“I want to be a citizen just like any other,” said a disabled Peruvian woman in an interview with the Human Rights Watch. Her statement specifically applies to voting impediments that prevent her from participating in Peruvian elections. In 10 words, she eloquently summarized the most pressing side effect of systematic voter suppression in reference to disabled people; they are rendered second-class citizens.

Second-class citizenship is not a novel trend. A shocking one-fifth of the current American electorate struggles to vote, a good percentage of which include disabled citizens. Although one in four adults is considered disabled, there is a striking absence in discussion about guaranteeing political rights to those with disabilities, and blatant breaches of democratic justice often go unaddressed. The core effect of this systematic voter suppression is simple. Disabled voters are stripped of their voices in democratic processes, effectively becoming second class citizens.

The 2020 Election perfectly demonstrated the unequal status of voters in America and the way in which disabled citizens are constantly treated as lesser. Throughout the voting process, the government abnegated civil rights in appalling ways. President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Sherrilyn Iffil, remarked that “I don’t know that it gets more stark, really more humiliating for us as a democracy,” when questioned about the state of voting rights in reference to the 2020 election. She made a haunting comparison between the voter suppression of today and the voting suppression of the 1900s, where novel constitutions designed to exclude African Americans were implemented.

Concerns appeared even before the election even began. Although voter suppression has been present since the genesis of our country, current circumstances (namely incumbent leadership and coronavirus) have exacerbated disenfranchisement to unthinkable extents. Coronavirus has made in-person voting unsafe for Americans. Thus, establishing streamlined and federally supported alternatives is quintessential to ensuring a fair, accessible election process. Unfortunately, many of those who hold power seem determined to degrade alternatives and distress turnout. In fact, roughly 75% of the decisions made by Trump affiliated officials maintained or enhanced restrictions to the ballot, directly increasing risks of voter suppression. Leading up to the election, President Trump was particularly apprehensive of mail in voting, citing fraud as a clear disqualifier of mail-in ballots (despite empirics establishing mail in voting as reliable and nonpartisan). On Election Day 2020, upwards of 40 states had mail in ballot systems that were inaccessible to disabled voters. Malfeasance didn’t stop there. Trump’s administration and allies engaged in a staggering 40 voting and ballot course cases aimed to impede access to voting before the election even began. Benjamin Ginsberg, a Republican election attorney, remarked that they have taken a grand total of zero efforts to increase the accessibility of voting. Trump’s administration is currently fighting to nullify a grand total of 5.2 million already counted votes. Officials associated with Trump are responsible for a confounding amount of attacks on democratic integrity—attacks that directly hurt disabled communities, and contribute to what CNN has referred to as “a war on the disabled.” Shelby County v. Holder, a Supreme Court decision that subverted the Voting Rights Act, was a portent of this subsequent disenfranchisement.

Ableist voter suppression is not unique to America. Ableist voting procedures manifest internationally in ways eerily similar to that of the 2020 election. Ubiquitously, the predominant barriers to voting are governmental bans on disabled suffrage and physical obstructions. Governmental bans typically refer to legal statements that prohibit those with disabilities from voting. Several countries have exclusion of disabled votes written into their foundational judiciary documents. In 16 member states of the EU, individuals with mental health afflictions or intellectual disabilities are not permitted to engage in elections. An estimated 800,000 citizens with mental health afflictions and intellectual disabilities are legally barred from voting. Seven American states prohibit “idiots” and those who are not of “quiet and peaceable behavior” from voting. In a breach of international law, the High Court of Australia decreed that anyone of “unsound mind” was not eligible to engage in the compulsory voting system due to a threat of voter fraud. The category of unsound mind is purposefully broad and is used by the High Courts to describe Australian citizens who are perfectly capable of engaging in democratic process and have an expressed desire to vote. There has been no evidence found which suggests that individuals with mental illnesses and mental disabilities (i.e. of unsound mind) would contribute to voter fraud. Disabled voters who have their rights taken must engage in a tedious and often ridiculous set of steps in order to regain their voice in the political process. One Spanish citizen recalled being asked to recall the speed of light in order to repossess his right to vote. Many citizens never get their voting rights back. Outdated and ableist language abounds in voting laws and procedures internationally. The listed examples are a brief excerpt of the inordinate, even overwhelming contemporary crisis in voting that remains largely unaddressed. And even if such blatant denial of democratic rights is rectified on paper, it doesn’t mean it’ll be rectified in practice. Despite legal requirements, on Election Day in 2016, two-thirds of polling places had impediments and were not properly equipped to ADA and the Voting Rights Act’s standards. On Election Day 2020, curbside voting in Alabama, an essential alternative for disabled voters, was banned by the Supreme Court in an unprecedented and shocking 5-3 decision. Complications with mail in ballots were frighteningly frequent and many polling places closed—several of the ones that didn’t remained inaccessible. An European Parliament election report found that millions of disabled EU citizens were physically barred from voting due to inaccessibility. In 18 EU states, blind voters are given no avenue of issuing an independent vote. Instances of inaccessibility are prevalent worldwide and prevent disabled citizens from having political influence.

It goes without saying that a democracy is for the people, by the people. A government in which certain citizens are unfairly stripped of their inherent right to govern ceases to be a true democracy. The issue of disabled suffrage is one that all members of democracy, including non-disabled ones, must address and attempt to alleviate if we truly care about upholding democratic values. Stanford Law Review describes those with disabilities as the “ticking time bomb of the electorate,” since up to 35% of American citizens will require accommodation to vote within the next 25 years. They emphasize that rectifying voting issues for those with disabilities is a step towards solving structural flaws in our democratic system and will benefit all citizens, not just the disabled. Sharif and Hing, researchers of UCLA and the University of California, declare that “power and health are interconnected—and so are health and voter suppression…for instance, thirteen states that passed suppressive voting laws also decided against expanding Medicaid benefits under the Affordable Care Act suggesting that voter suppression may reinforce the passing of adverse health policies.” The necessity of ensuring equality in voting access becomes all the more pressing in light of such correlations. Without political influence only obtainable through voting, disabled citizens have no ability to ascertain genuine political and social equality. Thus, until the crisis of unequal voting is addressed, second-class citizenship will prevail.

Mentioned Links

Grainne is a high-school senior who enjoys writing about a variety of subjects, including ableism and its interactions with different facets of life. She is an advocate for human rights in her community, and is an ardent lobbyist, and participates in several grassroots organizations in an attempt to create positive change.

1 Comment