Judge denies three women right to vote > Mentally ill with guardians requested federal injunction

BANGOR – A federal judge on Friday denied the request of three mentally ill women for a preliminary injunction that would have allowed them to vote in the Nov. 7 election.

U.S. District Court Judge George Singal’s written ruling comes less than two weeks before Maine voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to allow those under guardianship for mental illness to vote.

In his ruling, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Bangor, Singal cited the potential effect on the validity of the coming election as one reason for denying the request.

“If it were later determined that the disenfranchisement of the plaintiffs was constitutionally valid, there would be no way to change or delete the votes that had been improperly cast,” Singal wrote. “This effect on the outcome of the election would undeniably have a negative effect on the public.”

The three women, identified only as Jane Doe, Jill Doe and June Doe from Bangor and Limestone, are prevented from casting their ballots by a 35-year-old provision of the Maine Constitution that denies voting rights to those under guardianship for mental illness.

The Maine Disability Rights Center earlier this month brought the federal lawsuit on behalf of the three plaintiffs to overturn the constitutional amendment, saying it unfairly singled out mentally ill people regardless of their ability to understand the voting process.

In Maine, there are estimated to be fewer than 1,000 mentally ill people who are under guardianship. Mentally ill people who do not need guardians can vote, as can Mainers who have guardians for reasons other than mental illness, such as mental retardation, brain injuries or Alzheimer’s disease.

Kristin Aiello, the Augusta attorney representing the three women, said Friday she was disappointed by the judge’s ruling on the injunction, but remained confident that her clients would prevail when the court hears the full case.

“My clients wanted to vote, especially considering that [Question 5] is a question that affects their personal rights,” said Aiello, adding that Friday’s ruling is a minor setback for her case, but not for her clients. “It’s a real shame, and they won’t be able to weigh in on it.”

But Aiello would not have to go to court should voters this Election Day opt to overturn the constitutional provision, added in 1965. In contrast, paupers and those under guardianship for other reasons were given the right to vote that year.

Question 5 on the November ballot will read, “Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to end discrimination against persons under guardianship for mental illness for the purpose of voting?”

In 1997, Maine voters rejected a similar proposal, 58 percent to 42 percent. Recent polls suggest potential voters are deadlocked on the issue.

In denying the injunction, Singal also noted the potential effect his decision could have on the outcome of the Question 5 vote. He declined to speculate on what the impact could be on the vote.

“Any decision by this court granting … a preliminary injunction could be read as suggesting that the provision is unconstitutional,” Singal wrote. “Given this potential adverse effect, the best course of action is for the court to exercise judicial restraint.”

Singal also wrote, “Faced with difficult questions of law, the Court must conclude that on the current record it is not clear that either party has a substantial likelihood for success on the merits” of the case.

Assistant Attorney General William Stokes said the he was pleased with the judge’s ruling, because state law was designed to prevent only those incapacitated by mental illness from voting.

In their oral arguments before Singal earlier this week, state attorneys stressed that the three women potentially could vote on Nov. 7 if they returned to probate court to amend their guardianships.

“There’s a process in place that could give these plaintiffs the relief they’re seeking,” said Stokes, who acknowledged that it was unclear how the probate judges have been dealing with the specific area of voting when determining a need for guardianship.

“We don’t have to invalidate the constitution to fix that,” Stokes said of the plaintiff’s argument that probate judges rarely address the issue of voting in guardianship hearings. “We can simply educate the probate court and those specifically addressed by the provision.”

Under Maine law, if the three women were to vote or attempt to vote, they could face five years in prison or a $5,000 fine.

Maine is one of two states that prohibit those under guardianship for mental illness from voting. Thirty-one other states, including the District of Columbia, have laws on the books that prevent the mentally incompetent from voting.

Aiello said Friday she hoped voters would turn out Nov. 7 to strike down Maine’s law.

“It would be a nice message to send to my clients that we don’t want this kind of discrimination to continue,” she said.