They were right to be worried. Because of course they were.
As polls opened up for early voting this week, disability advocates say they still do not have adequate guidance from the state about new voter assistance rules and worry that the lack of clarity on what constitutes a violation might dissuade people who provide assistance services from helping voters with disabilities.
Republicans enacted restrictions last year on the state’s voting process, including rules on how Texans can assist voters when casting ballots. Texans assisting other voters must now fill out paperwork disclosing their relationship, indicate whether compensation was provided and recite an expanded oath, now under the penalty of perjury, stating that they did not “pressure or coerce” the voter into choosing them for assistance.
Texans who offer or accept compensation for providing voter assistance would be in violation of the new rules, creating anxiety among those who assist people with disabilities as part of their job.
“There are voters with disabilities who use their personal aides or personal attendants to assist them in completing daily tasks, and voting is a daily task,” said Molly Broadway, a voting rights training specialist at Disability Rights Texas, adding that she has already received calls from assistants afraid of incurring criminal charges for activities that are usually part of their duties. “It’s a very present, very real need that exists.”
Texans who drive at least seven voters to the polls are also considered assistants and must comply with new rules on compensation. Broadway said she has heard concerns from nursing home employees who provide transportation to polling places.
The new legislation also limits any kind of voter assistance to “reading the ballot to the voter, directing the voter to read the ballot, marking the voter’s ballot, or directing the voter to mark the ballot.” But voters with intellectual and developmental disabilities might need additional help, such as gestures or reminders about how they had intended to vote, to get through the process, Broadway said.
Broadway has instructed those providing assistance to sign the expanded oath, inform poll workers about the help they’re providing to the voter and reach out to county election offices and request additional accommodations when necessary.
If an assistant appears to be breaching the new rules, poll watchers have been instructed to inform their county’s election administration office. Upon reviewing the case, election administrators may reach out to authorities to investigate the case.
If there’s evidence that an assistant was paid for their services, Potter County elections administrator Melynn Huntley said she would need to refer the case to the attorney general.
“We gather screenshots or copies of the actual papers that may have been signed or not signed, and then we submit them to the appropriate enforcement authority,” Huntley explained.
Brazoria County election director Lisa Mujica said her office has trained clerks around the new regulations for voter assistance. If an assistant appears to be violating the rules, clerks are instructed to step in and educate them about the limitations of their role.
But Chase Bearden, the deputy executive director at the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities, said that’s part of the problem: Inadequate state guidance has created confusion among voters and leaves the responsibility of determining what may constitute a violation to election workers.
“At the end of the day, we aren’t sure how this is going to play out,” Bearden said. “We’re kind of in the dark and are hoping that most election workers will be fair and want to make sure that people get the assistance they need.”
The Coalition of Texans with Disabilities, Disability Rights Texas and other disability rights groups have said they have received little guidance from the secretary of state, which oversees elections, about the steps voters with disabilities should take if they need assistance that conflicts with the regulations established in the new rules.
See here for the background; don’t be confused by the bill number in that post, it became SB1 in the subsequent special session where it ultimately passed. There is of course a lawsuit filed by disability rights activists (among others) against this law, but it has not advanced to the point where action could be taken. (More on that lawsuit here.) Of course these issues were raised at the time, and of course bill authors Briscoe Cain and Bryan Hughes ignored them, because why would they care? And now, if a confused or poorly trained election worker decides that someone’s health assistant is violating the law, the matter may wind up in Ken Paxton’s hands, and we know how fairly and compassionately he handles these matters. So yeah, this is all a giant bag of suck. And that was the point.
“But voters with intellectual and developmental disabilities might need additional help, such as gestures or reminders about how they had intended to vote, to get through the process, Broadway said.”
How would we know it is the voter who intended to vote that way and not the helper’s preferences?
NON COMPOS MENTIS VOTING
Without getting into the specifics of what the current state of the law is, and how it is being implemented (not to mention “enforced”), let’s just point out that there is a categorical difference between physical impairment that merely makes the exercise of the right to vote difficult logistically, and intellectual impairment that goes to the choosing among candidates for office and votes on propositions itself.
Proxy voting
As for the latter, there are legal (public-policy) mechanisms already in place for a representative to act and make important decisions on behalf of the person unable to act on their own: guardian for ward, parent/next friend for minor, attorney-in-fact based on power of attorney.
If the mentally/cognitively impaired person has the right to vote, why shouldn’t that vote be cast by a qualified personal representative on that person’s behalf? Often that will be a family member in the best position to assure that the impaired voter’s interests are represented in the vote choice because they overlap with those of the family member (shared interest). And in the case of a guardian who is not a family member, there would presumably be a fiduciary duty, though not enforceable as long as the ballot cast by proxy is kept secret. If the guardian fails to perform that role faithfully otherwise (i.e., outside the voting context), he or she could be removed and replaced.
Do children count as citizens?
And while we are at it, why shouldn’t parents likewise be allowed to cast a vote for their minor children in addition to their own? Or half a vote (i.e. discounted 50%) in case of each child with two legal/presumed parents where no court has assigned the status of primary managing conservator to either.
Okay, so that franchise expansion may require a constitutional amendment, but that doesn’t mean it’s an idle thought, not to mention an unthinkable one in need of suppression.
Mainstream: remember when this was the argument against letting women vote?
Concern troll is concern trolling.
No, Joel, I do not remember similar arguments against women voting, since that happened in 1920 before my mother was even born. I am startled that folks are so unconcerned about whether the “representative” of the intellectually or otherwise disabled voter and the voter themselves in fact have the same political views and interests. We see plenty of examples of elder abuse and such “representatives” helping themselves to the bank accounts of their elderly relatives.
Unable to make logical decisions describes almost all Republican primary voters, as dumb, dumber, and dumbest.
A policy that approves the violent overthrow of our democracy, the new Soviet-loving Republican/Trump Party.
Mainstream: if you can know about things that happened before you were born, thank a history teacher.
If you don’t think those things are relevant to today’s issues, you might be a republican.
Mainstream: are you familiar with the difference between type I and type II errors?
Consider: as a society, why do we presume innocence at trial even when it might mean that some guilty people go free?
Re: “I am startled that folks are so unconcerned about whether the “representative” of the intellectually or otherwise disabled voter and the voter themselves in fact have the same political views and interests.”
What alternative to proxy voting (see policywonqueria above) are you suggesting?
Should the intellectually disabled be disenfranchised or infantilized so as to put them into the same category as minors ineligible to vote on account of age?
If so, where would it stop?
Re: “We see plenty of examples of elder abuse and such “representatives” helping themselves to the bank accounts of their elderly relatives”
How is the fact that some elder abuse happens, and is already criminal at least if egregious enough, a valid argument for depriving all potential victims of such abuse of their right to vote?
Nonsequitur?