Teens without a vote called undemocratic

SOME 18-year-olds will be denied a vote at next year's general election. Despite a £20,000 campaign to persuade people to sign on the electoral roll, anyone whose 18th birthday is after 1 March 2004 will not be eligible to vote. One deputy has criticised as undemocratic the fact that the cut-off date is so far ahead of the election on 21 April. But Liz Dene, assistant registrar-general of electors, said that States members could have changed the rules last year had they wished. 'It has always been that way. It was on the old electoral roll as well,' she said. St Saviour's deputy Ann Robilliard said that changes should be made. 'I think that is quite wrong. It is undemocratic. Nobody should be allowed to take away from people the right to vote as long as they turn 18 before, or even on, the day of the election.' She said it was ironic that this was happening when there was a drive to get more people on the electoral roll. 'We must try to engage youngsters in politics and this is certainly not the way to do it,' she said. Deputy Ivan Rihoy would support a change to the law. 'If we are trying to encourage people to vote, we should be allowing everyone who is 18 to have a voice,' he said. 'We're sending people around to knock on doors to try to get people signed up to the electoral roll and then we're denying some adults the right to do so. 'That seems strange. It is disgraceful really.' There is a pre-election cut-off date in the UK but it is much closer to polling day. In some elections there, people can vote as long as they are 18 on the day. But Miss Dene said that States members could have changed the rules last year. 'If a member had wanted to amend the Reform Law when it came before the House last year, I'm sure they could have done so. That would have been the time to do it. Now it is too late.' But she said that there would not be a problem with putting back the cut-off date to allow everyone that reaches 18 on the day of a future election to vote. 'The date is set according to the current law and not because of any administrative reason or to do with the election office.' HM Comptroller Howard Roberts confirmed yesterday that the roll is closed on a date appointed by ordinance and chosen by the States, but that could be changed. However he doubted this could happen before next April's election. 'Such a system would not be quite so straightforward as may be thought and a number of policy decisions would have to be made, but something could doubtless by devised.' Nevertheless, any amendment would require a States resolution, approval as a projet de loi, Privy Council approval, registration in the Royal Court and a start date. 'That is why it may, with some justification, be thought unlikely to be achievable in time for the April 2004 election,' said Mr Roberts.