Implementing a capacity metric for those with diminished mental capacity comes with inherent risks. Ideally, states should amend their constitutions and statutes to remove voting restrictions based on mental incapacity. Realistically, for states that wish to continue implementing voting restrictions based on mental incapacity, they should implement the ABA’s recommendation absent the third criterion. This method would serve to create uniform standards implemented by the judiciary and deter informal gatekeeping. Mobilization and advocacy through education and non-legislative initiatives should occur to promote enfranchisement and encourage those with diminished mental capacity to vote, thereby cementing their inclusion in society and dismantling the continuation of stigma.
Continue reading “Voting Rights for People with Diminished Mental Capacity”Tag: Voting Rights
Felon Disenfranchisement: What Federal Courts Got Wrong and How State Courts Can Address It
In recent years, the country’s discourse around felon disenfranchisement has gained significant attention. Around the country, courts have addressed this issue in various forms. In nearly every case, felon disenfranchisement laws have been upheld. This Paper joins the discussion regarding the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement. While much of the litigation to date has centered on rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, this Paper focuses on the Minnesota Constitution. In a recent Minnesota district court case, Schroeder v. Minnesota Secretary of State, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Minnesota Secretary of State, Steve Simon, arguing that Minnesota’s felon disenfranchisement statute violates the Minnesota Constitution. The Ramsey County court dismissed the case on August 19, 2020. This Paper argues that the district court erred in dismissing the case. In its order, the court relied on a narrow definition of fundamental rights, a selective historical analysis, and a national rather than international legal comparison. The court ultimately held that the power to regulate felon disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement lies
exclusively with the legislative branch. While this may be true to an extent, this Paper argues that the legislature’s ability to regulate enfranchisement cannot go unconstrained. Indeed, it is the court’s job to ensure that the legislative branch operates within its constitutional limits.
Wisconsin’s 3/5 Compromise: Prison Gerrymandering in Wisconsin Dilutes Minority Votes to Inflate White Districts’ Population
Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN. James Madison wrote The Federalist No. 54 defending the infamous three-fifths compromise, which allowed White southern slaveowners to aggregate political power on the backs of their Black slaves, without representing their interests in any substantive way.
Continue reading “Wisconsin’s 3/5 Compromise: Prison Gerrymandering in Wisconsin Dilutes Minority Votes to Inflate White Districts’ Population”