Attorney general ridiculed for voting stance

BREWER – Advocates for the mentally retarded on Wednesday blasted the Maine attorney general’s position that the state’s decades-old voting restriction for those under guardianship for mental illness be broadened to those incapacitated for other reasons.

“Labels should be put on jars, not on people,” said Bangor native Marianne Preble, co-chairwoman of Speaking Up for Us, a self-advocacy group for those with developmental disabilities. “People with mental retardation should be able to vote. I think that all voices should be heard.”

Wednesday’s voting-rights rally drew more than 80 people to Jeff’s Catering in Brewer, where advocates seized on the attorney general’s recent interpretation of the Maine Constitution, which prohibits those “under guardianship for reasons of mental illness” from voting.

In defending an ongoing federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the provision, state attorneys argued that the measure did not unfairly single out those labeled as mentally ill, but applied to anyone judged incapable of understanding the voting process – potentially including a mentally retarded person who has been assigned a guardian.

Maine Attorney General G. Steven Rowe stressed in a Wednesday interview that the state’s interpretation did not prohibit an entire group from voting, as guardianship and a person’s ability to vote is determined on a case-by-case basis in Probate Court.

“History suggests that [the restriction] only applies to an individual with a lack of mental capacity to understand the nature and effect of the act of voting,” said Rowe, who as a lawmaker cosponsored legislation that sent the matter out to referendum. “We’re charged with defending the constitution, and that’s the position we have taken.

“I know there are people who are concerned,” he continued. “This is a tough issue.”

Kristin Aiello, an attorney with the Maine Disability Rights Center in Augusta, said Wednesday that the attorney general’s take on the law had the potential of disenfranchising thousands, many of whom have enjoyed the right to vote for decades.

“They say they’re defending the constitution, but they’re destroying the constitution,” said Aiello, who represents three mentally ill women from Bangor and Limestone in a federal lawsuit looking to overturn the restriction. “When you have a situation where a group has been able to vote all along, and then tell them that they can’t, it’s discrimination.”

Seemingly contrary to the attorney general’s interpretation, the Secretary of State’s Office, which oversees elections, has used a narrow definition of “mental illness” when determining who should be excluded from voting, according to officials there.

Under this interpretation, which expressly grants those under guardianship for mental retardation the right to vote, the restriction is thought to affect fewer than 1,000 people.

Domna Giatas, a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State’s Office, said the department would wait for the federal court’s ruling before amending its practices.

Maine voters twice have rejected efforts to repeal the constitutional provision, which was added in 1965 when paupers were granted the right to vote.

In November, 40 percent of Maine voters supported removing the restriction, with 60 percent opposed. The percentages were similar in a 1997 effort to amend the constitution.

Maine and Maryland are the only states that specifically prevent people under guardianship for mental illness or mental disability from voting, according to the Federal Election Commission.

The majority of states do place voting restrictions on the mentally incompetent. Only a few states have no restrictions other than age requirements.