Module 39: The Twenty-Sixth Amendment

Twenty-One, and the Argument Over It

The Constitution of 1787 left voter qualifications to the States and said nothing about age. CRS describes Founding-era State rules that, following British tradition, limited voting to white men of at least 21, usually with property. For a long time many Americans held that 21 was needed so that voters would have independence and "sound judgment." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, appeared to recognize that every State had set 21 as the minimum age.¹ Age was not a national issue, because nobody was challenging it.

The draft age moves and the slogan follows

That changed with World War II. After Pearl Harbor, Congress amended the Selective Service law to reach men 20 to 45. In October 1942 President Franklin Roosevelt spoke in a fireside chat in support of drafting men as young as 18, and the next month Congress lowered the minimum conscription age to 18.¹ The change prompted some officials, including First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, to ask why men old enough to be drafted could not vote. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote" became the slogan.¹ Representative Jennings Randolph of West Virginia, later the Senate sponsor of the amendment, introduced a constitutional amendment on the subject in those years, and a House Judiciary subcommittee held hearings in 1943. No proposal reached the floor of either house in the 1940s.¹

In 1943 Georgia became the first State to lower its voting age to 18, for both federal and State elections, when its voters approved a change to the State constitution.¹

Korea and the Eisenhower message

The Korean War gave the argument a second round. Congress lowered the draft age to 18 and a half in 1951. President Eisenhower told Congress in January 1954 that "[f]or years our citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 have, in time of peril, been summoned to fight for America. They should participate in the political process that produces this fateful summons." He recommended "a constitutional amendment permitting citizens to vote when they reach the age of 18."¹ Senator William Langer of North Dakota, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced a resolution, and it became the first proposed amendment on voting age debated on the floor of either house. The Senate narrowly failed to reach the two-thirds vote.¹ Kentucky lowered its voting age to 18 by referendum in 1955, and Alaska and Hawaii entered the Union in 1959 with voting ages of 19 and 20.¹

Vietnam and the statute

By the late 1960s young men were being drafted for Vietnam while few States let anyone under 21 vote. President Johnson sent Congress a message calling for an amendment. He called the ballot box the "anvil of democracy, where government is shaped by the will of the people," and said that "reason does not permit us to ignore any longer the reality that eighteen-year-old young Americans are prepared" to vote.² Congress did not wait for an amendment. When it extended the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, it added a provision lowering the voting age to 18 in all elections, federal, State and local, and said in its findings that it was acting to protect the "inherent constitutional rights" of 18- to 20-year-olds, particularly given "the national defense responsibilities imposed upon such citizens." Congress relied on its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.²

President Nixon signed the act on June 22, 1970. In the same statement he said he strongly favored the 18-year-old vote but believed, with most of the nation's leading constitutional scholars, that Congress had "no power to enact it by simple statute, but rather it requires a constitutional amendment." He directed the Attorney General to file suit to test it.² The Court's answer came the same year.

The Text

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

U.S. Const. amend. XXVI (ratified July 1, 1971), National Archives transcription

Each clause sets a boundary.

"Who are eighteen years of age or older." The amendment protects people at 18 and above. It does not say that States must let anyone younger vote, and it does not stop a State from setting a lower age if it wishes. It also sets no top age, which is why a State may not single out a group of older adults for a burden either.⁴

"Denied or abridged." The verbs come from the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments. The Senate Judiciary Committee said the draft was modeled on those two and, in its view, would also bar "special burdens" on young voters, such as forcing them to vote by absentee ballot or at "one centralized location."⁵ "Abridged" is the broader word, since a State can make voting harder for a group without refusing it outright.

"On account of age." The protected ground is age. A State remains free to apply its other qualifications to 18-year-olds, including citizenship, residence and registration, and the felony rules, as long as it applies them without regard to age.⁶

"To vote." The Congressional debate gave the word a wide reach. Representative Emanuel Celler said it covers "all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special or general election." Representative Richard Poff said it reaches "the entire process by which the people make their political choices," including primaries, nomination by petition or convention, ballot initiatives and recall elections. Poff also said the amendment would not undo laws that set a minimum age for holding office.⁴

Section 2. The enforcement clause matches the ones in the other voting amendments. Congress has since authorized the Department of Justice to enforce the amendment against State and local governments in federal district court, with expedited review and direct appeal to the Supreme Court, and made it a crime to deny or attempt to deny the rights it protects (52 U.S.C. section 10701).⁷

Oregon v. Mitchell (1970): The Statute That Was Half Good

Oregon and Texas sued to stop the 18-year-old provision of the 1970 act. The United States sued Arizona and Idaho to make them follow the act, so Idaho was a defendant in the case that decided the question (United States v. Idaho, No. 47, Original). The Court heard argument on October 19, 1970 and decided on December 21, 1970. Robert M. Robson of Boise argued for Idaho.⁸

The act did three things: it lowered the voting age to 18 in State and federal elections, it banned literacy tests for five years in all elections, and it barred States from disqualifying voters in presidential elections for failing State residency requirements.⁸ Justice Black announced the judgments of the Court "in an opinion expressing his own view," because the Justices did not agree on a single rationale. The result, in his words: "it is the judgment of the Court that the 18-year-old vote provisions of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 are constitutional and enforceable insofar as they pertain to federal elections and unconstitutional and unenforceable insofar as they pertain to state and local elections."⁸

How the Justices lined up

Nine Justices produced a 5 to 4 vote in each direction. Black, joined by Douglas, Brennan, White and Marshall, held that Congress can set the age in federal elections. Black, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harlan, Stewart and Blackmun, held that Congress cannot override State age rules for State and local elections. Douglas, Brennan, White and Marshall would have upheld the statute for all elections, and the Chief Justice, Harlan, Stewart and Blackmun would have struck it for all of them. Black, in the middle, ruled that Congress could do part of what it tried.⁸ On the literacy test ban "all of my Brethren join me," and on the presidential residency provisions eight Justices agreed and Harlan dissented.⁸

Black's reasoning

Black's opinion for federal elections rested on Article I, section 4, which lets Congress "make or alter" State rules on the times, places and manner of congressional elections. For State and local elections he read the Constitution as leaving the question to the States. "It is a plain fact of history that the Framers never imagined that the national Congress would set the qualifications for voters in every election from President to local constable or village alderman. It is obvious that the whole Constitution reserves to the States the power to set voter qualifications in state and local elections, except to the limited extent that the people through constitutional amendments have specifically narrowed the powers of the States."⁸ He named the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth and Twenty-fourth Amendments as examples of such amendments.⁸

Douglas answered from the other side. "The grant of the franchise to 18-year-olds by Congress is in my view valid across the board," he wrote, relying on the Equal Protection and Privileges and Immunities Clauses.⁸ Harlan wrote that, judged by the Court's recent voting cases, "I would find it difficult not to sustain all three aspects" of the act. Judged by "the standpoint of the bedrock of the constitutional structure of this Nation," he said, the Court had to consider whether "one or more of the changes which Congress has thus sought to make can be accomplished only by constitutional amendment."⁸

Idaho's part

The residency changes the United States sought from Idaho show how much a State's election code could be touched. Idaho's 60-day State residency requirement would in effect drop to 30 days. Its 30-day county requirement for people moving within the State would be abolished. Idaho would have to allow voting by former Idaho residents who moved too recently to register elsewhere, and to allow absentee registration and voting by people who had lived in Idaho less than six months.⁸ Those provisions concerned presidential elections, and the Court upheld them 8 to 1.⁸

Why the amendment followed

The split left States with two age rules, 18 for federal races and whatever each State chose for the rest. CRS explains that States faced the prospect of keeping two sets of registration books and running separate systems, and many welcomed a constitutional amendment as the way out.² The Senate committee made the same point, warning of "confusion," "delay" and "fraud" from dual systems.⁵ The Court's decision and Harlan's warning both pointed to Article V as the way to a single rule.

Passage in Congress, 1971

Senator Randolph introduced S.J. Res. 7 on January 25, 1971. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported it favorably in less than two months. On January 29 Representative Celler introduced a nearly identical resolution, H.J. Res. 223, and the House Judiciary Committee reported it in March.⁵ The committees gave several reasons: young people were mature and informed enough, they were already taking on adult responsibilities including paying taxes, raising families and military service, and a constitutional amendment would end the dual systems and keep Congress or the States from raising the age later.⁵ The House report called the amendment "part of a constitutional tradition of enlarging participation in [the nation's] political processes."⁵

Supporters in the debates included, in CRS's description, "young persons, students, teachers, civil rights groups, religious groups, and labor unions."⁵ Opponents made three points. The first was that States hold primary authority over State and local voter qualifications. The second was that "transient" out-of-State students could decide elections in college towns. The third was that young voters lacked maturity or would not turn out.⁴

The Senate passed S.J. Res. 7 on March 10, 1971 by 94 to 0.⁹ The House passed H.J. Res. 223 by 401 to 19, then took up the identical Senate resolution and passed it by the required two-thirds vote on March 23, 1971, which sent the amendment to the States.⁴⁷ The resolution carried the usual seven-year clause for ratification.⁷

Ratification: Under Four Months

Five State legislatures ratified on the day Congress sent the amendment out, March 23, 1971: Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Tennessee and Washington. Hawaii and Massachusetts followed on March 24, Montana on March 29, and Arkansas, Idaho and Iowa on March 30.¹⁰ The Manual lists 39 legislatures by the time ratification was complete on July 1, 1971, when North Carolina and Oklahoma both acted.¹⁰ Three more States, Virginia, Wyoming and Georgia, ratified afterward.¹⁰ The chart in the Numbers section shows the pace by month: 11 in March, 16 in April, then a long tail.

On July 5, 1971, at a White House ceremony for Independence Day, the Administrator of General Services certified the amendment. President Nixon and three 18-year-old witnesses, chosen by lot from a visiting youth choir, signed the certificate, though their signatures were not required for ratification.⁷¹¹ Nixon said the amendment meant "11 million new voters," and CRS reports that he said they would contribute "a spirit of moral courage" and "high idealism" to the electorate.¹¹⁴

The amendment took 100 days from submission to the last needed ratification. The Twenty-fourth Amendment took 514 days and the Twenty-fifth took 584, counting from the dates the National Archives gives for passage by Congress to the dates of ratification (see the second chart).³

What the Courts Have Said, and Have Not

The Supreme Court has not decided a case that definitively interprets the Twenty-sixth Amendment.¹²⁶ The one Supreme Court action on the amendment came in 1979, when the Court summarily affirmed, without an opinion, a three-judge court's order against a Texas county registrar who used a complex residency questionnaire on student applicants who lived on campus.⁶ The Court has said that a summary affirmance does not necessarily endorse the lower court's reasoning.⁶ What exists is a body of lower court decisions, and the lower courts are not all in agreement.

Students and where they live

In the first years after ratification, several courts held that officials could not treat young voters differently when deciding where they live for voting. A Texas federal court struck down a provision that decided the residence of voters under 21 on a different basis than that of older voters. The California Supreme Court held that officials could not refuse to register unmarried 18- to 20-year-olds at the place where they had actually established residence, in place of their parents' address. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that, without a compelling State interest, local officials could not require college students to take extra steps to register in the college community. The New York Court of Appeals reached the opposite result for a rule that applied the same criteria to student and non-student registrants alike.⁶

Beyond the ballot box

Courts have drawn lines on what "vote" covers. They have held that the amendment does not give 18- to 20-year-olds a right to hold elective office (Minnesota and New York decisions), does not require State jury lists to include them (Eighth Circuit and Mississippi decisions), and does not protect a 17-year-old's right to vote in a primary because he will be 18 by the general election (Ohio federal and Missouri decisions). A Colorado decision, going the other way, struck down a ban on 18- to 20-year-old electors signing and circulating initiative petitions.⁶

Older voters and easier ballots

The question that returned in 2020 was whether a State may let older voters vote by mail without an excuse while younger voters must give a reason. The Fifth Circuit held that Texas's rule for voters 65 and older did not deny or abridge younger voters' rights, because it did not make voting harder for younger voters than before the law or the amendment. The Seventh Circuit held the same for Indiana, noting that younger voters kept other options, such as early in-person voting.⁶ CRS says that in the 21st century courts have not settled which test applies.¹²

What test applies

Lower courts in the 1970s often applied strict scrutiny to election rules that burdened Twenty-sixth Amendment rights.⁶ Since then the picture is mixed. Some courts require a plaintiff to prove the legislature acted with intent to disadvantage young voters, borrowing the Arlington Heights test from equal protection law, so that a disparate effect on young voters is not enough. Others use the balancing test of Anderson v. Celebrezze and Burdick v. Takushi, which weighs the State's interests, such as preventing fraud, against the burden on the voter.⁶ Outside the voting context the Supreme Court has held that age is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause, so ordinary laws that classify by age get deferential review (Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 1976).⁶ Whether the Twenty-sixth Amendment calls for more is the open question. The Fifth Circuit has said it was uncertain.⁶

The scope of Congress's Section 2 power is also unclear. CRS reports that bills in recent Congresses would have used it to create a private right of action, to pre-register minors who are 16 or older for federal elections, and to require States to accept certain student IDs for voter ID purposes.¹²

Student IDs: The Question in the News

The newest disputes involve whether a State may stop accepting a student ID at the polls. These are current events, and the facts below come from news reports, not court documents. Check them against the dockets before relying on them.

• Indiana. Indiana's Senate Bill 10 removed student IDs from the list of accepted voter IDs. A federal district judge, Richard Young, issued a preliminary injunction on April 10, 2026, writing that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. On April 20 a Seventh Circuit panel stayed the injunction, stating that the injunction "will alter who can cast a ballot in this election" and came "seven days after voting in the election has already begun."¹³ The stay rested on the timing of the primary. It was not a ruling on the merits.
• New Hampshire. The legislature passed House Bill 323, signed in April 2026, which makes student IDs invalid for getting a ballot. The Secretary of State then issued a directive that went further, reaching registration. In August 2026 the Coalition for Open Democracy sued, arguing that the law burdens students' right to vote and "discriminat[es] against younger voters for their age," according to NPR's account.¹⁴ That claim has the shape of a Twenty-sixth Amendment claim, although the reports this lesson opened do not name the amendment. In early October 2026, according to InDepthNH, the district court enjoined the directive to the extent it barred officials from considering student IDs as evidence of identity, and declined to enjoin HB 323 itself. The State then asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay.¹⁵ This lesson did not confirm the status after October 15, 2026.
• Florida. A student ID ban in House Bill 991, signed April 1, 2026, takes effect January 1, 2027.¹³

Ballotpedia counts 18 States that explicitly allow student IDs for voting and two, Iowa and Utah, that allow them alongside another ID.¹³ Supporters of the bans say they make the accepted list "more uniform, objective, and verifiable" and protect confidence in elections. NPR reports that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud involving student IDs, and an advocate it quotes says young people are less likely to hold a driver's license. A federal judge wrote that the Indiana ban "looks more like a solution in search of a problem."¹⁴ The two views are about policy and evidence, and a court applying the Twenty-sixth Amendment would also ask the legal questions above about intent and burden.

Myths and Misreadings

• "The Supreme Court has ruled on the Twenty-sixth Amendment." It has not decided a case interpreting it. The one action is a 1979 summary affirmance.¹²⁶
• "Oregon v. Mitchell was overruled." The amendment superseded the part of the decision that left State and local age rules to the States, by changing the Constitution itself. This lesson did not research how later courts treat the rest of the opinion.⁸¹⁶
• "The amendment made 18 the age of adulthood for everything." It speaks only to voting. Courts have refused to extend it to jury service or office holding.⁶
• "The Vietnam War caused the movement." The slogan dates to 1942, Georgia lowered its age in 1943, and Eisenhower asked for an amendment in 1954. Vietnam gave the movement its final push.¹
• "A student can only vote where his parents live." Several courts have held that officials may not require this of 18- to 20-year-olds.⁶
• "Older voters' easier absentee rules violate the amendment." Two circuits have rejected that claim on the facts they reviewed.⁶

Questions People Ask

Can a State set its voting age below 18? Yes. The amendment sets a floor of protection at 18 and does not prevent a lower age. Several States had ages of 18, 19 or 20 before it was ratified.¹⁶

Can a State require 18-year-olds to meet residence rules? Yes, if it applies them without regard to age. Courts looked closely at rules that treated students or minors differently.⁶

Can Congress lower the age in federal elections by statute? Oregon v. Mitchell held that Congress could, and the amendment now makes the question academic for 18.⁸

Does the amendment cover a ban on student IDs? That is an open question. Courts have not ruled on it as a Twenty-sixth Amendment claim in the sources this lesson found, and the standard of review is unsettled.¹²¹⁴

How many young people does it affect? CIRCLE estimated almost 50 million citizens ages 18 to 29 could register and vote in 2024, including more than 8 million who had turned 18 since the 2022 election. Its early estimate of youth turnout that year was 42 percent, with a margin of error of one point, and CIRCLE said the figure could change with voter file data.¹⁷

Landmark Cases

Because the Supreme Court has decided no case interpreting the amendment, the table lists the 1970 decision that led to it, the one summary affirmance and the main lower court decisions.

The Idaho Connection

Ratification. Idaho ratified the Twenty-sixth Amendment on March 30, 1971, according to the House Manual. Counting down the Manual's list, Idaho was the tenth State to ratify, on the same day as Arkansas and Iowa.¹⁰

Idaho in Oregon v. Mitchell. The United States sued Idaho as a defendant in the 1970 case, to make it follow the new age and residency provisions. The opinions describe Idaho's voting age at the time as 21.⁸ The residency changes at issue in Idaho's suit were upheld.⁸

The Idaho Constitution and Code. Article VI, section 2 of the Idaho Constitution makes every citizen "eighteen years old" who has resided in the State and county for the period provided by law, and is registered, a qualified elector.¹⁸ Idaho Code section 34-402 repeats the rule and sets thirty days of residence in the State and county.¹⁹ Section 34-402's history note shows it was added in 1970 and amended in 1971, the year of ratification, and again in 1972, 1973 and 1982.¹⁹ The Constitution lets the legislature add "qualifications, limitations, and conditions for the right of suffrage," but never to "annul" what the Constitution provides, and any new condition is also subject to the federal Constitution, including the Twenty-sixth Amendment.¹⁸

Students and residence. Idaho Code section 34-405 says that for voting, "no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his absence" while employed in government service, while "a student of any institution of learning," or while held in a state institution, or while absent with the intent to keep the State as a residence.²⁰ The statute speaks of absence, and it does not on its face say how to treat a student who attends college in an Idaho county that is not the family home. This lesson did not find an Idaho decision on that question.²¹

Student IDs at Idaho polls. This is the most current Idaho issue. Until the end of 2023, Idaho Code section 34-1113 allowed "a current student identification card, including a photograph" issued by an Idaho high school or accredited college as proof of identity at the polls. House Bill 124 of 2023 removed that item, effective January 1, 2024.²² The accepted list is now an Idaho driver's license or ID card, a passport or federal photo ID, a tribal photo ID, and a concealed weapons license.²³ A registered voter without one of them may sign a Personal Identification Affidavit instead.²⁴ The affidavit is a no-cost option that bears on any claim that the rule burdens young voters. This lesson did not find a Twenty-sixth Amendment lawsuit against the Idaho change.²¹

Where This Shows Up for Officials, Reporters and Citizens

The county clerk before a campus election

Clerk Dolores Ackerman runs elections in an invented Idaho county that includes a college. A first-year student comes in with a campus ID and asks to vote. Ackerman knows the Idaho list of accepted IDs does not include it and tells the student about the affidavit option. She also knows that residence rules must apply the same way to student and non-student applicants, since the lower courts that have looked at the issue looked closely at student-specific burdens. She records what each applicant is asked, so that she can show the same questions were put to everyone.²³²⁴⁶

The reporter checking an "age discrimination" claim

Reporter Walter Penrose hears a group call a new ID rule "age discrimination." His checks are specific. What does the rule actually exclude? Do older voters face the same burden? Which courts have ruled, and which test did they use? He finds that the circuits that have looked at mail ballots for older voters rejected the claim, that the Supreme Court has decided no case, and that tests vary between intent and balancing. He reports the claim as open.⁶¹²

The legislative staffer weighing a bill

A staffer for an invented state senator is asked about a bill that would drop student IDs from the accepted list. She reads the Indiana and New Hampshire coverage and notes that those challenges are pending and the courts have not applied the Twenty-sixth Amendment to them. She tells the senator that the bill's legal risk turns on questions courts have not settled: whether intent must be shown, whether the burden is real given the affidavit option, and whether a State may treat one age group's usual ID differently.¹²¹³¹⁵

The 17-year-old who wants to register

A high school senior, invented, will turn 18 two weeks before the November election and asks if she can vote in the primary. The amendment protects citizens "eighteen years of age or older," and courts have held that it does not extend to a 17-year-old in a primary because of her birthday.⁶ Whether she may depends on State law, and she should confirm the rule with her county clerk.

Related Modules

• Module 2, Article I: Congress: the Elections Clause that Black relied on.
• Module 6, Amending the Constitution: Article V and why an amendment ended the dual age systems.
• Module 5, Federalism and the States: State control of voter qualifications.
• Module 11, Voting, Taxes and the Later Amendments: the overview of this and nearby amendments.
• Module 28, The Fourteenth Amendment: equal protection and Section 2.
• Module 29, The Fifteenth Amendment: the "denied or abridged" model.
• Module 32, The Nineteenth Amendment: the other model for the Senate committee.
• Module 37, The Twenty-Fourth Amendment: another voting amendment with the same enforcement clause.
• Module 38, The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: ratified four years earlier.
• Module 40, The Twenty-Seventh Amendment: the next amendment in the series.

Sources & Further Reading

Primary Sources

• National Archives, The Constitution: Amendments 11-27
• House Manual (116th Congress), Amendment XXVI and ratification notes
• Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)
• Voteview, Senate Vote 12 (S.J. Res. 7, March 10, 1971)
• Nixon, Remarks at the certification ceremony, July 5, 1971

Idaho Law and Records

• Idaho Const. art. VI, sec. 2
• Idaho Const. art. VI, sec. 4
• Idaho Code sec. 34-402
• Idaho Code sec. 34-405
• Idaho Code sec. 34-1113
• Idaho House Bill 124 (2023)
• Idaho Secretary of State, VoteIdaho.gov, Frequently Asked Questions

Secondary Sources and Further Reading

• Constitution Annotated, Amendment XXVI: Ratification
• Constitution Annotated, Amendment XXVI: Scope
• CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11286, Part 1: Introduction
• CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11287, Part 2: History of Voter Age Qualifications
• CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11288, Part 3: The Vietnam War and Oregon v. Mitchell
• CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11289, Part 4: Early Congressional Action
• CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11290, Part 5: Congressional Debates
• CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11291, Part 6: Unresolved Issues
• Ballotpedia News, Indiana student ID ruling (April 2026)
• NPR/NHPR, student ID bans (August 2026)
• InDepthNH, New Hampshire student ID litigation (October 2026)
• CIRCLE, 2024 youth turnout estimate (early)

Footnotes

1. CRS, The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and Reduction of the Voting Age (Part 2): History of Voter Age Qualifications, LSB11287 (Apr. 23, 2025), https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/LSB11287.html. Source for the early state practice, the Fourteenth Amendment's assumption of age 21, the 1942 draft change, the "old enough to fight" slogan, the 1943 Georgia referendum, Eisenhower's 1954 message and the Langer resolution.
2. CRS, The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and Reduction of the Voting Age (Part 3): The Vietnam War and Oregon v. Mitchell, LSB11288 (Apr. 23, 2025), https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/LSB11288.html. Source for President Johnson's message, the 1970 Voting Rights Act Amendments, Nixon's signing statement and his order to the Attorney General to sue.
3. National Archives, The Constitution: Amendments 11-27, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27. Full text of the Twenty-sixth Amendment, with "Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971." and the note that "Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment."
4. CRS, The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and Reduction of the Voting Age (Part 5): Congressional Debates, LSB11290 (Apr. 23, 2025), https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/LSB11290.html. Source for the debates, the statements of Representatives Celler and Poff, the House vote of 401 to 19 and the ratification and certification.
5. CRS, The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and Reduction of the Voting Age (Part 4): Early Congressional Action, LSB11289 (Apr. 23, 2025), https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/LSB11289.html. Source for S.J. Res. 7, H.J. Res. 223 and the committee reports.
6. Constitution Annotated, Amendment XXVI, The Scope of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-26/the-scope-of-the-twenty-sixth-amendment. Source for Symm v. United States, the lower court cases on student residence, office holding, juries, initiative petitions and primaries, and the Fifth and Seventh Circuit absentee ballot decisions.
7. Constitution Annotated, Amendment XXVI, Ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-26/ratification-of-the-twenty-sixth-amendment. Source for the March 10 Senate passage, the March 23 House passage and submission, the July 5 certification (85 Stat. 829) with President Nixon and three 18-year-old witnesses signing, and 52 U.S.C. section 10701.
8. Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), argued October 19 and decided December 21, 1970 (Nos. 43, 44, 46 and 47, Original), opinion of Justice Black announcing the judgments and separate opinions, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/400/112. All quotations from the opinions in this lesson are from this text.
9. Voteview (UCLA), 92nd Congress, Senate, Vote 12, March 10, 1971, https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0920012. Result 94 to 0 on S.J. Res. 7.
10. Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 116th Congress, Amendment XXVI, note 17, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-116/html/HMAN-116-pg122.htm. States that the amendment was proposed on March 23, 1971, that the Administrator of General Services certified it on July 5, 1971, and lists every State ratification date, including Idaho on March 30, 1971 and three later ratifications (Virginia and Wyoming, July 8, 1971; Georgia, October 4, 1971).
11. Richard Nixon, Remarks at a Ceremony Marking the Certification of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, July 5, 1971, American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-ceremony-marking-the-certification-the-26th-amendment-the-constitution.
12. CRS, The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and Reduction of the Voting Age (Part 6): Unresolved Issues, LSB11291 (Apr. 23, 2025), https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/LSB11291.html. Source for the statement that the Supreme Court has decided no case interpreting the amendment and for the open questions about the standard of review and Congress's Section 2 power.
13. Ballotpedia News, "Appeals court allows enforcement of Indiana law banning student ID for voting," April 22, 2026, https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/04/22/appeals-court-allows-enforcement-of-indiana-law-banning-student-id-for-voting/, and the weekly Ballot Bulletin of April 21, 2026 that carries the same story. Source for the April 10 preliminary injunction by Judge Richard Young (First and Fourteenth Amendments), the April 20 Seventh Circuit order, and the count of States that allow or bar student IDs.
14. Hansi Lo Wang, "Can a student ID be used for voting? NH is among the Republican-led states banning it," NPR (via NHPR), August 17, 2026, https://www.nhpr.org/2026-08-17/can-a-student-id-be-used-for-voting-more-republican-led-states-are-banning-it. Source for the Coalition for Open Democracy's claim that the New Hampshire law burdens students' right to vote and discriminates against younger voters for their age, and for Judge Young's "solution in search of a problem" language.
15. Zach Laird, "Legal Battle Over Use of Student IDs to Vote in NH Heads to U.S. Supreme Court," InDepthNH.org, October 15, 2026, https://indepthnh.org/2026/10/15/legal-battle-over-use-of-student-ids-to-vote-in-nh-heads-to-u-s-supreme-court/. A news report, not a court document; this lesson did not open the docket. Source for the district court's partial grant of relief and the State's request for a stay.
16. Congressional Research Service, The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and Reduction of the Voting Age (Part 1): Introduction, LSB11286 (Apr. 23, 2025), https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/LSB11286.html.
17. CIRCLE, Tufts University, "Overall Youth Turnout Down From 2020 But Strong in Battleground States," November 7, 2024, https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/overall-youth-turnout-down-2020-strong-battleground-states. An early estimate based on exit polls, which CIRCLE said it would revise with voter file data.
18. Idaho Constitution, art. VI, sec. 2 (qualifications of electors), https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idconst/ArtVI/Sect2/; sec. 4 (legislature may prescribe additional qualifications), https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idconst/ArtVI/Sect4/.
19. Idaho Code section 34-402 (qualifications of electors), https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title34/T34CH4/SECT34-402/. Eighteen years old, thirty days of residence in the State and county, timely registration. The history note shows the section added in 1970 and amended in 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1982; this lesson did not read the session laws and does not say what the 1971 amendment changed.
20. Idaho Code section 34-405 (gain or loss of residence by reason of absence from state), https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title34/T34CH4/SECT34-405/.
21. This lesson searched for an Idaho appellate decision applying the Twenty-sixth Amendment and found none. That is a statement about this lesson's search, not a finding that none exists.
22. Idaho House Bill 124 (2023), https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/H0124.pdf. The bill text strikes "A current student identification card, including a photograph, issued by a high school or an accredited institution of higher education, including a university, college or technical school, located within the state of Idaho" from section 34-1113, effective January 1, 2024.
23. Idaho Code section 34-1113 (identification at the polls), https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title34/T34CH11/SECT34-1113/. Lists four accepted forms: an Idaho driver's license or ID card; a passport or federal photo ID; a tribal photo ID; a concealed weapons license. History: amended 2023, ch. 27.
24. Idaho Secretary of State, VoteIdaho.gov, Frequently Asked Questions, https://voteidaho.gov/frequently-asked-questions/, page opened October 18, 2026: "A registered voter may sign a Personal Identification Affidavit instead of presenting photo identification."