.
Search
Email this articleE-mail this story  Discuss this articleWrite letter to editor  Discuss this articleOrder a classified ad



Abbie Smith, Kim Sangris and Tamika Lewis believe the voting age should be lowered. - Andrew Raven/NNSL photo

Left off the ballot

Andrew Raven
Northern News Services

Yellowknife (Jan 12/05) - They are allowed to drive, get married and even run for political office, but after a Supreme Court decision last week, several Yellowknife teens are wondering why they can't head to the polls.

"I think most young adults are informed enough to vote," said 16-year-old Brittani Williams, after the court decided not to hear an appeal from two Alberta women looking to have the legal voting age lowered.

"There are some kids who know more about politics than adults," said Abbie Smith, 15.

While the Supreme Court did not give a reason for refusing to hear the appeal, two Alberta Courts both said lowering the voting age would compromise the integrity of the system.

But in a country where only a fraction of the population can name the deputy prime minister - hint: she is from Edmonton - Tamika Lewis, 14, wondered where the harm would be in extending the franchise to teens.

"We have an opinion and ideas on how to change things," she said.

Younger voters could play an instrumental role in forcing Canada to adopt environmentally-friendly policies, said Smith.

"Pollution is a major problem and I think the environment is an issue teens are interested in," she said, noting she throws her support behind the Green Party.

Kim Sangris, 14, said she would like to see more after-school programming for teenagers and wondered if politicians really understand the issues facing today's youth.

"There needs to be more of a focus on kids," she said. While their political stripes may vary, the teens scoffed at the suggestion that adults know best.

"I don't think we are taken seriously sometimes," said Smith.

Forgive them for being a little defensive. In a 2002 ruling, an Alberta judge said the voting-age limits do violate the constitutional rights of teenagers, but "it is clear that some restriction is necessary" - which probably amounts to the judicial version of "Because I said so!"