I believe it to be a fact that even people who have been diagnosed as insane and incompetent

[Atticus]

to care for themselves may, nonetheless, cast valid votes for POTUS.

These folks cannot get a driver's license, sign a valid contract or spend their own money, but they can vote for their choice to occupy the White House.

Don't think about that for too long.

[treestar]

1. They are probably not competent to register

and get to the poll or mail the ballot. But someone helps them. In that case, both sides would be doing enough for it not to matter.

[Atticus]

2. "Both sides", huh?

[treestar]

3. you think all liberals are above getting senile parent

to vote?

I guess they still can't control the voting booth though, though the mail in ballots.

I know right wingers would do it, but not sure left wingers never do.

I would suppose proposing that a person with an actual guardianship over them due to incompetence should become ineligible. It would make sense. But be difficult for the registrar to find out about and enforce. Unless there are public records. By now, a lot of courts likely declare it private.

[Atticus]

6. "All" of us? No, of course not. But, I am just ( perhaps ) foolish enough to think "nearly all" o

us would not do that.

I am personally aware of a local Republican who not only registered "residents" of a sheltered care facility, but transported them to the polls on election day where someone "helped" them vote.

He won a close election.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. This is ableist.

[treestar]

7. Literally mentally incompetent

Not just disabled.

Such a person would not be able to register and get to the voting place without help, and the helper could improperly influence.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

11. States have different definitions for "mentally incompetent," leading to a wide discrepancy with who

votes and who can't, and there are thousands of cases where people have been pushed through a conservatorship process and lost their right to vote when they arguably shouldn't have. Posts that imply "insane" or "diagnosed incompetent" (wha?) people should not vote and if they do they taint the process somehow are ableist.

[treestar]

12. Just putting a label on something does not make it wrong

It's like right wingers and "socialist."

Good point about different states, but then there are 50 state elections. There are differences in how electors/elections are handled in each state. Difference standards for recounts and different ways of assigning electors.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. Labeling people "mentally incompetent" to vote when they are not is wrong, though.

[treestar]

16. That is a legal standard

Hard to bright line, but courts won't grant a guardianship without real evidence. There are people who have no idea what they are doing and cannot deal with something as complex as signing a contract. It's not trying to stop people who should vote from voting, but people who wouldn't really know who they were voting for. It could be abused, that is true. But the idea that voting is a responsibility sticks - it is not granted to minors for the reason they would not know what they are doing. They can't make contracts either, like people under guardianships. It probably does not involve a whole lot of people, either.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

19. It's not, though. I mean, I suppose you can say "determined by a judge" is a legal standard, but it

does not have a definition. And in some states, guardianship means automatic disenfranchisement; in other states, it doesn't.

It's not trying to stop people who should vote from voting, but people who wouldn't really know who they were voting for.

Knowing who you are voting for is not a requirement for voting.

It probably does not involve a whole lot of people, either.

The number of people it affects shouldn't matter, but it's certainly in the thousands. And as some of the most vulnerable in our society, their voices should be heard.

[treestar]

37. It's not a requirement? Well I assume most people know

who they are voting for. How many go in with no knowledge and just push buttons?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

40. But that's the thing with voting. A person is free to mark their ballot however they want.

Anyone can close their eyes and pick at random, if they want.

[thucythucy]

24. "Courts won't grant guardianship without real evidence."

Sorry, but there is a long history of people being declared "incompetent" because of all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with "competence" per se.

Just one example: Leonard Roy Frank was declared "insane" and "incompetent" because he gave up a lucrative real estate business to study philosophy. He also grew his hair long and became a vegetarian. His parents went to a judge and got a court order committing him to a psych ward. This was in the early sixties, when long hair, studying philosophy, and being as vegetarian were all considered to be signs of "insanity."

The Frank case became famous in disability rights circles after he was able to spring himself from the institution, and filed suit to obtain his "medical" records. His shrink wrote that Frank's decision to eat meat (after months of refusing) was a sign of his ongoing "recovery."

Another famous (or infamous) case of a finding of "incompetency" was that of Sharon Kowaloski. She was brain injured in car accident (hit by a drunk driver) but in spite of being a fully grown adult her parents had her declared incompetent and had her confined to a nursing home in Minnesota. This despite the fact that Sharon was able to type out her wishes (the accident had left her unable to speak--but she could still communicate using a keyboard). The real reason she was declared "incompetent"? Her parents didn't approve of her being a lesbian, and found a homophobic judge willing to agree. It took Sharon's partner several years--and something like a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees--to finally get the Minnesota Supreme Court to overturn that ruling.

Lucy Gwin and Mouth magazine did series of articles on how the brain injury rehabilitation industry often declares someone "incompetent" or gets a court order of "incompetence" in order to keep people institutionalized so insurance companies can continue to be billed for their "treatment." Amazingly enough, once the insurance runs out the patients immediately and miraculously became "competent" once again.

And so there are a slew of ableist assumptions and social factors that underlie many findings of "incompetence." Like institutional racism, ableism is systemic and is certainly evident in our courts. Disabled parents are still sometimes denied custody of their children because of the notion that someone with a disability can't be a good parent. Racism also plays a part in who gets judged to be "incompetent," with people of color being more likely than whites to find themselves on the receiving end of a judge's ruling that they are "incompetent."

"The root of disability oppression is ableism and we must work to understand it, combat it, and create alternative practices rooted in justice." from "Skin, Tooth and Bone: A Disability Justice Primer."

[LeftInTX]

33. We tried to get my father in law committed...

He was totally insane...

Nothing worked...eventually my mother in law had to go into hiding....

On the day he died, he bit his granddaughter, swallowed a bottle of digitalis, got in a car and got in a wreck...

The digitalis killed him, it was such as relief.

For 4 months he terrorized us....It was just awful...We couldn't do a damn thing, courts refused.
He was dangerous...In the end, he had a house all to himself everyone was hiding from him...

[thucythucy]

43. I'm sorry to hear about your family's troubles with the system.

To me it reinforces the point that, far from being an objective measure of competency, the judgments are often skewed in one direction or another.

And so my skepticism remains: I'd hardly want the franchise to be dependent on a system so obviously flawed.

[treestar]

38. No system is perfect

You can always find a few cases. That is not a reason to throw the whole system out. And we are not talking about people who are disabled but still functioning.

[thucythucy]

44. You may not be talking about "people who are disabled but still functioning"

but those are the people often targets.

My SO used to be director of a counseling agency for people with disabilities, and these sorts of cases were a significant part of her caseload.

When those "few cases" involve yourself it gives you an entirely different perspective.

[JonLP24]

36. Sometimes those Guardians will rip off the benefits the actual person deserves

I have seen it happen.

Britney Spears is probably a famous example. I probably have had bigger problems than Spears and even if she blows some of her money she is still rich.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/07/16/the-6-things-to-know-about-the-free-britney-spears-movement/?sh=728d03d163d5

I recommend anyone and I do mean anyone take control of their own finances.

[thucythucy]

25. Absolutely.

See my post #24 below.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. In the U.S., insanity is a legal concept, not a medical diagnosis.

Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2020, 04:02 PM - Edit history (2)

Full disclosure: Neither am I a doctor, nor am I a lawyer.

Insanity

{snip}

In medicine

Insanity is no longer considered a medical diagnosis but is a legal term in the United States, stemming from its original use in common law. The disorders formerly encompassed by the term covered a wide range of mental disorders now diagnosed as bipolar disorder, organic brain syndromes, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders.

{snip}

Also, I do not see a relationship between the legal concept of insanity and developmental disability.

Don't think about that for too long.

I didn't.

[treestar]

8. If felons can't vote

those adjusted legally incompetent - there is good reason to say they should not vote. But how to enforce that would be an entire new problem.

[Mr.Bill]

9. In some states,

they could probably buy a gun.

[stillcool]

10. I don't know anyone who is diagnosed as "insane"

but those with have emotional/psychological issues are only diagnosed if they seek help. I believe it to be a fact, that most violence is an act of insanity, and the more insane in this country have never seen a professional, and never will. We can all be labeled 'incompetent' at something. The more sane of us recognize it as being human.

[KT2000]

13. the checklist for determining competency

includes several things. A woman I know was in the dementia unit at a nursing home. She was "flunking" most questions. They asked if she knew who the president was and she wouldn't say anything. They asked again and she pursed her lips. On the third try she finally said trump and she hated even saying his name. They checked off she could still vote. Not the other questions though (driving, managing affairs, etc.)

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. One standard I have seen suggested is that if a person can express a desire to vote whether

with or without accommodations, that should be enough.

[KT2000]

22. you mean physical accommodation

and nothing about mental? Holy cow!

[treestar]

17. Reminds me of that DUer who knew they would be asked that

coming out of surgery and planned to say something like " a fucking idiot." !

[KT2000]

21. Ha!!

hope it happened that way too!

[FakeNoose]

18. I suggest we create a test for critical thinking

Anyone who fails to pass shouldn't be allowed to vote.
That would take care of a lot of problems.

[Tommymac]

30. You mean like this one?

[lame54]

20. Maybe they have an interest in having a prez...

Who cares about those who can't look out for themselves

[Ms. Toad]

23. The last time I did door-knocking,

One of the registered voters I was asked to contact was an adult individual with intellectual disabilities. I spoke with him at the door to his home, with his parents listening in. He was so proud that he was old enough to vote, that he was registered, and that he knew who he wanted to vote for - and could articulate why. His parents were pleased that their son was being given the attention he deserved as a voter and a human being.

People who are intellectually disabled, or mentally ill, do not lose their humanity or their right to participate in democracy merely because their abilities are fifferent from your own - or beause they are not legally competent to enter into a contract. That's not the criteria for voting.

[Atticus]

26. What are the "criteria for voting" in your opinion? What about five year olds---have they

insufficient "humanity"to vote or have they insufficient understanding?

Of course, the intellectually disabled and the mentally ill do not lose their humanity. But, many should not be voting for the same reason we do not allow five year olds to do so.

[LeftInTX]

28. The number of people who are mentally challenged who vote is a very, very small amount

It is not going to sway an election.

You need a legal definition here, but there is no "legal definition" of intellectually disabled. People can't be bared from voting due to a medical diagnosis.

The person who voted in Ms Toad's example was living in a home, with his parents and had probably gone to school k-12 (although in special education). This person was "sane enough", to actually live with his parents. He knew he was going to vote. He obviously was capable of following basic rules at home. Someone who is truly "legally insane" cannot function in a home even with their parents...

[Ms. Toad]

29. Anyone who has reached the legal age to be able to vote,

who has an understanding of what it means to vote, is legally entitled to vote in the presidential (and any other federal) election under the ADA. There is some variation for purely state elections - but many of those are (appropriately) being challenged

That's a pretty basic concept - most 5 year olds have experienced voting in their kindergarten classrooms.

[Atticus]

31. I am sure this could continue to go round and round, but as my one last question, if five year olds

understand the "basic concept" of "what it means to vote", why not let them vote?

Why is the "legal age" to vote not five?

Silly? It sure is---but it seems to be the logical result of your argument.

The legal age is set at the number of years when we can reasonably expect MOST people to make reasonable and realistic choices.

[Ms. Toad]

32. We have set the age of voting at 18 in this country.

That means anyone who meets the criteria is eligible to vote unless disenfranchised - and since the right to vote is a constitutional right, that is pretty tough to do. That is an equal protection issue - treating some individuals (those with intellectual disabilities or mental illness) differently from all other all individuals similarly situated (within the age of the voting franchise). To deprive individuals of a fundamental right (voting) based on class membership has to pass strict scrutiny - essentially it has to be a necessary class distinction to achieve a compelling government interest. The most notable class distinction for disenfranchisement is conviction of a fenony.

Disenfranchising someone who is otherwise eligible to vote based on a class distinction is a very different question than expanding the franchise to younger individuals.

[JonLP24]

35. I need to vote for progressives to protect my mental health coverage

I receive it from the VA. One thing about all these wars (imagine if Gore won instead of Bush) is it leads to mental health problems from returning service members.

[LeftInTX]

27. Agree

In TX only convicted felons "on paper", non-citizens etc are bared from voting.

The number of "legally insane" people is so miniscule that it would not make any impact in an election. If someone is registered to vote and they are declared "legally insane", it can be kinda hard to prevent them from voting...felons in prison are obvious, felons on parole could possibly register, but don't because they know it's a crime...

[treestar]

39. Straw man

This was not the idea. It was those who don't know, have no idea, and that's why they have a guardian. People who could not tell you an election is coming.

[Ms. Toad]

41. You are reading limitations into the OP that are not there. n/t

[JonLP24]

34. I don't think "insane" is a real medical diagnosis

This coronavirus will probably lead to a rise in mental illness so I don't feel comfortable stigmatizing those who may need help.

[struggle4progress]

42. Many people seems to regard all those, whose views differ from their own, as idiots; but I think

there is no shortage of quick thinkers who are nevertheless captive to foolish ideas and no shortage of slow thinkers who are still wise in their own way

There is no simple test for who might become a good citizen. Someone who learns quickly can always quickly learn the wrong things and so might get no real benefit if unable to unlearn. A long and expensive education can sometimes just brainwash the beneficiary. A person can be illiterate and innumerate yet still be a keen observer of the natural world or of human behavior

I have sometimes encountered people too damaged to function on their own, though they might dress themselves and happily help set the table or sweep the floor. Sometimes they are very sweet and pleasant, too. In none of those cases did I ever hear of any of them voting: I don't think any of them would have been interested, and I don't think their guardians would have pushed them to do so