Wider voting rights

Article II of Maine’s Constitution, written in 1820, gave the authority to vote “to every male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, excepting paupers, persons under guardianship, and Indians not taxed, having his residence established in this state for the term of three months next preceeding any election … .” Advocates for the mentally ill properly want to do away with one of the last qualifiers.

The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution took care of the “male citizen” limit in 1919. Indians gained the right to vote in 1954; paupers got that right in 1965. The age requirement was dropped to 18 in 1971, and the duration of residency was dropped in 1973. A question on November’s ballot would eliminate the guardianship clause, allowing the few mentally ill who have guardians the right to vote.

The question on the ballot will read as follows: “Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to remove language providing that all persons under guardianship for reasons of mental illness are disqualified from voting?” Though there is no organized opposition to the question yet, some Maine voters may wonder whether these fellow residents are capable of voting.

The natural impulse to restrict from voting people with serious mental illness and who require guardians is based on the idea of preserving the vote for those who can make an informed choice on the ballot. But the distinction between the mentally ill under guardianship and those without guardians is a false one where voting is concerned. Sometimes guardians are appointed to handle money questions or other basic needs that do not impair the ability fo a person to choose a candidate.

This ballot question arose because four mentally ill people in South Portland were interested enough in the process to register to vote. They were turned away when it was learned they were under guardianship. The fact that they showed enough interest in voting to try to register already demonstrates that this group is ahead of a sizable portion of Maine adults, who have yet to figure out that participatory democracy depends on participation.

Further, besides the assumed level of maturity reached by age 18, Maine’s law does not take into account a voter’s ability to make an informed decision. An adult resident of Maine who has never given a candidate or issue a moment’s thought is as welcome at the polling place as someone who follows politics closely. That lack of interest is not something to encourage, but it is the state of the law for everyone else.

Maine has consistently chipped away at distinctions that prevented its residents from voting. The guardianship provision is the final restriction. It no longer serves a useful purpose, if it ever did. Voters can take the opportunity to drop it from the constitution when they go to the polls themselves in November.