When Marylanders go to the polls on May 14 to cast their ballots in the state’s primary elections, the races in some cities could be decided by 16- and 17-year-olds. Cheverly, Maryland, as well as the nearby cities of Greenbelt, Hyattsville, Riverdale Park, and Takoma Park will all allow teens to vote.

And it’s not just in Maryland. There’s a push by George Soros-backed leftist groups to lower the voting age nationwide. Yet doing so would disrupt our election processes and procedures.

Oakland and Berkley, California as well as Brattleboro, Vermont have also lowered the voting age for certain elections. There have also been campaigns to lower the voting age to 16 for state or local elections in California, Colorado, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and D.C. Even on the federal level, a few years ago, U.S. Rep. Grace Meng, D-New York, proposed a bill  that would have amended the Constitution to lower the voting age to 16 years old in federal elections.

Why not keep the voting age as is? The age to vote in federal elections was lowered to 18 in 1971 to match the age an individual could be drafted into the U.S. military. However, today, advocates of lowering the voting age merely argue lowering the voting age increases political engagement among young people.

That was the reasoning in Cheverly, Maryland: “By extending voting rights to youth at age 16, we are empowering the next generation to actively participate in shaping the future of Cheverly,” the town’s mayor said in a release. “Their voices matter, and this amendment reflects our commitment to inclusivity and the democratic process.”

All the buzzwords are there—empowerment, shaping the future, inclusivity and the democratic process. But is that what the push is really about? We know that young people tend to be of a more liberal political persuasion. That’s all we need to know to understand recent efforts to lower the voting age.

The problem for Democrats is that elections are starting to get more secure, minority groups are fleeing identity politics, and the young and impressionable are getting older and wiser. What’s a Democrat to do? The answer is quite predictable—lower the voting age to include those who have been sitting in Democrat education camps (aka public schools) and don’t yet live with the reality of mortgages, loans, children, etc. This would, theoretically, increase votes for Democrats.

But some Republicans seem to be attuned to their playbook and are also starting to suggest unnecessary changes to the voting age. Last May, in what may be best understood as a reaction to Democrats’ push for lowering the voting age, then-presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy suggested raising the voting age to 25 unless people complete at least six months service in the military or pass a citizenship test.

We’ve always placed limits on what young people can do. Whether it be driving, drinking, or buying a gun, we create boundaries to protect some individuals from the potential harm they could inflict on themselves and from the harm they may inflict on society as a whole. Where we draw the line may be open to debate, but draw the line we must. Then, absent a strong justification, we must stick with what is decided. To adjust the cut-off up or down based on political benefit makes for confusion, unstable governance, and a skeptical electorate.

So don’t get distracted when you are subjected to debates over the maturity of 16-year-olds versus 18-year-olds; that’s just semantics. What it actually comes down to is whether there is a compelling reason to change the long-acknowledged rules of the game, independent of partisan political benefits. But there is no reason. Conservatives would do well to take note and hold the line on underaged voting. But don’t think they won’t keep pushing it.