arena-basketball-gentrification-20221215.html.

Wang, Yanan. "D.C.’s Chinatown has Only 300 Chinese Americans Left, and they’re Fighting to Stay." The Washington Post, 18 July 2015.

, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/dcs-chinatown-has-only-300-chinese-americans-left--and-fighting-to-stay/2015/07/16/86d54e84-2191-11e5-bf41-c23f5d3face1_story.html.