Voting Age Case Study

“The Supreme Court held, with considerable disagreement, that the federal 18-year-old voting age requirement is valid for national elections, but not for State or local elections.” The Checks and Balances worked very well in this case. The Legislative branch made the law to where all voting age was 18-years-old in National, State, and local elections. The Executive branch enforced the law, and then the Judicial branch interpreted and checked the law and ended up sending it back. The Justices said that only the States, and not the Congress, have the authority to establish the qualification rules for voters in State and local elections. Legislative looked back over the law and passed a different law stating that the voting age requirement for …show more content…
These three states argued that only the States have the right to choose the voting age requirement for local and state elections and not Congress. In the Oregon vs. Mitchell case the result of it caused more problems than resolving them. With the voting age requirement being changed i caused many problems for the states. States were losing track of who could and could not vote. 18-year-olds could vote for some election about not all of them and the states could not keep track of the countless people and all their ages. With the states having the court rule in their favor it really backfired more than ot helped. The states were changing the voting age requirement for state and local elections to the point of where they were not being able to follow and keep up with all the people voting and all the different ages voting. Some people were allowed to vote for certain election and not for other elections which caused a lot of …show more content…
Each branch did was they needed to do to make changes to the law causing the law to end up being fair, reasonable, and impartial.
Reason 1: The Judicial branch did its job by interpreting and checking the law and making sure that each law is the way it should be. By the Judicial branch doing its job it makes sure that everybody’s rights are being thought of. The Judicial branch checks each law to make sure that they are fair, reasonable, and impartial so that the people and states rights are not conflicted. The Judicial branch did its job by checking and interpreting and sending it back because the law was not interpreted the correct way to the states or to the people. The states and the people knew that the law was not fair to them and they won in the Supreme Court which caused the Judicial branch to do the correct thing by interpreting and checking the law and sending it back to be changed and/or