Judge Jay Quam's order is a victory for Brian W. Erickson, who suffers from schizophrenia and is under guardianship but remains high-functioning. It's the second court ruling in the past two months that affirms voting rights among people who have court-appointed decision-makers.
An attorney for Erickson's guardian this year challenged Article VII of the state Constitution that bans a number of classes of people from voting, including those "under guardianship." That article contradicts language in state statutes that guarantees wards' right to vote unless it's taken away by a judge.
An estimated 22,000 Minnesotans have guardians because of advanced dementia, mental illness and other disabilities. In a 26-page order, Quam ruled that the language in the Minnesota Constitution is too broad.
Full Article and Source:
Judge says Minnesota man with guardian can vote
4 comments:
I am all for everyone retaining the right to vote, but in guardianship, if a person can't control his/her money, how then can he/she make an informed decision on how to vote?
I wouldn't have thought about this. We think of voting as being our most Constitutional right, but what about the right to freedom and/or due process of law?
I wonder if the 'ward' will have someone help him vote?
This is ironic isn't it?
A ward cannot enter into a contract, make decisions about his/her person or estate but the ward has capacity to vote?
Or is this ruling showing that voting doesn't take any thought process or decision making?
You be the judge but I can see this is a doubled edged sword yes you can, but no you can't.
Which way is it?
Which way is it? Ridiculous!
Post a Comment