Voter restriction unconstitutional Ruling lets mentally ill cast ballots

BANGOR – A federal judge on Friday struck down a section of the Maine Constitution that prohibited those under guardianship for mental illness from voting.

In a 41-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge George Z. Singal found that the state’s restriction, adopted in 1965, was unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal law by unjustly denying a group of mentally ill people the right to vote.

“In short, the state has disenfranchised a subset of mentally ill citizens based on a stereotype rather than any actual relevant incapacity,” Singal wrote in his decision, filed Friday in the Bangor court. “Such state action cannot survive strict scrutiny because there is no factually valid correlation between the ends and the means.”

The ruling ended a court battle for three mentally ill women from Bangor and Limestone who in October sued the state in hopes of overturning the ban. The women – identified only as Jane, Jill and June Doe – said the restriction unfairly singled out the mentally ill regardless of their ability to understand the voting process.

Singal’s decision allows the three women and all those under guardianship for mental illness to vote in November’s election.

Kristin Aiello, an attorney with the Maine Disability Rights Center, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the three women, said the ruling could have far-reaching effects by sparking challenges of similar restrictions in other states.

“This is a great victory not only for my clients, but all people who have been discriminated against over the years,” Aiello said. “No longer will people who have mental illnesses go to the polls and wonder if they can vote or be challenged because they look like they have a disability.

“There were simply different standards for the mentally ill, and that was disturbing,” she said, contending that under the law people under guardianship for other reasons – including mental retardation or Alzheimer’s disease – could vote regardless of their ability to understand the voting process.

Before Singal’s ruling, Maine voters had twice rejected attempts to remove the restriction, most recently in November with 40 percent in favor and 60 percent opposed. Percentages were similar in a 1997 effort to lift the ban, added in 1965 when paupers gained the right to vote.

State attorneys, charged with defending the Maine Constitution, had argued that probate judges should have the power to determine whether an individual under guardianship had the capacity to vote.

Maine Attorney General G. Steven Rowe said in a statement released Friday that his office at present was not inclined to appeal the ruling, but would review the opinion before making a final decision.

“Our intent was to show that the provision could be narrowly construed so as to deprive fewer people of the right to vote while abiding by the U.S. Constitution and the will of Maine voters,” said Rowe, who while in the Legislature co-sponsored legislation that sent the matter out to referendum. “While our argument did not prevail, I am not personally disappointed with the outcome of the case.”

Singal’s decision leaves only Maryland with an enforceable voting restriction on those under guardianship for mental disability, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Thirty-one other states and the District of Columbia don’t have the guardianship restriction, but have similar laws preventing those judged to be “mentally incompetent” from voting. A few other states, including Wisconsin, Kansas, New Mexico and Massachusetts, require that a person must be found to be incompetent in the specific area of voting before being denied the right.

Nearby Vermont has no restrictions on voting other than normal citizenship and age requirements, and neighboring New Hampshire prohibits only convicted felons from voting.

In striking down Maine’s restriction, Singal ruled it violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Domna Giatas, a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State’s Office, said the department would comply with the ruling and instruct local election officials of the change.