Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:31:44.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Accuracy of Electoral Regulations: The Case of the Right to Vote by People with Cognitive Impairments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Ludvig Beckman
Ludvig Beckman*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stockholm University E-mail: Ludvig.beckman@statsvet.su.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Voting rightscognitive impairmentregulatory problemarbitrariness
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 221 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alajos Kiss v. Hungary (2010) ‘Application no. 38832/06’, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, P. (2000) ‘I vote, I count: mental disability and the right to vote’, Psychiatric Services, 51, 7, 849–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appelbaum, P. S., Bonnie, R. J. and Karlawish, J. H. (2005) ‘The capacity to vote of persons with Alzheimer's disease’, American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 11, 2094–100.Google Scholar
Barclay, L. (2013) ‘Cognitive impairment and the right to vote: a strategic approach’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 30, 2, 146–59.Google Scholar
Berg, J. W., Appelbaum, P. S. And Grisso, T. (1996) ‘Constructing competence: formulating standards of legal competence to make medical decisions’, Rutgers Law Review, 48, 2, 345–71.Google Scholar
Brescia, N. F. (2010) ‘Modernizing state voting laws that disenfranchise the mentally disabled with the aid of past suffrage movements’, St Louis University Law Journal, 54, 3, 943–66.Google Scholar
Calcedo-Barba, A., Garcia-Solano, F., Fraguas, D. and Chapela, E. (2007) ‘On measuring incapacity’, Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 20, 501–06.Google Scholar
Carter, B. (2010) ‘Adult guardianship: human rights or social justice’, Journal of Law and Medicine, 18, 1, 143–55.Google ScholarPubMed
Dahl, R. (1989) Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diver, C. S. (1983) ‘The optimal precision of administrative law’, The Yale Law Journal, 93, 1, 65–109.Google Scholar
Fon, V. and Parisi, F. (2007) ‘On the optimal specificity of legal rules’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3, 2, 147–64.Google Scholar
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2010) The Right to Political Participation of Persons with Mental Health Problems and Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, Vienna: FRA.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (1985) ‘Erring on the side of kindness in social welfare policy’, Policy Sciences, 18, 2, 141–56.Google Scholar
Henderson, V. W. and Drachman, D. A. (2002) ‘Dementia, butterfly ballots, and voter competence’, Neurology, 58, 7, 1100–2.Google Scholar
Human Rights Council (2012) Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Participation in Political and Public Life, HRC/19/l.9/rev.1, New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Hurme, S. B. and Appelbaum, P. S. (2007) ‘Defining and assessing capacity to vote: the effect of mental impairment on the rights of voters’, McGeorge Law Review, 38, 931–1014.Google Scholar
Joseph, S. (2010) ‘Civil and political rights’, in Baderin, M. A. and Ssenyonjo, M. (eds.), International Human Rights Law: Six Decades after the UDHR and Beyond, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 89–106.Google Scholar
Karlawish, J. H. and Bonnie, R. J. (2007) ‘Voting by elderly persons with cognitive impairment: lessons from other democratic nations’, McGeorge Law Review, 38, 879–916.Google Scholar
Karlawish, J. H.et al. (2004) ‘Addressing the ethical, legal and social issues raised by voting by persons with dementia’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 292, 11, 1345–50.Google Scholar
Keeley, H.et al. (2007) ‘Participation in the 2005 general election by adults with intellectual disabilities’, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 3, 52, 175–81.Google Scholar
Kelley, R. (2010) ‘Toward an unconditional right to vote for persons with mental disabilities: reconciling state law with constitutional guarantees’, Boston College Third World Law Journal, 30, 2, 359–94Google Scholar
Kohn, N. (2008) ‘Cognitive impairment and the right to vote: rethinking the meaning of accessible elections’, Canadian Journal of Elderly Law, 1, 1, 29–52.Google Scholar
Lopez-Guerra, C. (2012) ‘Enfranchising minors and the mentally impaired’, Social Theory and Practice, 1, 38, 115–38.Google Scholar
Massicotte, L., Blais, A. and Yoshinaka, A. (2004) Establishing the Rules of the Game: Elections Laws in Democracies, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1861) Considerations on Representative Government, Reprint, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991.Google Scholar
Munck, G. (2009) Measuring Democracy, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. (2005) U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR Commentary, second revised edition, Arlington: N.P. Engel.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (2009) ‘The capabilities approach to people with cognitive disabilities’, Metaphilosophy, 40, 3–4, 331–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmenter, T. (2011) ‘What is intellectual disability? How is it assessed and classified?’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58, 3, 303–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redley, M. (2008) ‘Citizens with learning disabilities and the right to vote’, Disability and Society, 23, 4, 375–84.Google Scholar
Redley, M., Hughes, J. C. and Holland, A. (2010) ‘Voting and mental capacity’, British Medical Journal, 341, c4085, 466–77.Google Scholar
Redley, M., Maina, E., Keeling, A. and Pattni, P. (2012) ‘The voting rights of adults with intellectual disabilities: reflections on the arguments, and situation in Kenya and England and Wales’, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 2, 1026–35.Google Scholar
Schriner, K., Ochs, L. and Shields, T. (1997) ‘The last suffrage movement: voting rights for persons with cognitive and emotional disabilities’, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 27, 3, 75–96.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (1995) ‘Problems with rules’, California Law Review, 83, 4, 953–1026.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2006) ‘Two conceptions of procedural fairness’, Social Research, 73, 2, 619–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiraboschi, P., Chitò, E, Sacco, L., Sala, M., Stefanini, S. and Defanti, C. A. (2011) ‘Evaluating voting competence in persons with Alzheimer disease’, International Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 1–6, doi:10.4061/2011/983895.Google Scholar
Tucker, A. (2012) ‘Scarce justice: the accuracy, scope and depth of justice’, Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 11, 1, 76–96.Google Scholar
Vyhnánek, L. (2010) ‘Mental disability and the right to vote in Europe: a few notes on the recent development’, unpublished mimeo, Brno, Czech Republic: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
Wright, G. R. (2010) ‘Arbitrariness: why the most important idea in administrative law can't be defined, and what this means for the law in general’, University of Richmond Law Review, 44, 2, 839–65.Google Scholar