A hard case for the ethics of supported voting: Cognitive and communicative disabilities, and incommunicability (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Democratic Life of the Union: Toward Equal Voting Participation for Europeans with Disabilities
This Article puts forward preliminary legal scholarship on equal political participation by persons with disabilities and what international human rights law requires for its attainment. The goal is to provoke an informed dialogue on the neglected but fundamental human right to enfranchisement by persons with disabilities while also acknowledging that a complete and just resolution requires further information and reflection. The Article argues that the fundamental right to vote cannot be curtailed on the basis of an alleged lack of capacity. Disenfranchisement based on individual assessment unjustly excludes a certain number of voting-capable individuals. Since all those affected are persons with disabilities, this violates the requirement of equality expressed in general international human rights law that recently was explicitly extended to cover disability. The Article also pushes the discussion forward by delving into the controversial and unsettling notion of proxy voting, suggested by philosopher Martha Nussbaum. Although a small number of individuals cannot currently be accommodated in the electoral process, this does not justify their disenfranchisement. Nor does it warrant a more intrusive measure, such as voting by proxy. In no circumstance should their situation justify singling out voting-incapable persons from other individuals or categorizing them differently before the law. Although the focus is often seen through a European lens, the questions raised are pertinent for the exercise of human rights by persons with disabilities around the globe.
Contemporary Voting Rights Controversies Through the Lens of Disability
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
People with disabilities are the ticking time bomb of the electorate. An estimated thirty to thirty-five percent of all voters in the next twenty-five years will need some form of accommodation. Despite the significant and growing population of voters with disabilities, they do not vote in proportion to their numbers. We can consider voters with disabilities as "the canaries in the coal mine," the people who are an advanced warning of the structural difficulties in voting not just for themselves, but also for the system as a whole. Solving problems in voting for people with disabilities will strengthen the entire system and will help improve the voting process for everyone, especially people from disempowered communities. Furthermore, although election law scholars have largely ignored the unique voting problems confronting voters with disabilities, virtually every major voting controversy in contemporary American electoral politics directly implicates issues of disability.
Facilitating an Equal Right to Vote for Persons with Disabilities
Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2014
Historically and contemporaneously, persons with disabilities have been excluded from exercising their human rights, including the right to political participation. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities responds to this circumstance and provides a holistic solution. Article 29 addresses the design and implementation of an electoral process that is non-discriminatory, while also requiring states to provide voters with disability-related accommodations and other facilitative measures to enable their equal right to vote. Yet to date, what little attention has been paid to the voting rights of disabled persons has focused on the validity and scope of exclusions, and neither courts nor legislators have turned to the positive side of the ledger, namely, how to enable individuals with disabilities to exercise their franchise. Emerging practices around the globe nonetheless bear out that persons with disabilities can be successfully incorporated in all phases of an electoral process. Further, they can perform a variety of roles beyond exercising the franchise-as voter educators, election commissioners, observers, monitors and committee members, and as candidates. The article reflects evolving state policies and practices by disabled people's organizations, and draws on our experience working in this field to provide guidance for disability inclusion throughout the ongoing process of pre-electoral, electoral and post-electoral phases that comprise the electoral cycle.
Unequal Consenters and Political Illegitimacy
Debates about how to incorporate the severely cognitively disabled into liberal theory typically focus on John Rawls’s assumption that citizens choosing the principles of justice should be understood as full social cooperators. In this paper, we argue that social cooperation is not the fundamental barrier to the inclusion of the severely cognitively disabled. We argue that these persons are excluded from the entire project of liberal legitimacy in virtue of the apparent inability of a severely cognitively disabled person to understand and evaluate the legitimacy of political principles for herself. Severely cognitively disabled persons lack a kind of access to political principles that is crucial, according to liberal theory, for political principles to be legitimate to someone, and not simply for someone.
Social Policy and Society, 13 (2), 2014
"People with cognitive impairments are regularly denied access to the vote in democratic nations. At the same time, the accuracy of legal regulations is uncertain due to the variety of legal classifications and the vague administrative procedures envisaged for their implementation. This article offers an extensive analysis of the accuracy of legal restrictions on the vote for people with cognitive impairments in all electoral democracies. The article argues that the prospect of ever regulating the vote accurately, in the sense of avoiding both misclassifications and arbitrary administration of restrictions, is difficult to envisage. In the face of the regulatory problems associated with the attempt to restrict the vote for people with cognitive impairment, it is concluded that enfranchisement of all adult citizens would constitute an improvement."
Most electoral democracies, including forty-three states in the United States, deny people the right to vote on the basis of intellectual disability or mental illness. Scholars in several fields have addressed these disenfranchisements, including legal scholars who analyze their validity under U.S. constitutional law and international-human-rights law, philosophers and political scientists who analyze their validity under democratic theory, and mental-health researchers who analyze their relationship to scientific categories. This Note reviews the current state of the debate across these fields and makes three contentions: (a) pragmatic political considerations have blurred the distinction between disenfranchisement provisions based on cognitive capacity and those based on personal status; (b) proposals that advocate voting by proxy trivialize the broad civic purpose of the franchise; and (c) the persistence of disenfranchisement on the basis of mental illness inevitably contributes to silencing socially disfavored views and lifestyles. Accordingly, the Note cautions reformers against advocating for capacity assessment or proxy voting, and emphasizes the importance of disassociating the idea of mental illness from voting capacity. * New York University Law School, J.D. expected 2017.
Disability Rights and Election Observation: Increasing Access to the Political Process
Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 2017
According to the World Health Organization and the World Bank, people with disabilities comprise approximately 15% of the world's populationhowever, these one billion people are often excluded from political life. Disability-inclusive election observation provides the opportunity to address barriers to political participation and to empower men and women with disabilities to serve in leadership roles. This paper will summarise the key international and regional standards that outline the political rights of people with disabilities and explore the extent to which International Electoral Observation Missions (IEOMs) are inclusive. It will review observation checklists, as well as available methodologies of IEOMs. Based on this review and the authors' election access observation experience, this paper will identify areas where inclusion of people with disabilities in election observation could be improved, thereby leading to increased access to the political process.
Disability and Society , 2019
Online voting platforms have been introduced in some locations as the solution to the many barriers to political participation that disabled people continue to face. Reading the experiences of disabled student voters on university campuses alongside broader trends in electoral reform taking place in jurisdictions across Canada allows us to attend to the dangerous ways in which conversations around access have been limited through virtual solutions that encourage the physical absence of disabled voters. This article situates these absences alongside other categories of exclusion – including groups who are formally disenfranchised – and recalls many unstated values that are active in shaping citizenship cultures. Probing online voting through a critical disability angle, we present a critique of techno-fixes that builds upon broader notions of accessibility and inclusion.