Is it legal to vote in the state of New Jersey in the primary if you turn 18 by November election day? I am trying to determine if it is legal to vote in the New Jersey state presidential primary if you're 17 years old, but turning 18 by November election day. I honestly thought that it was a nationwide law that 17-year-olds could vote in their primaries as long as they turn 18 by November election day. Acording to http://www.njelections.org/voting-information.html To register in New Jersey you must be: At least 18 years old by the next election After speaking on the phone with the superintendent of elections in Burlington County NJ, she says that "election" means "whatever it is that you are voting for", meaning you must be 18 on the day you cast your ballot in the primary itself. She could not give me a source to confirm her interpretation. We also found this: http://www.nj.gov/state/dos_statutes-elections-31-63.shtml#ele_19_31_5 Each person, who at the time he or she applies for registration resides in the district in which he or she expects to vote, who will be of the age of 18 years or more at the next ensuing election, who is a citizen of the United States, and who, if he or she continues to reside in the district until the next election, will at the time have fulfilled all the requirements as to length of residence to qualify him or her as a legal voter, shall, unless otherwise disqualified, be entitled to be registered in such district. Is the primary legally "an election"? Thank you for any help and guidance.
According to Wikipedia, nineteen US states allow those who will be 18 by the time of the general election to vote in the related primary or participate in the related caucuses. New Jersey is not among them. States include: Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age The article also notes that The 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents states from "denying" suffrage to 18-year-olds, but does not prevent states from establishing a lower voting age. That is, federal law establishes 18 as the age by which citizens must be allowed to vote in federal elections. States may, but are not required to, allow younger people to vote.
Someone is yanking your chain. The law regarding birth certificates §31-10-9 states that "A certificate of birth for each live birth which occurs in this state shall be filed with the State Office of Vital Records within five days after such birth and filed in accordance with this Code section and regulations of the department" ("shall" means it is mandatory). The law regarding issuing certified copies of vital records, §31-10-26, says that (a) In accordance with Code Section 31-10-25 and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto: (1) The state registrar or local custodian, upon receipt of a written application, shall issue: (A) A certified copy of a vital record in that registrar's or custodian's custody or abstract thereof to any applicant having a direct and tangible interest in the vital record (a parent has an obvious direct and tangible interest in their child's birth certificate). There is no legal basis for denying a person the right to obtain a birth certificate, and a law prohibiting issuance of a birth certificate to a person who owed money to a hospital would be contrary to the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. However, the hospital is not obligated to give copies of birth certificates, and probably cannot issue a certified copy ("(d) No person shall prepare or issue any certificate which purports to be an original, certified copy or duplicate of a vital record except as authorized in this chapter or regulations adopted under this chapter"). USCIS states that "The only birth certificate acceptable for Form I-9 purposes must be an original or certified copy of a birth certificate issued by a state, county, municipal authority or outlying possession of the United States, bearing an official seal (hospitals register births, on which basis government registrars certify births). Your home country obviously cannot issue a birth certificate: only Georgia can (and must).
According to Texas law, Election code 61.014(b): A person may not use any mechanical or electronic means of recording images or sound within 100 feet of a voting station. However, the punishment appears to be only this: The presiding judge may require a person who violates this section to turn off the device or to leave the polling place.
Sending a letter to the Governor is legal You can do it, I can do it and the elected officials of Lancaster County can do it. Thanks to the first amendment, that letter can say pretty much anything you like subject to limits that themselves are subject to strict scrutiny - things like threats and defamation. Outlining a course of action that you propose to take is legal even if that course of action is itself illegal. I will also point out that people - sometimes even politicians - have been known to say things they don't mean. However, that just begs the question ... This article explains what's going on and, more importantly, the actual letter is here. I've read it. Twice. I can't see where the county proposes to do anything concrete that might be considered illegal. Apart from the first paragraph, the entire letter appears to be a case for why the county should be permitted to move from red to yellow on May 15 and they are asking for the Governor's support. Even the first paragraph is ambiguous; while it asks the Governor to move the county from "red" to "yellow" and states that they "intend to move forward with a plan" it is by no means clear that that plan is moving from "red" to "yellow" even though you could get that impression on a casual reading. Basically, what they intend to do is so vague that it's impossible to tell if it's legal or not. Of course, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it can't be done. The USA is a free country and the fundamental freedom is to reap the consequences of your actions. If the county does something1 then the state can take them to court - the court will decide if it's legal or not. 1 Or threatens to do something sufficiently concrete that an injunction against it could be issued.
They are not considered public places in the way you mean, and in fact, the Ohio revised code specifically prohibits the kind of behavior you're referencing. Bottom line, any kind of party at the polling place itself is out of the question due to the possibility of limiting access or intimidating potential voters.
In General: No There is no federal law and, as far as I can tell, no state law which sets an across-the-board minimum age on mountaineering or climbing. I based this on searching through the statutes of several states with mountains, as well as the web pages for some parks. Many states' park services had wording like this (taken from the Colorado Springs webpage): Although there are not age limitations for rock climbing, all climbers including children must register. Climbing is an inherently dangerous activity. Technical Climbing is at your own risk. The City of Colorado Springs does not install, inspect, nor maintain the fixed protection devices.Your safety is your own responsibility. Specific Example However, in some specific cases, governments have set age limits. Here is one such example: Mount Rainer: 18. Mount Rainer is a national park located in Washington state. The National Parks Service requires anyone attempting to climb Mount Rainer to be at least 18 (source).
Yes. Yes. American Indians and Alaska Natives have the right to vote just as all other U.S. citizens do. They can vote in presidential, congressional, state and local, and tribal elections, if eligible. And, just as the federal government and state and local governments have the sovereign right to establish voter eligibility criteria, so do tribal governments. Source: https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions
The comments have basically covered this, but: It's a slightly weird parallel structure ("who shall not be at least 25, and been a citizen for 7 years, and who shall not be a resident"). The Constitution is not written in fluid 21st-century English. But the obviously correct way to parse the sentence is that no one can be a representative who isn't a 25-year-old or older who's been a citizen for at least 7 years; furthermore, no one can be a representative who wasn't a resident of the state they represent when they were elected. With some parts of the Constitution (like the Second Amendment), the drafting results in actual disputes about the intended meaning. With other parts (like here), only one reading makes any sense. It's the same with the requirements to be President. The Constitution says "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President," which could be read as "you're not eligible unless, when the Constitution was adopted, you were either a citizen of the US or a natural-born citizen." But that's a silly reading, so "at the time of the Adoption" is read as only applying to "a Citizen of the United States:" natural-born citizens are eligible period, and people who were born before the US was a thing but were citizens by the time the Constitution was adopted were grandfathered in.