Reply #13 By: LeapingLizard - 10/29/2004 6:16:03 PM Because who's to say that the guardian would vote for the person's choice? Well, yeah. But who's to say anything about anything that these people do. For all we know, a guardian could let someone in their care die, abuse them, etc. Guardians have the responsibility fo taking care of things in the best interest of those they guard. Whether or not they really do this is never clear, but nevertheless, it's their responsibility in every other facet of another person's life. Why should it stop at casting a vote?

BTW We have no say actually whether or not someone is doing their job as guardian. Only the court can do something about it!

BTW We have no say actually whether or not someone is doing their job as guardian. Only the court can do something about it!

Yeah, drmiler, I get it.

The courts, the courts, the courts. It's all about the courts. My point is that the courts are wrong.

ll

Reply #17 By: LeapingLizard - 10/31/2004 10:26:43 PM BTW We have no say actually whether or not someone is doing their job as guardian. Only the court can do something about it! Yeah, drmiler, I get it. The courts, the courts, the courts. It's all about the courts. My point is that the courts are wrong. ll

If we're still talking about voting? Having someone else vote for you is actually against federal law

Drmiler, you really have a problem with the idea of anyone having the right to an opinion don't you! Black people were once considered incapable of managing their own affairs too. I'd call that an error of judgment. The mentally ill have long faced marginalisation, and while this is improving, we have a long way to go. This highlights the way the Republican party believes in democracy...for some. But let me guess drmiler, I don't have the right to express that opinion without casting aspersions upon the entire nation of America.

Reply #19 By: Champas Socialist - 11/1/2004 3:39:17 AM Drmiler, you really have a problem with the idea of anyone having the right to an opinion don't you! Black people were once considered incapable of managing their own affairs too. I'd call that an error of judgment. The mentally ill have long faced marginalisation, and while this is improving, we have a long way to go. This highlights the way the Republican party believes in democracy...for some. But let me guess drmiler, I don't have the right to express that opinion without casting aspersions upon the entire nation of America.

What's this we shit? Obviously you haven't read the entire blog. So until you do maybe you should be quiet. Actually I believe you are the one with the problem not me.

If we're still talking about voting? Having someone else vote for you is actually against federal law

drmiller,

Yes, we are still talking about voting. Yes, I know that it is against federal law to have someone else vote for you. I think we all get that, since the original blog stated that some of the people that Rat works with were not going to be allowed to vote. The laws are wrong. Legal guardians of the people with disabilities should have the right to cast a vote for them. And, again, yes, I know that is against the law NOW. It should be changed. The guardians are responsible for everything else in these people lives, and that responsibility should not exclude casting a vote to represent these people. I see the problems that could be associated with this idea (starting but not limited to dishonest people), but despite those problems, people with disabilities, no mateer how severe, are still affected by the government and so should still be heard.

Reply #21 By: LeapingLizard - 11/1/2004 9:27:29 AM If we're still talking about voting? Having someone else vote for you is actually against federal law drmiller, Yes, we are still talking about voting. Yes, I know that it is against federal law to have someone else vote for you. I think we all get that, since the original blog stated that some of the people that Rat works with were not going to be allowed to vote. The laws are wrong. Legal guardians of the people with disabilities should have the right to cast a vote for them. And, again, yes, I know that is against the law NOW. It should be changed. The guardians are responsible for everything else in these people lives, and that responsibility should not exclude casting a vote to represent these people. I see the problems that could be associated with this idea (starting but not limited to dishonest people), but despite those problems, people with disabilities, no mateer how severe, are still affected by the government and so should still be heard.

Well lets start with if the person doesn't have the mental facilties to take control of their own life why do you then believe that they have the mental capacity do understand what the candidates stand for, let alone what each is talking about. Or the abilty to articulate their choice to a guardian? And the reason it will never be changed is because no one will be able to be 100% sure that they are voting the way their charge wants and not what the guardian thinks is right. The laws are correct and should stand the way they are.

Well lets start with if the person doesn't have the mental facilties to take control of their own life why do you then believe that they have the mental capacity do understand what the candidates stand for, let alone what each is talking about. Or the abilty to articulate their choice to a guardian? And the reason it will never be changed is because no one will be able to be 100% sure that they are voting the way their charge wants and not what the guardian thinks is right. The laws are correct and should stand the way they are.

I agree. We are talking about people that can't even pay their own bills. I do see the point that is trying to be made, but who is going to insure that the vote being made on the persons behalf is the vote the person wanted made. In many cases as far as persons in a nursing home or a home for the disabled, if the person expresses the wish to vote, they can, as long as they are menally fit to do so. In order to be mentaly disabled, you must have an IQ of 84 or less

IQ Classifications in Clinical Psychiatric Use

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)
American Psychiatric Association, 1994

Borderline Intellectual Functioning IQ 71-84
Mild Mental Retardation IQ 50-55 to approximately 70
Moderate Retardation IQ 35-40 to 50-55
Severe Mental Retardation IQ 20-25 to 35-40
Profound Mental Retardation IQ below 20 or 25
Link

If it's a guardianship issue that means they were judged incompetent of handling their own affairs and "someone" was appointed as guardian over them or given "guardianship" over those in question. And *that* is the reason they can't vote. Someone that has been judged incompetent to handle their own affairs shouldn't be allowed to vote.

drmiler is absolutely correct. As one who managed group homes for DD adults for 5 1/2 years, this issue arose repeatedly. Some individuals who had the right to vote would vote absentee and bring their ballots to staff to help them fill out.

The fact is, even many of the higher functioning DD adults are extremely prone to the suggestions of staff members of whom they are especially fond. While most that vote do make informed, intelligent decisions, the fact is, granting the right to vote to many who don't currently have them would lead to a LOT of extra votes for group home staff...given the fact that many such staff tend to vote democratic, I'm surprised the DNC hasn't pressed this issue further.

That is the whole point that I am trying to make. These people are labeled on rules that were set up long ago. Many of them are eldery as well as suffering from developmental disabilities. There rights have been taken away, not given away by themselves. Anyone who thinks that these people are incompetent are incompetent themselves

Actually issues such as competency are reviewed frequently, and the new rules apply to the competency review hearings. You would be surprised at the bureaucracy involved with many of these individuals. If someone feels they are competent to be their own guardian, they have the right to demand a review hearing, and these rights are posted in every CBRF and Adult Family Home that is licensed within each state (they're legally required to display these documents). I understand the reason for the questions you are asking, but you must realize that MOST (not all, that's another story about the injustice of the system and why I no longer work in that field), of the individuals declared incompetent have been declared as such for very good reasons.

I guess I have nothing else to say other than I can't support taking votes away (or never allowing) from people that have disabilities all together. Their guardians are responsisble and trusted for everything else in these peoples lives, right down to the sustianance of life itself, but they can't be trusted to cast a vote? Incredible.

Rat, you have my support in your questioning if such policy.

Reply #26 By: LeapingLizard - 11/1/2004 6:09:12 PM I guess I have nothing else to say other than I can't support taking votes away (or never allowing) from people that have disabilities all together. Their guardians are responsisble and trusted for everything else in these peoples lives, right down to the sustianance of life itself, but they can't be trusted to cast a vote? Incredible. Rat, you have my support in your questioning if such policy.

He can question all he wants. The policy is law and it ain't going to change anytime soon!

He can question all he wants. The policy is law and it ain't going to change anytime soon!

Freakin' A drmiller! I know! If you hammer this home one more time, I'm gonna freaking' puke. Nothing much changes...ever! That doesn't mean I think it's right though. And it's fine if you think it's a great policy...whatever....I accept that. I don't think it is, though. And despite that it is a law, and it isn't going to change soon, and that it is policy...and oh yeah...did I mention that it is the law, ya know like something that is enforceable and legal. BTW, you know, the courts make these kinds of decisions and cut offs, cause they are like laws, ya know, and the law stands. Laws, laws, laws. So, in case you hadn't noticed, I realize the policy is law. I am not happy with it. You don't have to tell me that it's a law again. Your last response doesn't even make sense in that it is practically unrelated to what I stated. You just reiterated that this is the law. And again, I gathered as much.

No personal offense intended, just give it a rest or say something new...please.

ll

I agree that they should not be able to vote. You say "were taking away their rights" well, they are not mentally capable to take care of basic habitation tasks, how can you expect them to make informed/educated decisions for society? There are people who make sure that they are taken care of, hence your job, so how can you say that they are being put in the dark and ignored by society?

Treatment of the people we classify as mentally ill has not come very far at all over the past few milennia. Society has never quite known what to do with these people. We fear them. They are just too darned different for our comfort levels. And so we use all sorts of excuses for what essentially amounts to bigotry.

We give people who are different labels such as "mentally ill", which basically gives us free reign to treat them however we want. Then we shunt them off into institutions so that we don't have to deal with them. It's as though they're not even human to us, they can't even be allowed to participate in society. Every sooften we change the way that we oppress them, but it all amounts to the same. People who know very little about these people making generalisations about them to justify their own bigotry.

" I think you have to consider children eligible too. "

Bloody oath we do! Bring it on!