Joe Biden Hits 60% Approval

President Joe Biden (D).

Politico reports, and it’s a milestone the previous administration never reached:

Joe Biden earned relatively high marks from both independents and members of his own party through 100 days in office, a new poll conducted by POLITICO and Morning Consult shows, but the president has yet to impress Republicans despite his promises of bipartisanship on the campaign trail and in office.

Eighty-five percent of Democrats polled gave Biden an “A” or “B” grade for his first 100 days in office, while 44 percent of independents surveyed gave Biden the same marks. That’s more independent and intraparty support for Biden than former President Donald Trump got in his first 100 days, when just 32 percent of independents surveyed and 72 percent of Republicans polled gave Trump either an “A” or a “B”.

But Trump and Biden got identical cross-party grading, with 14 percent of Republicans giving Biden an “A” or “B” grade, the same marks Trump got from Democrats four years ago ahead of his 100th day. Biden’s overall approval rate was 60 percent, well above Trump’s 48 percent ahead of his 100th day in April 2017, according to the new poll.

Not only did ex-President Donald Trump never win over the approval of 60% of Americans, he never even got to 50%–the first President in modern American history to ever win and serve his whole term without any measurable majority support either in opinion polling or ballots cast. What Republicans lacked in majority strength they of course made up for in fervency, which in the wake of not particularly narrow defeat (and a little well-meaning insurrection) fueled their newfound interest in vote suppression and…well, there you go! You have arrived at the present day.

Where 60% of Americans, the most in a long, long time, feel okay about a Democrat in charge.

It’s a bigger deal than it appears in the moment, because it lacks the drama we’ve become accustomed to. But it’s these less noisy parts of history with competent people in charge when good things happen. Enjoy the good night’s sleep this affords while it lasts.

64 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. unnamed says:

    Another milestone that Trump could never get within sniffing distance of.

  2. JohnInDenver says:

    There have been a spate of Biden approval polls close to the end of 100 days.  All have been positive, all have been above 50%, all see a clear partisan divide.

    What I find fascinating is the 10% HIGHER polling for a number of the policies the Democrats are pursuing.  CNBC article is headlined "Americans support Biden’s spending and want him to spend more, polls show"

    Using a Monmouth poll tweet, the article says

    2 in 3 support Biden spending plans.

    $2 trillion #infrastructure proposal #AmericanJobsPlan 68% support 29% oppose

    Upcoming plan to expand healthcare, childcare and other support. #AmericanFamiliesPlan 64% support 34% oppose


  3. Meiner49er says:

    Agreed, DB. 60% of Dems and Unaffiliateds ain't exactly bragging rights. I expect better from Pols.

    • NOV GOP meltdown says:

      A new Fox News poll…next

      • JohnInDenver says:

        Fox News polling isn’t awful.  In fact, grades them out as an “A” polling firm. 

        If there are multiple ways for people to get photo identification from the state WITHOUT expense to the voter, it wouldn’t necessarily be terribly objectionable.  When the process becomes excessively challenging, it is suppression.   Check out the story from Marc Elias: 

        The next time Republicans claim that it's no big deal to get an ID to vote, tell them to explain that to Jonny Randle.👇

        Jonny Randle

        In order to vote, people have to demonstrate they are eligible (citizen, over 18) and have a single voting domicile/address.  Then, they have to attest the information is correct.  Consider if you would be willing to have only those with government identification showing their address voting. That would mean getting a new id every time you move; it would mean passports, pilot licenses, military id (and other government issue photo id) would no longer be sufficient. 

    • kwtree says:

      Devil's in the details. Colorado voters have to provide a photo ID or copy the first time that they register (for mail in or in person voting).

      But they don't have to do that every frigging election. Unlike in Georgia, Texas, Wisconsin or any number of GOP controlled states.

      Texas laws disenfranchised thousands of women because their photo IDs didn't match their married or single names.

      Texas law also allowed gun licenses, but not student IDs, as allowable voter ID.

      Transgender people's photo IDs often don't match their commonly used names. No votes for them.

      Wisconsin students from out of state were legislated out of voting by voter ID laws.

      So voter ID for the first time registrant – fine. Colorado does it that way, and we have little or no voter fraud if you don't count Jon Caldera or other Republicans trying to prove voter fraud exists by committing it.

      Hey, guess who likes mail-in ballots? Republicans.

  4. Negev says:

    Devil IS in the details. From your links:

    Texas Secretary of State John Steen's office announced these "Election Identification Certificates are available free of charge to qualified voters who do not already have an approved form of photo ID.

    If your "commonly used name" does not match your legal name, no vote for you, transgender or not. I am relatively certain Snoop Doggy Dog does not have valid ID which matches his commonly used name. 

    Students without one of the forms of ID listed above, can obtain a voter-compliant ID card free of charge and present this ID at the polls.

    "No amendment to the Constitution is absolute"- Joe Biden





    • Dano says:

      John Steen does not mention the difficulty of obtaining the Election Certificate without approved ID.  And why SHOULD anyone have to have a separate document just to perform their most basic right and obligation as a citizen?

      • Negev says:

        Huh. So I guess you are against background checks to exercise your basic right to bear arms, right?


        • Diogenesdemar says:

          And, you’re obviously strongly for them? (Loving the irony here, btw.  Thanks.)

          PS. That would put Dano well in with the majority of opinion, right? (or, did you use your crystal ball?)

          Imagine that, people who believe that people are somewhat more important than guns? What’s this world coming to???

          • Negev says:

            I am not against background checks. It is a reasonable restriction. Just like voter ID. 

            Perhaps more appropriate is that people think the rights they value are more important than rights they don’t, when they are in fact, like it or not, equal.

            That being said, where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to vote?

            • MichaelBowman says:

              Where does it say we must endure an unregulated militia? 

              • Genghis says:

                That "well regulated militia" language is merely "prefatory," Michael; it has no effect whatsoever on the substantive right conferred in the remainder of the 2d Amendment. Just ask the Heller majority. They'll tell ya.

                By the way, SCOTUS accepted a 2d Amendment case on Monday. Filings to date are available here.

                I read that memoir of the late, great Justice John Paul Stevens, who's described Heller as "unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench.” Stevens wrote that Justice Kennedy got "some important changes" incorporated into the majority opinion. The suggestion, of course, is that Scalia's version was substantially more unhinged than the version that ultimately got released. Seems the sane lingo in the final version to the effect that "No, this doesn't mean you have a 2d Amendment right to keep and bear an A-10 Warthog" was the price of Kennedy's vote and a 5-4 majority.

                Well, Kennedy's gone now. The future of 2d Amendment jurisprudence is in the hands of Kegs Kavanaugh & Co.

            • Voyageur says:

              Actually, Negev, the right to vote is addressed in amendment 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26.  Of course, like gun rights, it is not absolute.

              • Negev says:

                Actually V, the 14th Amendment penalizes states that withhold the ballot but does not require them to grant it. 

                The 15th prohibits federal and state governments from placing restrictions on voting based on race, color, and previous condition of servitude.

                The 19th prohibits restrictions on the basis of sex

                The 24th prohibits a poll tax as a voting requirement

                and the 26th lowered the age requirement 




                • Voyageur says:

                  Precisely.  That’s five amendments specifically addressing the right to vote.   Not to mention the main body guarantees a Republican form of government.  

                  • Negev says:

                    That's 5 amendments that protect persons from being denied the ability to vote based on race, color, sex, tax or age. There is no constitutional provision that asserts that there is a right to vote, rather we are guaranteed freedom from voting interference based on the above noted reasons. 


                    • Voyageur says:

                      Negev, that’s nonsense.  If there nis no right to vote, then why are there five — five — amendments protecting that right?

                      Obviously, you have never taken a course in constitutional law.  I have.  My professor cited cases that said the right to vote was the most basic of all rights since the laws ultimately stem from that right.                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                    • Diogenesdemar says:

                      Which is like saying there’s no right of free speech, just protections against abridgment . . .

                      . . . or no right to purchase or own arms, just protections against infringement of keeping them.

                    • Negev says:

                      Well, perhaps your buddy Keith Ellison can ‘splain it to you. Or you can get on the bandwagon with the NAACP and try to pass the Right to Vote Amendment. You can read up on it some more here…  

                      You may be able to get a refund on that Constitutional law class too. 



                    • Voyageur says:

                      Negev, you’re normally pretty rational.  This time, you just said something stoopid, which we all do from time to time, except for the sainted Cook.  Don’t keep digging, just move on to higher ground.

                    • Negev says:

                      Hey V, why don't you keep digging to find that cereal box you took your class from to see if snopes approved it….


                    • Diogenesdemar says:

                      Cut him a little slack, V, he’s had a tough 2021 . . .

                      You’d probably be a little irrationally testy too, if, on top of everything else that’s gone wrong, you just recently found out that your Wayne hero took off with all your freedom lunch money, and didn’t even invite you for a single boat yacht ride??!

                    • Negev says:

                      I have provided you enough links here to make mamma proud for you to review. I have the former Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee providing the proposed legislation to amend the issue, and the representative who introduced the bill, on tape stating clearly "there is no explicit right to vote in our Constitution".

                      Perhaps one of you can open up Netscape and provide me better sources that dispute what I have purported. I can wait….

                      For those of you who do not suffer from acute Cognitive Dissonance, here is some easy reading you may have found within my extensive link library above:

                      If you’re looking for the right to vote, you won’t find it in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

                      The Bill of Rights recognizes the core rights of citizens in a democracy, including freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. It then recognizes several insurance policies against an abusive government that would attempt to limit these liberties: weapons; the privacy of houses and personal informationprotections against false criminal prosecution or repressive civil trials; and limits on excessive punishments by the government.

                      But the framers of the Constitution never mentioned a right to vote. They didn’t forget – they intentionally left it out. To put it most simply, the founders didn’t trust ordinary citizens to endorse the rights of others.

                      They were creating a radical experiment in self-government paired with the protection of individual rights that are often resented by the majority. As a result, they did not lay out an inherent right to vote because they feared rule by the masses would mean the destruction of – not better protection for – all the other rights the Constitution and Bill of Rights uphold. Instead, they highlighted other core rights over the vote, creating a tension that remains today.

                      Many of the rights the founders enumerated protect small groups from the power of the majority – for instance, those who would say or publish unpopular statements, or practice unpopular religions, or hold more property than others. James Madison, a principal architect of the U.S. Constitution and the drafter of the Bill of Rights, was an intellectual and landowner who saw the two as strongly linked.

                      At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison expressed the prevailing view that “the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty,” meaning only people who owned land debt-free, without mortgages, would be able to vote. The Constitution left voting rules to individual states, which had long-standing laws limiting the vote to those freeholders.

                      In the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, Madison trumpeted a benefit of the new system: the “total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity.” Even as the nation shifted toward broader inclusion in politics, Madison maintained his view that rights were fragile and ordinary people untrustworthy. In his 70s, he opposed the expansion of the franchise to nonlanded citizens when it was considered at Virginia’s Constitutional Convention in 1829, emphasizing that “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the Minority.”

                      The founders believed that freedoms and rights would require the protection of an educated elite group of citizens, against an intolerant majority. They understood that protected rights and mass voting could be contradictory.

                      Scholarship in political science backs up many of the founders’ assessments. One of the field’s clear findings is that elites support the protection of minority rights far more than ordinary citizens do. Research has also shown that ordinary Americans are remarkably ignorant of public policies and politicians, lacking even basic political knowledge.

                      What Americans think of as the right to vote doesn’t reside in the Constitution, but results from broad shifts in American public beliefs during the early 1800s. The new states that entered the union after the original 13 – beginning with Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee – did not limit voting to property owners. Many of the new state constitutions also explicitly recognized voting rights.

                      As the nation grew, the idea of universal white male suffrage – championed by the commoner-President Andrew Jackson – became an article of popular faith, if not a constitutional right.

                      After the Civil War, the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, guaranteed that the right to vote would not be denied on account of race: If some white people could vote, so could similarly qualified nonwhite people. But that still didn’t recognize a right to vote – only the right of equal treatment. Similarly, the 19th Amendment, now 100 years old, banned voting discrimination on the basis of sex, but did not recognize an inherent right to vote.

                      Today, the country remains engaged in a long-running debate about what counts as voter suppression versus what are legitimate limits or regulations on voting – like requiring voters to provide identification, barring felons from voting or removing infrequent voters from the rolls.

                      These disputes often invoke an incorrect assumption – that voting is a constitutional right protected from the nation’s birth. The national debate over representation and rights is the product of a long-run movement toward mass voting paired with the longstanding fear of its results.

                      The nation has evolved from being led by an elitist set of beliefs toward a much more universal and inclusive set of assumptions. But the founders’ fears are still coming true: Levels of support for the rights of opposing parties or people of other religions are strikingly weak in the U.S. as well as around the world. Many Americans support their own rights to free speech but want to suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree. Americans may have come to believe in a universal vote, but that value does not come from the Constitution, which saw a different path to the protection of rights.The Conversation

                      I will say again – do you have better sources?



            • Diogenesdemar says:

              I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours . . .

              “[All] rights . . .  are in fact, . . . equal.”

              Nope.  Not even.

              (False premise —> False conclusion)

            • JohnInDenver says:


              Article 1 says "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

              Amendments 15, 19, 24 & 26 are explicit in giving the right to vote. 

              Various statutes on Civil Rights, including 1957, 1960, 1964, provide a basis for enforcing a right to vote. "The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986 allowed members of the U.S. armed forces and overseas U.S. voters to register and vote by mail."

  5. Duke Cox says:

    Interesting discussion. Perhaps I missed something, but…

    The right to vote seems to be implied, maybe assumed, by obiesence to regulation regarding the vote. It occurs to me this may have been intentional.

    Is it possible they realized they would likely jeopardize their exclusionary voting practices, were they to explicitly grant rights to only part of the population?

    Their solution may simply have been expedient. If they assume the right for themselves, it leaves it to others to figure out the details.

    Short answer. I think you (V and Negev) are both right.

    • kwtree says:

      Yes. Negev is correct that there is not one short sentence affirming all citizen’s rights to vote in the Constitution, although most recently, the  straightforward language of the 26th Amendment comes close: 

      Section 1

      The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

      Section 2

      The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      As others have noted, the 14th , 15th, 19th and 24th amendments also clearly specify that US -born citizens, former slaves, people of color, women, and those not paying poll taxes have the right to vote.

      The trend over 250-some years has been to expand the vote to more Americans, not to contract it. If Negev wants, and he clearly wants, to deny some people the right to vote, it goes against two centuries of Constitutional expansion of the franchise, affirmed again and again by all three branches of government..Negev knows that, of course.  I think he’s  just testing out arguments for future Republican candidates and ballot initiatives. We’re his focus group. 😏

      I don’t want to give Negev too many props for presenting a coherent argument, however; most of it’s lifted verbatim, and uncited, from Professor Morgan Marietta’s “The right to vote is not in the Constitution” on The I question some of Marietta’s conclusions on what Madison intended, but won’t go into it now.

      Nevertheless, I think a short, declarative sentence affirming all citizen’s right to vote in the Constitution could clarify the intentionally muddied waters. For a democratic perspective on it, see the “Democracy Journal”. 

      One argument not mentioned yet is logical inconsistency; if Negev is arguing that, because the Constitution does not affirm the right of all US citizens to vote, that there is somehow “ no right to vote in the Constitution”, logically, only those who are NOT specifically enfranchised in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments are not guaranteed a right to vote. So white, male, never-enslaved, poll tax paying under-18s, you’re SOL.


      • gertie97 says:

        Careful, tree. His head might explode.

      • Negev says:

        Yes. Negev is correct

        Ya hear that V? The mama hath spoken. 

        • Voyageur says:

          Taken out of context, Negev.  The main thrust of her argument is that you are full of shit.

          But I will say this: If you’re ever indicted for brevity, I’ll defend you.

          • Negev says:

            Riiiight… I'm guessing you took a reading comprehension class one time in band camp too. wink

            Take a look a her link , perhaps it will hurt less when your hear it from a "democratic perspective"…

            And if it makes you feel any better, you DO have a right to vote. It's just protected under individual state constitutions, not the U.S. Constitution. If you would like an example, Colorado verbiage sounds like this:

             Every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years, has resided in this state not less than one year next preceding the election at which he offers to vote and in the county, city, town, ward, or precinct such time as may be prescribed by law, and has been duly registered as a voter if required by law shall be qualified to vote at all elections.

            It's OK V. Everyone says stupid shit from time to time. 


            • Voyageur says:

              Tee hee.

              You did read the part of kwtree’s post that called you a plaigiarist, didn’t you?

              Or did you just not comprehend it?

              Tee hee.

              • Negev says:

                I did! I bet she was referring to the portion which I prefaced with:

                 here is some easy reading you may have found within my extensive link library above:

                If that is plagiarism, don't vote for me. If you want it cited, go to the snopes link in the prior post. If you want to dispute it, feel free to cut and paste the evidence.

                I think the difficulty you are having is accepting it, hence the circle jerk around the fact that what it says is true. 


                • kwtree says:

                  It’s true, but unimportant without context.

                  You, “Negev”, are in a position to influence state GOP policies and candidates. Will you work to expand or contract the right of Coloradans, and all Americans, to vote? 

                  That’s what’s important.
                  Colorado has the “gold standard” of voting systems, accessible, efficient, secure. Will you promote that system, or undermine it?
                  I think I know what your real answer will be. 

                  • Negev says:

                    Mama I don't know why you keep suggesting I am some republican operative but its hilarious that you do. 

                    My point of this debate was to illustrate the hypocrisy  of Danos post when they said "And why SHOULD anyone have to have a separate document just to perform their most basic right" when it came to voting, which, as we have determined ad nauseum,  contains far less protections in the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment, which many/most (including myself) seem to have no doubt is subject to restriction, including but not limited to, identifying yourself with legal documentation. 



                    • kwtree says:

                      I’m not going to out you, since I’d  prefer not to get banned from this forum. But you know who you are. And yes,  it is amusingly ironic, if not “hilarious”. 
                      And yes, the system that helped you to power is the same system you’re undermining now. 

                      Colorado’s election reforms will go nationwide, one way or another, probably through the For the People Act, after the filibuster is disarmed. All mail ballots, expanded early voting, automatic registration, etc.

                      Your party’s  transparent attempts to sue their way out by claiming unconstitutionality, via the talking point you’ve promoted here, will fail at the Supreme Court level. There is just too much precedent of expansion, not contraction, of voting.

                      Then you, and every other Republican, will have to figure out how to attract voters by policy and ideas, not fear, lies, and voter suppression.

                    • Negev says:

                      Once again, it is comical that you find me to be 1)republican and 2)somehow in a position of power. 

                      I believe the right to vote should be enshrined in our Constitution and be considered equal to the other rights protected in this sacred document, which includes, I know to your dismay,  my pet 2A. 

                      Unfortunately, it is not. 

                      So just get an ID. Its $12. Free if you can't afford it. A majority of Blacks support it, and suggesting they are too poor or uneducated to acquire one is teetering on racist

                      Or maybe allow a person the unimpeded right to buy a gun without ID. How's that sound? I think I know the answer. 

                      You are the proponent of reasonable restriction. Practice what you preach. 



                    • kwtree says:

                      It would be best to enshrine that absolute right to vote in law via the For the People Act.

                      Then, when you and your right wing buddies sue to say HR1 is unconstitutional and states should have the final say, SCOTUS can knock it down.  The precedents are too strong. 

                      And yes, you are a Republican, and in a position to affect GOP actions in Colorado. Nuff said.

    • JohnInDenver says:

      My civics class was a long time ago … but the memory finally kicked in.  The US Constitution Article IV Section 4 says “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”  And the meaning of “republican” was clear at the time.   For example, Constitution Center says:

      the Guarantee Clause provides for majority rule. A republican government is one in which the people govern through elections. This is the constant refrain of the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, put it this way in The Federalist No. 57: “The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government.”

      If “the people” voting is the marker of the guaranteed form of governance, the right is fundamental.

      • Negev says:

        Are we still doing this?

        The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union …


        Was the meaning of "State" clear at the time?

        If "the people" is the defining verbiage to fundamental, they you should have no problem with:

         "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

        Just so V and Mama do go all apoplectic, I did not write that. That's an excerpt from the actual Constitution. Just citing my sources…cheeky


        • Voyageur says:

          This exercise in “Let Negev keep on digging” began with him asking: “Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to vote?”

          The a nswers promptly poured in:

          Article 4, section 5

          Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24, 26.

          Since then you have been deflecting like a fool, “Oh, I meant the original, not the current one

          All those amendments refer to rights that don’t exist…

          Blah blah, blah.

          You don’t have to argue endlessly that you are a stubborn fool.

          We believed you the first time.

          P.s. The right to a well -regulated mlitia — those words you like to pretend don’t exist — is granted to the states.

          The states, honey buns!

          • Negev says:

            OK V. Then show me. Show me in the original, current, abridged, copied, plagiarized or whatever copy of the Constitution you want to conjure up where, in writing, where the individuals right to vote is explicitly stated. The "answers" you provide do not have it. Read them. These are protections against discrimination, and if you are prepared to interpret them as the implied right to vote, you should have no problem with me being able to own a stinger missile.  

            I have backed my assertions with extensive links from prominent liberal sources. If you are so confident I would expect you would would have some documentation other than a cracker jack class you took to meet your social science requirements. Put up or shut up. I am certain the entire forum is eager to move on……


            • Voyageur says:

              Negev’s blackboard:

              I is not stoopid, (985)

              I is not stoopid.  (986)

              I is not stoopid.  (987)


              Tee hee

              It seems like somebody has something he’s trying to prove.

              I is ….


              • Negev says:

                 ah, the personal attacks that signal you don't have the evidence to support your claims…it's almost complimentary… 

                • Voyageur says:

                  I gave you the evidence.  Amendments 14, 15, 19, 22,, 26 and article 5, Section four.  You were too stupid to admit that language explicitly saying “the right to vote” as the 19th and others do, somehow doesn’t mean the “right to vote.”

                   go ahead.  Prove to me that “the right to vote” doesn’t mean  “the right to vote”

                  I reserve the right to not suffer fools gladly.

                  So, yes, I’m laughing at you, not with you.

                  So are we all, your verbosity.

  6. notaskinnycook says:

    Negev, I don’t know what kind of silly hair you’re trying to split, but the right of individual citizens to vote is specifically enshrined in the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution at least four times:


    Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    Section 2

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.



    Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

    Section 1.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude



    Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



    Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

    Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

    Section 1.

    The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

    Section 2.

    The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Any more questions?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.