The Baron of Alton, JellyCow99, Shadow Chancellor, has launched a Supreme Court Case against the Minister for the Cabinet Office model-pjr over the Government’s voting age policy.

The case claims that the Government is breaking its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Equality Act, implying that the Government’s “Raise the age” policy is ageist.

The cited protocol under the ECHR states that “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature,” which basically means that the United Kingdom is obliged to hold regular and free elections to its legislature and that ballots should be secret.

The Equality Act, which was passed in October 2010, outlaws discrimination, harassment or victimisation, and as users of private and public services based on age. However, it makes no direct reference to voter enfranchisement (after all, before 2016, the voting age was 18).

The logic behind the case seems to be that stopping under 18s from voting is discriminatory towards minors and would fall under age discrimination from the government. Following on from such logic, it can be assumed that the current voting age of 16 years old would also be deemed illegal under the current law, or any “minimum voting age”.

Lord Alton launched the case yesterday.

Lord Alton said he believed that the government “[has not worked] within the confines our own law and the law it follows internationally” and that he is “following the correct procedure to determine whether or not [the Representation of the People Bill] is in breach of either the ECHR or the Equality Act 2010”.

Responding to a question asked by The Telegraph about whether he would favour universal suffrage (in that persons of all ages would be allowed to vote) he said “No, and that is not the basis of the court case. The case is based solely around preventing illegal disenfranchisement.” This seems to go against the earlier logic, as not calling for universal enfranchisement would seem to go against the idea that having a voting age, be it at 18 or 16, is age discrimination, or infringing on human rights.

If this case were to win, it could set a dangerous precedent surrounding what is considered age discrimination, after all, there are many other things that have age limits, such as the drinking age (18), the legal driving age (17), films (12, 15, 18). Minors are also protected in many aspects. Under 13s can’t use sites like Facebook and Twitter or get a part-time job. If the court were to rule in favour of Lord Alton, this may set a precedent that the above could be ruled as age discrimination by the court.

All in all, it would seem that this is another bump in the Opposition’s backlash against so-called “Gregfest”, the Government’s wide-reaching reforms, all introduced by ggeogg, the Earl of Earl’s Court, and former Conservative member for Lincolnshire, which culminated in a series of protests against the lowering of the voting age in Manchester and London on the 2nd of May.

The Earl’s bill seeks to raise the age required to vote from 16 after it was lowered by the Liberal Democrats in 2016, which would make it the first country in the world to raise, rather than lower its voting age. The bill, now in the Lords, nevertheless passed the Commons by 3 votes, just 3 days after the National Day of Protest took place, making it

For now, it remains to be seen what will be the outcome of this case and the government’s response to it.