Young Voters - 2018

For the last 30+ years, voter turnout has always shown to be very low among people who are 18-29 years of age. This is true for both the presidential and midterm elections.  For example, the highest rate of voter turnout among this voting segment was in 1986 and 1994 where the turnout was only 21%.  However, in 2018 midterm elections, many believe that voter turnout among 18-29 year olds will be historically high resulting in the Republicans potentially loosing control of The House of Representatives.

During midterm elections less people, in general, participate in voting compared to the number of people who vote during presidential elections. The last midterm elections that took place in 2014, only about 21% of 18-29 year olds came out to vote. This year, a poll conducted by the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, recorded an increase of young voters up to 40% stating that they will vote in the midterms.

Currently, the Republican Party holds control of both chambers of Congress. However, due to the expected increase in youth voter turnout, Republicans are not likely to hold onto the House of Representatives.  In the aforementioned Harvard Kennedy poll, significantly more young Democrats (54%) than young Republicans (43%) indicated they were likely to vote. According to the poll "66% of respondents supported Democrats taking back control of Congress, compared to 32% for Republican control."

Lastly, increased gun violence has resulted in significantly higher levels of social activism.  As a result, voter registration among younger voters has increased to record levels: approximately 800,000 young voters registered to vote on National Voter Registration Day in September. 

Children in Cages

Ever since the election of Trump back in November of 2016, immigration has been a rather touchy subject for many politicians as well as journalists. Globe Staff member, Suzanne Kreiter posted an article on the Boston Globe titled, The local face of Trump’s campaign against migrant children, regarding the issue of immigrant families forcefully being separated at our borders.

Kreiter begins the article with addressing the obvious issue at hand, all the immigrant children under United States custody. Followed by the fact that this situation has gotten nothing but worse in the past year. Stating how the Trump Administration have been wanting to "revamp" the immigration policies once again. Making it so that the process of releasing a child takes a longer and much more complicated time. Ultimately leading to Kreiter's next powerful point, how the total number of children under US custody has risen from 2,400 children as of May 2017, to approximately 13,300 children as of October 2nd of this year.

Moving on from statistics, Kreiter continues her article with the story of a mother and her son who have been badly affected by our "cruel" immigration policy. A mother named Evelyn who moved to Massachusetts from El Salvador, her 11 year old son came afterward and was taken to a government-contracted shelter in Corpus Christi, TX.

Immigration in the United States has clearly been an ongoing issue for quite a while now. Kreiter's article is a good read for those who wish to support the immigrant families who are still today being separated due to our strict and flawed immigration policy.

Team Anti-Kavanaugh

With Trump's new nominee, Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court, there have been large and countless outcries from the many people who are against this nomination. Not from just your average citizens, but by many educated law professors. On October 3rd, 2018, The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh, was posted on the New York Times and signed by over 1,700+ different law professors who disagree with the nomination of Kavanaugh. This letter was written to be presented to the United States Senate on October 4th, 2018 in hopes to offset the possible outcome of Kavanaugh becoming part of the Supreme Court. 

The letter begins by stating a key quality judges should have in order to carry out their work fairly and without bias, judicial temperament. The authors tend to point out frequently that Kavanaugh is very much lacking in judicial temperament due to his aggressive and partisan remarks towards any questioner. They point out that because of Kavanaughs aggressive and partisan behavior, he would not be fit to judge at such a level. 

Furthermore, the authors wrap up the letter on a strong note, stating how they could go on and on with Kavanaugh's false qualities. But more importantly that these many law professors, and counting, are united in their negative thoughts regarding him.