UC Davis CCEP Policy Brief Youth Vote

8/9/2019 UC Davis CCEP Policy Brief Youth Vote

1/10

Policy Brief Issue 9 January 2015 Page 1

In the November 2014 general elecons, voter

turnout was abysmal across the naon, producing

the lowest U.S. turnout rates in decades.

Californias previous record for low turnout was

broken by nearly a half dozen percentage points.

Voter turnout is typically lower in mid-term

elecons, but fall 2014 marked a major fallo

from the states general elecon turnout in 2012,

resulng in even less representaon of voters. 1

In California, parcipaon of youth (age 18-

24) was dramacally lower in 2014, starng

with a nearly non-existent showing in the June

2014 primary, followed by a poor showing in

November. Typically, mid-term elecons bring out

an electorate that is older, more educated, higher-

income, and less racially and ethnically diverse

than the electorate in presidenal elecons. Low

voter turnout also usually means an even less

diverse electorate, which usually means fewe

young voters. 2

In this brief, we examine youth electoral

parcipaon in the November 2014 general

elecon and explore the impact of the youth

on the current and future electoral landscape

California.

Using the California Civic Engagement Project

analysis of the California Secretary of States

voter records, we address the following resea

quesons: 3

1. How did the November 2014 youth vote

dier from that of the rest of the electora

2. How will youth vong impact the states

electoral landscape in the future?

3. What can be done to improve youth vote

turnout in California and elsewhere?

Only 30.9% of Californias eligible voters (cizens over age 18) turned out to vote in th

November 2014 elecon. The previous record low for eligible voter turnout in a gener

elecon, 36.1%, was set in 2002.

This record-low eligible voter turnout followed a relavely strong showing in 2010. Th

years general elecon saw 43.7% of eligible voters cast a ballot, the highest eligible vo

turnout since 1994.

Highlights:

Only 8.2% of eligible

California youth turned

out to vote in the

November 2014 general

election.

Youth were only 3.9% of

all voters in this election.

A total of 36% of

California youth

registered No PartyPreference (NPP) nearly

the same percentage

as those who registered

Democratic.

For the rst time in a

statewide election, the

percentage of California

youth who registered

Republican fell below

20%.

Over the next 20 years,

the youth share of

the California vote is

projected to steadily

decrease.

Increasing low youth voter

turnout is a key step to

increasing future turnout

for California, as a whole.

Author:

Mindy Romero , Ph.D.

Founding Director,

California Civic

Engagement Project

Californias New Polical Realies: The Impact ofthe Youth Vote on Our Electoral Landscape

California CivEngagement Proje

1. How did the November 2014 youth vote dier from

that of the rest of the electorate?

Policy Brief Issue 9 January 2

Eligible Voter Turnout by Age Cohort

2014 General Electon

California Civic Engagement Project

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Total

0.0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

PercentageofCizensWhoVoted

Data Source: California Secretary of State, 2014


2/10

Policy Brief Issue 9 January 2015 Page 2California Civic Engagement Project

Youth turnout in California was the lowest for all age groups in the November 2014 elecon. Only 8.2% of Californias

ligible youth voted, as compared to 18.5% in the 2010 general elecon. This translated into only 285,000 of 3.5 million

ligible youth who cast a ballot.

Due to low voter turnout, youth were once again underrepresented among general elecon voters in 2014. Youth made

only 3.9% of those who voted in November, but were 14.5% of the eligible vong populaon. In the same elecon, vote

ged 55 and older were overrepresented compared to their proporon of eligible voters. Voters aged 65-74 (the age gro

most overrepresented among voters) constuted 19.4% of all voters in the November general elecon, but only 10.4% oll those eligible to vote.

County Variaon

very county in California

xperienced lower turnout

n the 2014 midterm general

lecon than in the 2010

eneral elecon, although

ome counes did not set

ew records. Disparies in

ligible voter turnout by

ge were present across

ll counes. Youth had the

owest turnout in the San

oaquin Valley, Los Angeles

nd North State regions.

hese are areas where

outh also experience some

f the poorest outcomes in

heir economic and social

well-being anywhere in

he state (as measured by

igh school drop-out rates,

nemployment, family

ncome levels).4

or the 2014 midterm general elecon, youth were registered to vote at the lowest rate of any age group, at 52%, compared to abo

0% for all other age groups. The number of youth registered to vote in 2010 and 2014 was about the same. The big dierence lay

who went to the polls. The absolute number of youth who actually voted dropped an astonishing 50% in four years.

outh registered voter turnout in the 2014 general elecon was 15.8% compared with 34.1% in 2010s general elecon - a decline

8 percentage points. In the general elecon of 2010, registered voter turnout for all ages was 59.6%, declining to 42% in 2014. Th

record low for registered voter turnout in a statewide California general elecon.

Voter Registraon Rates by Age Cohort

2014 General Elecon


18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Total

0.0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

PercentageofCizensWhoR

egisteredtoVote


Esmang voter turnout based on the number of registered voters can can conceal the degree of underrepresenta

of youth among voters. To get a clear picture of youth electoral parcipaon, it is important to look at how many

people voted of all those eligible, and not just of how many registered.


3/10


Declining Youth

Party Registraonor the November 2014 elecon, 43.1% of

egistered voters registered Democrac,

8% Republican and 23.6% as No Party

reference (NPP).5There was signicant

ariaon in party aliaon by age. Younger

egistrants idencaon with the states two

major pares declined, with large numbers

egistering as NPP. A total of 36.7% of youth

egistered as Democrats, closely followed by

5.6% who registered NPP. This made 18-24

ear-olds the only age group with less than

40% Democrac aliaon. The gure was

ven lower for Republicans, with 19.4% youth

egistering for the GOP, the lowest percentage

or all age groups.

his has potenally sweeping implicaons for

he future of the California polical landscape.

outh comprise a large percentage of new registrants. Twenty-ve percent of the people who registered to vote since the 2012 general

lecon are youth.6 If current trends connue, more newly registered young voters will spell declining percentages of both registered

Democrats and Republicans. In short, youth registrants are a key factor in the decline in idencaon with the states two major par

nd the growth of NPP registraon in the state.

Lower Turnout Rates of

Voters Registered as NPPIn the November 2014 general elecon, the

turnout of registered Republicans was 51.2while Democrac turnout was 42.8%. Thos

registered as No Party Preference (NPP) tur

out at only 30.8%, and turnout for those

registered as Other (i.e., those registered

with other, smaller pares) was 34.7%. Vot

registered as Republican had the highest

turnout in every age group.

Youth turnout rates, by party aliaon, we

far lower than the party turnout of the gen

electorate. Youth Republican turnout was

20.4%, Democrac was 17.1% and NPP wa11.9%. Combined youth turnout for Other

pares was 15.3%. This lower turnout for y

NPP registrants of concern considering the

percentage of youth (35.6%) who registere

NPP in the 2014 general elecon.


18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Total0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

PercentageofRegistered

Vo

tersbyParty

Democra

Republic

NPP

Other


Voter Registraon by Age and Party Affiliaon

2014 General Elecon

Democrat

Republican

NPP

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Total

Voter Turnout by Age and Party Affilaon

2014 General Elecon

PercentageofRegisteredVotersWhoVoted

Note: For a complete discussion of youth registraon and voter turnout in the 2012 General Elecon, see CCEP Policy Brief Issue Fi

Californias 2012 Youth Voter Turnout: Disparate Growth and Remaining Challenges.

Considering the high percentage of youth (35.6%) who registered as NPP in the 2014 general elecon, further resear

needs to be conducted to idenfy the impact of increased NPP registraon on overall youth turnout rates.



4/10


2. What can be done to improve youth voter turnout in California and elsewher

Potenal Youth Impact on 201

EleconsFuture populaon shis will be a factor in the

strength of Californias youth vote. The youthproporon of the states cizen vong-age

populaon (as well as the states total popula

is projected to decline steadily over the next 18

years from 14.5% in 2014 to 12.5% by 2032. T

youth proporon of the states cizen vong-a

populaon is not projected to increase again u

aer 2032.

The youth populaon will also experience a

decline in absolute numbers unl about 2020.

Despite this decline, from 2014 ll about 2020

youth are projected to connue to constute alarger share of the eligible voter populaon th

that of 65-74 year-olds.

Decline in the youth cizen vong-age populaon will occur for each of the largest racial and ethnic groups in California. However,

anos will experience the greatest decline in the youth proporon of their cizen vong-age populaon, from 24% in 2014 to 15.8

y 2040.7

A decline in the youth share of the eligible vong

opulaon in California will bring changes in the

omposion of the states youth vote.

o assess the impact of declining populaonroporons on Californias youth vote, the California

Civic Engagement Project (CCEP) projects the change

n the composion of Californias youth voters

hrough the presidenal elecon of 2040. For ease

f discussion, the CCEP projects the youth vote

lizing the 2012 general elecon eligible turnout

ate for youth (a general elecon to general elecon

omparison).8

Assuming youth maintain their 2012 eligible turnout

ate (30.2%) constant through the 2040 generallecon, we project a steady decrease in the youth

hare of Californias vote, from 8.1% in 2012 to 6.9%

n 2040. In contrast, 65-74 year-olds are projected to

ncrease their share of the states vote, from 12.9%

n 2012 to 16.8% in 2040, assuming their 2012 turnout rate (73%) holds constant. Unl 2032, these two age groups will be moving

pposite direcons with regard to vote share.

Due to their much lower eligible voter turnout rates compared to those of older age groups, youth are projected to connue to be

nderrepresented in the states vote share through 2040. If youth eligible turnout rates are lower in future elecons, then youth w

xperience even greater underrepresentaon.

8.1%

7.9%

7.3%

6.8%

6.9%

12.9%

14.9%

16.7%

18.4%

16.8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

2012 2016 2020 2032 2040

Age 18-24

Age 64-75


PercentageofActualVoters

Projected Share of the Vote by Age Cohorts: 2012-2014

California General Electons


Note: For a discussion of projected youth eligible voter turnout in midterm elecons through 2038, see CCEP Policy Brief Issue Eight,

Californias 2014 Youth Voter Turnout: Decline and Future Opportunies

2014-2040 Projected Cizen Vong-Age Populaon by Age

California

Data Source: California Department of Finance Population ProjectionsUC Davis California Civic Engagement Project - CCEP


18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

0.0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

2014

2016

2020

2032

2040

PercentageofTotalCizen

VongAgePo

pulaon



5/10


Understanding the historical context of todays voter turnout in California can aid us when considering how to address low youth

urnout in the state.

Historical Context:

California Turnout Lower

than U.S. TurnoutHistorically, California eligible voter turnout was higher

han that of the U.S. as a whole in both midterm and

presidenal elecons. When examining historical data

rom the United States Elecons Project, we can see that,

beginning in 2002, California fell below the U.S. in turnout

of eligible voters (with the excepon of the 2010 midterm

elecon). By 2014, California ranked in the boom 20% of

U.S. states with regard to eligible voter turnout, with the

tates youth voter turnout likely among the lowest in the

naon. This electoral underperformance of California hasbeen occurring, at varying levels, throughout most of the

ast decade.9

The Center for Informaon and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tus University has found that turnout of 18-29

ear-olds has declined in midterms since 1982 for both California and the U.S. Turnout is presidenal elecons for this group has a

declined in the U.S. while uctuang greatly in California during the same me period. 10

The Challenge of Midterm Elecons for YouthMidterm elecon turnout in California and the U.S. as a whole has remained lower than presidenal elecon turnout. Non-

presidenal elecons typically invite less media aenon and voter outreach, contribung to low turnout. Low turnout in midtermelecons disadvantages underrepresented groups in the electorate, i.e., those groups that are ordinarily less likely to vote. Youth in

parcular experience even lower turnout in midterm elecons than in presidenal elecons, and an even larger gap between thei

urnout and the turnout of older age groups. In other words, youth are even less represented in their share of voters in midterm

elecons compared to presidenal elecons.

Since 2000, turnout in presidenal elecons has b

on the rise for both California and the U.S, while

California midterm elecon turnout has seen a ste

decline over the last three decades. It appears the

dierence in turnout in presidenal versus midterm

elecons may be widening more in California thanthe rest of the naon. If this trend connues, then

state will see elecon cycles that will mobilize die

sets of voter interests from one elecon cycle to th

next. This may also produce greater parsan swin

(in elected representaves) than might be expecte

given the large proporon of registered Democrat

the state. This also means that youth would see a

even greater variaon in the extent of their electo

parcipaon from elecon cycle to elecon cycle,

with youth vong becoming extremely low in midt

cycles, as seen in the 2014 elecon.

3. What can be done to increase Californias youth voter turnout?

1982-2014 Eligible Voter Turnout

Midterm Elecons

Data Source: United States Election Project, 2015


1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014

United Sta

California

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PercentageofEligibleVotersWhoVot

ed

1980-2012 Eligible Voter Turnout

Presidenal Elecons

Data Source: United States Election Project, 2015


1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

United States

California

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PercentageofEligibleVotersWhoVoted



6/10


Why is Turnout so Low for Youth?U.S. youth are reporng high levels of dissasfacon and distrust in our polical system. The Harvard Instute for Polics recen

eported that 18-29 year-olds are experiencing a ve-year low in their trust in public instuons, while their cynicism about the

olical process has never been higher. Perhaps not surprisingly, the same study reports, young peoples enthusiasm for vong

onnues to decline.11

However, negave atudes toward the polical process are not the only or even the main reason why young people dont vote

According to The Center for Informaon and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tus University, in the 2014 genera

lecon, a third of young registered voters reported that they did not vote because schedule conicts prevented them from go

o the polls, a problem reported by 25.2% of voters above the age of 30. Today, young people are increasingly mobile and/or wo

n jobs that provide less exibility for vong. Another 17.2 % did not vote because they were not interested and/or felt that the

ote would not count. Finally, 10.2%, said they were out of town/ away from home at elecon me, or forgot to vote.12

Mobilizaon is crical to generang voter parcipaon. This is parcularly true for youth. Outreach and contact can help overco

eelings of dissasfacon and alienaon, and encourage young people to set aside me to vote. Youth who are contacted by an

rganizaon or a campaign are more likely to vote.13Despite this fact, many youth, including even registered youth voters, are

en le o contact lists. Because of their historically low voter turnout, youth are oen ignored or given only token aenon

y campaigns and polical pares, who oen see them as an ineecve investment. This lack of contact then helps ensure you

urnout in low numbers.

t is important to note that many young people are not apathec about the issues of the day, especially issues that directly impa

heir communies. Many youth are more likely to volunteer than older Americans. Yet this civic awareness and interest is not

eing translated into an interest in the ballot box. Fewer youth than in the past see vong as a way to have a voice and make an

mpact.14

What Can Be Done About Low Youth Turnout?

Electoral SystemRestricve registraon and vong requirements make it harder for youth to vote. Young people need to receive accurate and cl

nformaon on when and how to register. The structure of Californias current voter registraon system connues to be a challe

or our states youth, as well as other groups unfamiliar with the registraon and vong process. Registraon calls on young

egistrants to navigate the system using deadlines and ID requirements. Removing barriers to youth registraon in Californias v

egistraon system is a crical step to increasing youth involvement in the states polical arena.15If these barriers remain, the

ystem will likely connue to generate a low percentage of youth voters, who do not fully represent the actual number of youth

he states cizen populaon.

reregistraon of youth can increase turnout among young voters, parcularly those who are non-white and low-income. Califo

s already one of a handful of states that does allow pre-registraon for 17 year-olds, though this remains a lile-known and un

lized opon.16Furthermore, research shows that school involvement in preregistraon can be quite eecve. Naonally, exi

reregistraon programs have been most successful when voter registraon was included in school acvies, providing student

with welcome guidance on the vong process.17

Outreachncreasing youth electoral parcipaon requires more than just voter registraon. Follow up outreach is oen crically needed

o ensure that young, registered voters will actually cast ballots. Contact by peers can be parcularly powerful in geng youth

nterested and mobilized, especially for those who experience greater barriers to parcipaon, such as youth of color and youth

rom low-income families. Californias county elecon oces also play a key role in mobilizing youth. Californias county elecon

ces also play a key role in mobilizing youth. Oces conduct outreach directly to high schools and college campuses, but the

requency and reach of these eorts is limited due to resources. Addional funding to expand these eorts would help connect

more youth to the electoral process.



7/10


The Impact of SchoolsHigh schools can be key partners in educang youth about the civic process and helping them become acve parcipants in our

lectoral system. High school youth who learn why vong is relevant to their lives, and learn how to actually register and vote, are

more likely to cast ballots when they turn 18.18Connecng with youth at high schools also means reaching a wide demographic

epresentaon of youth.

Voter registraon outreach programs for high school students were established by California Elecons Code 2131 and the HelpAmerica Vote Act of 2002. However, the resources dedicated to registraon outreach vary greatly by county, and many county elec

ces can oer only limited assistance.

wo new laws provide avenues through which communies and advocates can work with schools to increase youth voter

arcipaon:

Assembly Bill 700 (2013) requires the Instruconal Quality Commission to ensure that voter educaon informaon is included

the American Government and Civics curriculum in all California high schools. This bill was developed to increase civic parcipa

and educaon among our youth.

Assembly Bill 1817 (2014) encourages voter parcipaon among high school students, allowing students to register or preregisqualied classmates on high school campuses to vote in upcoming elecons. This bill amends current Educaon Code 49040,

which established High School Voter Educaon Weeks during the last two weeks in April and September of a school year.

Other forms of high school civic educaon are also linked to voter parcipaon and polical awareness. Young people who recall h

uality civic educaon experiences in school are more likely to vote, form polical opinions, grasp campaign issues, and know gene

acts about the U.S. polical system.19

uch civic educaon opportunies range from social studies classes, to student elecons, to project-based learning, to developing

media literacy, and discussing current events. Unfortunately, many youth do not have these civic educaon opportunies.

Research has shown that students in schools in high-income communies and with few youth of color are more likely to have thes

pportunies. Youth who are less likely to vote (including low-income youth and youth of color) tend to have fewer civic opportunin their schools and communies.20

here is an opportunity now in California to revitalize civic educaon. Currently, California is undergoing signicant reforms in

urriculum standards and school funding formulas (Common Core Standards and Local Control Funding Formula). A recent report b

he California Task Force on K-12 Civic Learning put forth recommendaons on how to improve the civic learning of all children and

outh in the state. Recommended acons include:

Revise the California History-Social Science Content Standards and accompanying curriculum frameworks to incorporate an

emphasis on civic learning, starng in kindergarten.

Integrate civic learning into state assessment and accountability standards for students, schools and districts.

Improve professional learning experiences for teachers and administrators to help them implement civic learning in schools.Provide incenves for local school districts to fund civic learning in Local Control Accountability Plans under the new LCFF.21

New Approacheshe state of voter turnout in California and the naon suggests that addional approaches to engaging voters need to be explored

we are to signicantly improve parcipaon. Individuals and communies need to be connected to civic and polical structures an

ee them as relevant to their daily lives. This is parcularly important for youth. As the way we communicate and share informao

hanges, we should examine how our civic instuons should themselves be modied to beer connect with the young people the

re charged with serving. The implementaon of online voter registraon in California has already made registraon more accessib

or youth and other age groups. More reforms and creave pathways are needed. Low turnout rates tell us that our electoral syste

n its current form, is not serving our democracy well.



8/10


Upcoming Brief:

Examining civic opportunies for youth in our communies

Why Does

Youth Vong Maer?

oung people are a major subset of the

lectorate and their voices maer. In

California, 3.5 million youth (age 18-24)

re eligible to vote, but the overwhelmingmajority do not do so. Youth currently

make up 14.5% of Californias eligible

ong populaon and, in many

ommunies in the state, they make up

n even higher proporon of the eligible

opulaon. This is a huge number of non-

oters who could play a signicant role in

ur democrac system. This role could be

reater than the role currently played by

oters over 65.

Bringing youth into the electorate does

ot merely benet youth. Vong is habit-

orming. When young people learn about

he vong process and cast their ballots,

hey are more likely to parcipate in the

lectoral process as they grow older. If

ndividuals are mobilized to caste a ballot

when they are young, they are more

kely to keep heading there later in life.

Geng young people to vote early is key

o creang a new generaon of voters thatwill later populate older vong age groups.

As seen in the November 2014 elecon,

ow turnout is a problem for all ages.

Higher turnout among Californias youth

means higher turnout among the enre

lectorate down the road. Increasing youth

urnout is therefore crical to boosng

Californias low turnout overall.



9/10


See the California Secretary of States Oce website for previous elecon data: hp://www.sos.ca.gov/elecons/prior-elecons/

See CCEP Policy Brief Issue Eight, Californias 2014 Youth Voter Turnout: Decline and Future Opportunies. hp://regionalchange.ucd

edu/ourwork/projects/ccep/ucdavisyouthvotebrief8

Voter records were acquired from the California Secretary of States Oce and aggregated to the county and state level. These data a

the actual registraon records and not representave samples.

Regions are dened as follows, and include the following counes. LA Region: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventur

San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Kern, Tulare; North State: Bue, Del Norte, Lassen, ModoSiskiyou, Humboldt, Shasta.

No Party Preference (NPP) includes all registrants idened in the California Secretary of States registraon records as having decline

to state a party preference, or having no party preference. Other includes all registrants idened in the California Secretary of States

registraon records as having any of the following party aliaons: American Independent Party, American Elect Party, Green Party,

Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party and Other.

See CCEP Policy Brief Issue Eight, Californias 2014 Youth Voter Turnout: Decline and Future Opportunies.hp://regionalchange.ucd

edu/ourwork/projects/ccep/ucdavisyouthvotebrief8

The CVAP analysis is based on straight line cizen vong age populaon (CVAP) projecons developed by the California Department

Finance for the California Civic Engagement Project. If immigraon rates change beyond what is currently expected, these assumpo

may over or understate populaon growth. If there are any signicant changes in immigraon, birth, or death rates, projecons will n

to be adjusted accordingly. For more informaon on the CVAP projecons, see the CCEP website: hp://regionalchange.ucdavis.edu/

ccep. For more informaon on the base populaon projecons, please consult: hp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reporprojecons/P-1/documents/Projecons_Methodology_2013.pdf.

CCEP youth voter projecons ulized straight line CVAP projecons developed by the California Department of Finance for the Califo

Civic Engagement Project (CCEP). Baseline eligible voter turnout rates were generated by CCEP analysis of California county voter

registraon data. These projecons dier somewhat from the presidenal elecon projecons we published in January 2014. This is

to the dierent data source we use in this study.

Michael P. McDonald. 2015. United States Elecons Project. Voter Turnout: Naonal Rates, date accessed January 10, 2014. hp://w

electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data0 Center for Informaon and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement: Quick Facts about Young Voters in California See: hp://ww

civicyouth.org/maps/elecons/PDF/CA.pdf1 Instute of Polics, Harvard University: Survey of Young Americans Atudes toward Polics and Public Service: 25th Edion. 2014. S

hp://www.iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/les_new/Harvard_ExecSummarySpring2014.pdf2 Center for Informaon and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement: Why (Some) Registered Youth Dont Vote. See: hp://www

civicyouth.org/2014-midterms-why-some-registered-youth-dont-vote/12 Center for Informaon and Research on Civic Learning and

Engagement: Youth Vong.3 Center for Informaon and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement: Youth Vong See: hp://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/yo

vong/ See: hp://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-vong/4 The Associated Press Poll: Young Generaon No Slouches at Volunteering. See: hp://www.nymes.com/aponline/2014/12/29/us/

polics/ap-us-ap-poll-young-volunteers.html5 For a discussion of barriers to voter registraon within Californias voter registraon system, see: Future of California Elecons, Jam

Irvine Foundaon (2012).6 hp://ccrec.ucsc.edu/sites/default/les/ccrec_policy_brief_1_nal_apr2012_color_0.pdf7 Project Vote Legislave Brief: Expanding the Youth Electorate through Preregistraon, March 2010. See:

hp://www.whatkidscando.org/youth_on_the_trail_2012/pdf/2010%20Legislave%20Brief%20-%20Preregistraon.pdf.8 Kahne, J. and Sporte, S. (2008). Developing Cizens: The Impact of Civic Learning Opportunies on Students Commitment to Civic

Parcipaon. American Educaonal Research Journal, 45(3), 738-766.9 Center for Informaon and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement: High School Civic Educaon Linked to Vong Parcipaon a

Polical Knowledge, No Eect on Parsanship or Candidate Selecon. See: hp://www.civicyouth.org/high-school-civic-educaonlink

to-vong-parcipaon-and-polical-knowledge-no-eect-on-parsanship-or-candidate-selecon/0 Joseph Kahne and Ellen Middaugh. 2008. Democracy for Some: The Civic Opportunity Gap in High School, Center for Informaon and

Research on Civic Learning and Engagement Working Paper 59. See:

hp://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP59Kahne.pdf1 The California Task Force on K-12 Civic Learning: Revitalizing K-12 Civic Learning in California: A Blueprint For Acon, 2014, See: hp:/

www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/clnalreport.pdf11. Center for Informaon and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement: Vo

Registraon among Young People in 2008, November. See: hp://www.civicyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012-Exit-Poll-b

Ed-Aainment-Final.pdf

NOTES



10/10


For more informaon about this research study and the California Civic Engagement Project,

contact Mindy Romero, CCEP Director, at 530-665-3010 or [email protected].

Visit our website at: hp://regionalchange.ucdavis.edu/ccep

Author: Mindy Romero , Ph.D Founding Director, UC Davis California Civic Engagement Project

Research assistance by Sco Brunstein

About the California Civic Engagement Project (CCEP):n 2011, the UC Davis Center for Regional Change established the California Civic

ngagement Project (CCEP) to inform the public dialogue on representave governance

n California. The CCEP is working to improve the quality and quanty of publicly

vailable civic engagement data by collecng and curang data from a broad range

of sources for public access and use. The CCEP is engaging in pioneering research to

denfy disparies in civic parcipaon across place and populaon. It is well posioned

o inform and empower a wide range of policy and organizing eorts in California

o reduce disparies in state and regional paerns of well-being and opportunity.

Key audiences include public ocials, advocacy groups, polical researchers and

ommunies themselves. To learn about the CCEPs naonal and state advisory

ommiee, or review the extensive coverage of the CCEPs work in Californias media,isit our website at: hp://regionalchange.ucdavis.edu/ccep

About the Center for Regional ChangeThe CRC is a catalyst for innovave, collaborave,

acon-oriented research. It brings together facult

and students from dierent disciplines, and builds

bridges between university, policy, advocacy, busi

philanthropy and other sectors. The CRCs goal is

support the building of healthy, equitable, prospe

and sustainable regions in California and beyond.

more! Visit the CRC website at: hp://regionalcha

ucdavis.edu

Acknowledgments:We would like to thank the following people for their help in making this brief possible by providing their careful review and feedback on of its

ontents: Dr. Peter Levine, Dr. Jonathan Fox, Dr. Dave Campbell, Dr. Krystyna von Henneberg, and Dr. Jonathan London.



Kim AlexanderPresident and FounderCalifornia Voter Foundaon

Ma A. BarretoDirector, Washington Instute for the Study of Ethnicity and RaceWISER)

Associate Professor, Department of Polical ScienceUniversity of Washington

onathan FoxProfessorSchool of Internaonal ServiceAmerican University

Luis R. FragaArthur Foundaon Endowed Professor of Transformave LanoLeadershipProfessor of Polical ScienceUniversity of Notre Dame

Lisa Garcia BedollaChancellors Professor of Educaon and Polical ScienceUniversity of California, Berkeley

Bruce HaynesAssociate Professor, Department of SociologyUniversity of California, Davis

ongho LeeAssociate Professor, Department of Polical ScienceWestern Illinois University

Peter Levine

Lincoln Filene Professor of Cizenship & Public AairsDirector of CIRCLE: The Center for Informaon & Research on CivicLearning & EngagementJonathan M. Tisch College of Cizenship and Public Service TusUniversity

James MuldavinExecuve DirectorCalifornia Center for Civic Parcipaon and Youth Development

Karthick RamakrishnanAssociate Professor, Department of Polical ScienceUniversity of California, Riverside

Ricardo RamirezAssociate Professor, Department of Polical ScienceUniversity of Notre Dame

Jason Reece

Director of ResearchKirwan Instute

Cruz ReynosoProfessor of Law EmeritusUniversity of California, Davis

CCEP Advisory Commiee

Documents

UC Davis CCEP Policy Brief Youth Vote