San Francisco’s Proposal for Teen Voting

By Richie Greenberg
Richie Greenberg
Richie Greenberg
Richie Greenberg is a business advisor, political commentator, guest TV contributor, community advocate, and former candidate for mayor of San Francisco.
October 1, 2020Updated: October 1, 2020


We’re again seeing a stark example of left-wing progressive politicians in City Hall maneuver to increase support for their own agendas. This time, it’s through manipulating teens’ voting rights.

Proposition “G” is a November 2020 ballot measure in San Francisco that asks the question, “Should 16–17-year-olds be given the right to vote in city elections?” Voters should reject this proposition overwhelmingly as being a non-serious question on this coming Election Day. There are three very real factors to consider: legality, maturity, and the effects of indoctrination of children in schools and social media.

Legality, of course, refers to the fact that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are still children in the eyes of the law, and are incapable of experiencing and performing many tasks that teach us responsibility as adults. Children cannot sign a contract, nor apply for a credit card, purchase a car, rent a car, buy a house, own a business, and many examples more. How can we let teens vote on approving such serious issues as property taxes, business regulations, control and taxation of marijuana, and changes to city government operations? The concept of children voting is absurd.

Maturity, or the lack of it as children, is often researched and reported on by psychologists. Most argue that rational decision-making and good judgment doesn’t happen until the brain is fully developed, often not until the age of 25. Researchers at Stanford University Children’s Hospital concur. Before this age, irrational, knee-jerk responses are the norm. Teens may find it difficult to compromise, to reach common ground, and instead display rash, impulsive, emotional decision-making tendencies.

Growing evidence shows children are exposed to and negatively affected by social justice activism in schools propagated by teachers and their course curriculum, and through homework assignments and tests. Teachers have influenced children by bringing their students to political protests and teaching altered historical time lines and backgrounds of national figures current and past. Students aren’t being given facts nor are the complete stories being presented with both sides to an argument.

Social media is similarly pushing a controlled message to youth. Opposing viewpoints are being censored, whereby children don’t even realize there may be other sides to a story.

The apparent motivation behind allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote is purely political in that it’s assumed these teens, being indoctrinated in school, by social justice influencers online, and through peer pressure, are going to vote for left-wing candidates and ballot measures promoted by social justice-oriented leaders in city hall and supporting groups.

The argument that these teens simply want to participate in the democratic process can easily be refuted: They can, and have always had the ability to, become involved in their school elections, as well as volunteer with local candidates for office. They should research who is running, find the candidate with a message they believe in, promote that candidate, attend rallies, hand out window signs and campaign buttons, and celebrate with the team on election day, should their candidate win.

San Francisco introduced a similar proposal in 2016, but it failed to gain sufficient votes to pass. We should hope San Francisco voters are similarly informed and reject this proposal this second time, and finally put this issue to rest.

Richie Greenberg is a business adviser, political commentator, guest TV contributor, community advocate, and former candidate for mayor of San Francisco.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Related Topics