In a sad example of continued stigmatization and discrimination against people with a mental illness, the California Republican Party has raised questions about ten votes cast in the Presidential election. Why? Because the voters had developmental disabilities and were helped in learning the process to cast their votes by one of their non-disabled caretakers.
The state Republican Party now questions the validity of the Thumbs Up votes. They want the Secretary of State to investigate.
“If they haven’t been declared incompetent to vote and they’re a citizen of the United States and they’re over 18 and they’re a legal resident, they’re entitled to vote,” said Professor Pamela Karlan, from Stanford University School of Law.
Karlan says legally, someone like Director Simerley can fill out a ballot for his clients, if they’re illiterate or incapable. Freedom of speech even gives Simerley the right to share his political opinions.
“We try to be totally non-partisan. We didn’t tell people how to vote, we told people how to vote,” said David Simerley.
In other words, nobody was coerced into voting a certain way. And you can’t stop anyone from voting if they are legally entitled to (as these people were). Like it or not in the U.S., the only minimal requirements to be eligible to vote are age and being registered in a specific geographic location.
If this is what the GOP has resorted to to try and win an election, I find it sad. I hope, however, that this was just poor judgment on the part of a single person within the Californian Republican Party.
Read the full article: Questions arise over disabled voters’ rights
(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Links to This Article
GOP Thinks Mentally Disabled’s Votes Shouldn’t Count (10/31/2008)
GOP Thinks Mentally Disabled’s Votes Shouldn’t Count at Republican On Best Political Blogs (10/31/2008)
Blogs sobre Psicología : Psicología Abierta (11/1/2008)
President On Best Political Blogs » Blog Archive » GOP Thinks Mentally Disabled’s Votes Shouldn’t Count (11/2/2008)
11 Comments to
“GOP Thinks Mentally Disabled’s Votes Shouldn’t Count”
Having spent 17 years of my life working with developmentally disabled adults and having seen the segment on the news, I was absolutely outraged by the way the director took advantage of his clients to advance his political agenda.
It was clear to me that the clients were in no way capable of making or understanding such a complex matter as voting let alone the issues. Heck, I have difficulty. Yes, they are able to repeat the proper things as they want to please others and will likely vote like their parents or most influential person.
No, there should never be a blanket law regarding this. Because some people with developmental disabilities are able to understand and to vote with some assistance, but the clients that they showed on television were taken advantage of. If you really want to see this type of behavior in action, go to a nursing home also.
I did notice that one of the clients with Down’s Syndrome knew that the director could be in trouble. Most clients when asked about who taught you would have readily answer, by using the director’s name since he seemed to have such good rapport. But, as a social worker, I red flags went up when he answer, “he did,” like he was trying to protect him. I have seen this many times more than I ever want to.
It angers and saddens me to see someone who obviously is very talented with working with persons with disabilities use that for their own person adgenda…you can make a justification for everything you teach. In terms of voting, that group could have learned and understood about voting for a day program president.
Off…my soapbox.
It was clear to me that the clients were in no way capable of making or understanding such a complex matter as voting let alone the issues.
But that’s really the point, isn’t it? In the U.S., we don’t require voters to have any understanding of the issues in order to be able to vote. If that were a requirement, I’d suspect a good chunk of voters would be disqualified.
And if we don’t have such rules in place, then its discrimination to suggest we should have them in place for a certain subset of people (e.g., people with developmental or mental disabilities).
Now, certainly I believe the director exhibited poor judgment in doing this the way he did, nor can I speak to his agenda since I don’t know him or have ever spoken to him. But all U.S. adult citizens, regardless of their abilities, are entitled to vote (with few exceptions).
What do you folks think about the argument that goes the other way. Would it be correct to empty out a whole psychiatric ward, promising Ice Cream to each resident if they vote in favor of a specific candidate? Could this be abused in the opposite direction?
It seems it bites both ways. Correct me if I am missing something here.
Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
http://www.DrSam.tv
I think it’s fine if you want to change the voting laws. But you have to actually change the voting laws before suggesting that just because someone has a low IQ or something similar, they are incapable of making an informed decision about the issues or candidates.
To me, it’s a slippery slope. Why not make every voter take an IQ test, then, to ensure an equal playing field and then set a cutoff score of ineligible voters? How much longer before politicians then seek to disqualify voters based upon their religious beliefs or even political beliefs…?
I was deeply disturbed to read this. I copied part of it into my blog, with full credit and a link back to you. I have about three readers, but they not be your readers. Hopefully they’ll tell their friends…
As a mentally ill person, I take umbrage at the foul discrimination displayed by the not so Grand Old Party. And this does not even address their “Health Care”. I know of many people who are not mentally diagnosed, yet display less knowledge, less compassion, less global sympathy and less concern about this country’s well-being.
One example would be Ms. Palin.
Some of the clients that I have worked with that were developmentally disabled or mentally ill were capable of understanding the issues and making decision such as voting. However, it was not many. I myself have a mental illness and I hope that I never see a day when there is a law where they blanketly discriminate.
It takes me back to when Blacks “had” to take a test in order to vote.
It does seem really sad and shameful that this kind of attitude prevails as much as it does. I strongly agree that the laws should be the same for everyone. It seems to me that anyone who has no understanding at all of what an election is about will probably not even want to vote, but if they do then I don’t think they should be discouraged from doing so. I think something like voting can actually help marginalized people to feel more involved in society.
Though this particular objection was to voting by developmentally disabled people, I know that many people have these same kind of attitudes towards those of us who have been psychiatrically labeled as well. It’s interesting to see people express their stereotypical ideas about those of us who have been diagnosed or labeled in this way, and then urge prohibitions be placed on what we are allowed to do based on those stereotypes - as if the stereotypes are an actual reality rather than just an idea that exists in the minds of those who are prejudiced against us.
I do believe people should be allowed to have a secret ballot if it is at all reasonably possible, but I understand that it may not have been possible in this case. There doesn’t seem to have been any coercion involved, though, which seems to me to be the only valid reason anyone could have for objecting.
I think the overall story here is that people were potentially being manipulated into voting a specific way.
-quote-
“If they haven’t been declared incompetent to vote and they’re a citizen of the United States and they’re over 18 and they’re a legal resident, they’re entitled to vote,” said Professor Pamela Karlan, from Stanford University School of Law.
-end quote-
There seems to be a little more than just being a US citizen age 18 or over to vote. You apparently must be deemed mentally competent. Granted, none of us take a test before hand to vote; however, this does not mean that a person or group of people cannot be assessed afterwards. Obviously, one parent of an individual asked to vote felt his son was not competent to understand voting.
People do not have to be up on the issues but it helps if the person is able to make a general assessment about how to walk into a booth and mark a name (any name).
I think if found guilty, it is disgusting and unethical to use the severely mentally disabled to beneefit a certain view, especially a political stance. If these individuals are found to be capable of voting, then by all means the US needs to review how we are educating individuals with mental disabilities about topics like politics and voting. These individuals should not be locked away from general societal functions and behaviors and only given exposure when needed for personal gain.
I would also like to point out the main article states that the GOP does not feel these 9 votes will need to be refuted. This came from a single call. I do think it needs investigated but not just to find out if the votes should be counted or not - but I think this can be a leading example as to why educational reform on multiple topics needs to be made for those who suffer from a mental disability.
@Crystal - Actually, no, as long as you are registered to vote in your geographic region, that’s the only “qualification” needed to vote. Anyone who wants to put a higher test on people just because they carry a specific diagnosis really should revisit the Constitution first.
As for a dad’s opinion about his son’s vote, unless he’s his legal guardian (and there was no indication in the article that he was), his son is an adult American citizen and therefore entitled to every right of any other U.S. citizen.
Until someone changes the Constitution, that’s the way it is. And I see no problem in helping someone with the *process* of voting if they need assistance.
there was a very moving piece in cnn dot com by peggy wallace kennedy, an obama supporter who is also the daughter of the famous segregationist governor of alabama. she writes that as a young woman she was apolitical and her father would fill out her ballot for her. therefore i don’t think this problem or discourse about fraud should be confined to the disabled community.
i also think that if mentally disabled people had fewer rights than they have now, the budget cuts affected to programs that treat them would be even more devastating. i do not see a constitutional problem with helping the disabled vote in the usa. how often have we seen invalids given free car service to the polls because of the expected outcome of their votes? i see this matter pretty much the same way.
Regarding guardianship. In the state of California, guardianship is used for minors and conservatorship is for adults. If you have guardianship of someone when they turn 18, you must apply to become conservator. If a person is under conservatorship, they do not have the right to vote as they have been deemed unable to make appropriate choices in areas of their lives.
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 31 Oct 2008
