By Mary Alexander
In the nineteenth century, the United States began institutionalizing people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/DD). Institutionalization isolated people with ID/DD from society, denying those institutionalized most rights, including the right to vote. Institutionalization peaked in the 1960s, with approximately 200,000 individuals with ID/DD residing within institutions.
Deinstitutionalization, beginning in the 1960s, accelerated in the 1970s, when several exposés garnered public support and revealed the realities of institutions. One such exposé, an investigative news story about the Willowbrook State School in New York, resulted in one of the most significant civil action judgments that eventually forced New York to close the Willowbrook School and its institutions. Nationally, Willowbrook influenced both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, both of which specifically addressed voting rights for those with ID/DD.
While the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 technically guaranteed the right to vote to all people with disabilities, biased views regarding people with ID/DD’s capacity continued to infect state legislation. Many states prohibited people with ID/DD from voting; only with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1992 did consequential legislation expressly provide voting rights for adults with ID/DD.
Photo: Phil Hearing via Unsplash
Although voting access continues to expand for individuals with ID/DD, some states retain voting restrictions. While many states ensure voting rights for individuals with ID/DD, some of those states restrict the voting rights for those under guardianship. This is because, to retain voting rights, a person under guardianship must demonstrate the capacity to vote; thus placement under guardianship in some states automatically terminates voting rights.
Recently, Arizona’s Court of Appeals addressed this issue, holding it unconstitutional to automatically terminate an individual’s voting rights under guardianship. Instead, the state or the guardian must now demonstrate that the individual lacks the capacity to vote before terminating voting rights. This further secures voting rights for those with ID/DD by prohibiting the state from essentially terminating the person’s voting rights simply because a court determined the individual is “incompetent.”
Another challenge is states restricting access to absentee ballot voting. Many individuals with ID/DD require assistance with daily activities, including reading, writing, and transportation. States have passed statutes limiting a person’s choice of who assists them with voting via absentee ballot, significantly impacting their autonomy and voting ability. Voting is a highly personal choice, and restricting an individual’s right to choose who helps them violates the essence of voting. In a win for ID/DD voting rights, two recent decisions from Federal Courts enjoined Texas and Ohio from enacting laws inhibiting a person’s choice in whom assists them with absentee ballot voting. The courts held that both statutes violate the Voting Rights Act.
These small steps protect the voting rights of individuals with ID/DD and assist with integration and acceptance. These advancements demonstrate that, while some people may need assistance with their daily needs, that does not preclude them from having their voice heard at the ballot box.
All blog posts are opinion pieces produced by Associate Editors, and any and all beliefs expressed solely reflect the view(s) of the individual author. These publications do not reflect the official view(s) of the Law Journal for Social Justice, or any other organization, institution, or individual.
