What was youth turnout (ages 18-29) in the 2024 US presidential election?
Executive summary
Tufts/CIRCLE’s initial and widely cited estimates place national youth turnout (ages 18–29) in the 2024 presidential election between roughly 42% and 47% — CIRCLE’s early briefings and exit‑poll–based writeups cite about 42% (Tufts/CIRCLE; exit poll reporting) while a later CIRCLE post gives a 47% figure [1] [2] [3]. State variation was large: Minnesota reported a 62% youth turnout, well above the national figure reported by Tufts [4] [2].
1. What the headline numbers say
Initial exit‑poll based reports and Tufts University’s CIRCLE briefings estimated about 42% of all 18–29 year‑olds voted in 2024 [3] [5] [6]. CIRCLE later published a piece that reported a 47% youth turnout figure in 2024, showing some revision or alternative estimation depending on methodology [2]. State and local administrative numbers show much higher youth turnout in some places (Minnesota’s 62% is a prominent example) [4].
2. Why different numbers exist: methodology matters
Contradictory numbers arise because researchers use different frames. Some estimates (the 42% figures) are drawn from exit polls and national post‑election summaries that treat turnout as a share of all eligible citizens ages 18–29 [3] [6]. Other CIRCLE reporting that gives 47% does not dispute lower exit‑poll estimates but presents an alternate calculation or updated estimate — CIRCLE itself notes varying estimates across their products [2]. Civic groups that focus on registered‑voter turnout point out that turnout among registered young voters is typically much higher than among all eligible youth, so phrasing whether turnout is “of eligible citizens” versus “of registered voters” changes the headline number [7].
3. The political context behind the drop
Analysts say youth turnout fell from the historic 2020 level (over 50%) to well below that in 2024. CIRCLE places 2020 youth turnout at 52–55% and notes the 2024 decline to roughly 42% (or 47% by a different CIRCLE metric) — a substantive drop with political implications [1] [3] [6]. Exit‑poll summaries and Tufts reporting also document a rightward shift among many young voters in 2024, shrinking the Democratic margin among those who did vote [5] [3].
4. Who voted — and who didn’t
CIRCLE and related reporting emphasize uneven turnout within the youth cohort. Turnout varied dramatically by race and gender: CIRCLE reported a turnout spread from 58% for young white women to 25% for young Black men in their 2024 breakdowns, and lower participation among the youngest eligible voters (18–19) compared with older 20‑somethings [2]. Tufts’ analysis also highlights differential registration trends across states that likely affected who showed up [5] [6].
5. Local exceptions and what they reveal
State‑level administrative data can tell a different story. Minnesota reported 62% turnout for 18–29 year‑olds, far above the national average — demonstrating how state laws, registration systems, and civic cultures change participation dramatically [4]. That contrast underlines that national averages can obscure successful local practices that preserved or boosted youth turnout.
6. Disputes and open questions in the reporting
Some civic commentators caution that certain national survey methodologies (for example, AP/Fox VoteCast referenced by The Civics Center) are opaque and may undercount or misestimate youth turnout; these critiques urge readers to compare exit polls, administrative records, and validated panel surveys like Pew’s before drawing firm conclusions [7] [8]. Pew’s later validated‑voter work focused on different aspects of turnout and partisan shifts but does not provide a single national youth‑turnout percentage in the cited snippet [8]. Available sources do not mention a single definitive federal certified youth turnout rate; differences reflect distinct data sources and definitions [8] [7].
7. Takeaways for readers and decision‑makers
The clearest, supportable conclusions from available reporting: youth turnout in 2024 was substantially lower than in 2020, with CIRCLE and exit‑poll based pieces putting it near 42% (and a CIRCLE publication stating 47% depending on method), and huge subnational variation — Minnesota’s 62% stands out [3] [6] [2] [4]. Policymakers and organizers should focus not only on national averages but on registration barriers, race‑and‑gender gaps, and state practices that produced much higher youth participation in some places [2] [4].
Limitations: reporting varies by method (exit polls, survey panels, administrative counts) and some critiques of particular surveys are cited by civic groups; readers should treat a single national percentage as an estimate and consult the underlying methodological notes in each source cited here [7] [8].