WANTED: Oregonian under 30
It’s time to take the parental settings off of our Constitution and let the “kids” run for office.
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.
Thomas Jefferson’s quip made clear that future generations of Americans were not expected to be saddled by the expectations and assumptions of their forebears.
Why, then, do we still burden our democracy with antiquated notions of age?
Hoping for senators with a “greater extent of information and stability of character,” the Framers of the Constitution set the minimum age for Senate service at 30 years. Surely Jefferson would agree that the human mind has progressed since 1789, as well as the ability of young Americans to develop their character and access to information. In fact, it appears as though our nation’s leaders acknowledged that progress just a few years later.
In 1818, John Henry Eaton (age: 28 years, 4 months, and 29 days) was administered the oath of office to join the Senate. According to the U.S. Senate Office, it’s possible that no one even asked Eaton his age; there’s also speculation that Eaton may not have even known his age. Had his age been challenged, Eaton could have pointed to Armistead Mason (28 years, 5 months) and Henry Clay (29 years) being admitted to the Senate in 1816 and 1806, respectively, as precedent for the age rule being a pointless barrier that had been ignored.
A century-later, in 1935, the Senate again bent the rules to favor a democratic result over an arbitrary and antiquated one. Rush Holt, the Senator-elect from West Virginia, was permitted to delay his oath of office until he turned 30.
On four occasions, American voters selected their preferred candidate (under the age of 30) to serve in the Senate. Today, Americans would be denied the same opportunity.
It’s time to take the parental settings off of our Constitution and let the “kids” run for office. Our electorate is more than capable of determining whether or not a candidate is up for the challenge of serving in the Senate or House (which has a minimum age of 25).
The 14th Amendment was passed to “secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government,” according to the Supreme Court in Scott v. McNeal (1893). As early as 1806, it was clear that there was no empirical rationale for 25 or 30 being some magical age of competence. In modern times, President Joe Biden, sworn into the senate just 44 days after turning 30, has made clear that age truly is just a number—clearly his youth did not inhibit his ability to adequately represent his constituents and climb the political ladder.
A constitutional amendment is unlikely, but a constitutional challenge is worthwhile. Let’s hope a young Oregonian, one under 30, embraces the state’s legacy for bucking trends by running for Senate come November 2022. Ideally, it would be a serious candidate. But even if the campaign is meant solely to raise a constitutional question, it would hopefully result in a clear answer: age is just a number.
**************************************
Kevin Frazier started The Oregon Way between law school classes. He grew up in Washington County and graduated from the UO in 2015.
Last summer, Oregon's young people demonstrated a desire to change the system by burning it down, with over 100 straight nights of violence. That hardly gained my confidence, nor, I suspect, that of many other voters. In fact, the tendency to live longer has produced demands for age limits in the opposite direction, since we have the oldest president in US history. With years come experience. With experience comes the realization of one's younger errors. Jefferson was a wise man in this regard, even though our young castigate him as a slave owner. HIs prohibition should stand.
Only if it comes with term limits!!!