Disabled Americans have long faced
barriers to voting, and recently enacted anti-voting state laws have
increased these barriers.1 A total of 79 restrictive voting laws were passed between 2021 and 2024,2 including constraints on who is allowed to assist with completing and returning a disabled person’s ballot in both Texas3 and Georgia4
in 2021. President Donald Trump is also considering ways to eliminate
mail-in voting, which would add to disabled voters’ current voting
barriers that already include physically inaccessible polling places and
heightened health risks.5
At the same time, some members of the disability community have already
had their voting rights stripped entirely due to state guardianship
laws. In many states, people under guardianship are automatically barred
from voting or may lose their rights at the discretion of a judge or
guardian. Guardianship can have sweeping consequences for the civil
rights of people with disabilities, including the loss of autonomy,
privacy, and political participation.
As part of the Center for American
Progress’ continued work on disabled people’s access to democracy, this
report analyzes how guardianships can significantly restrict the voting
rights of people with disabilities.6
It explores the legal processes by which guardianships are initiated
and how these processes can result in the loss of voting rights; the
lack of comprehensive data on guardianship; and the inconsistent and
inequitable ways voting restrictions are applied across states. The
report documents how state-level policies curtail voting access and
analyzes recent legislative activity on the voting rights of people
under guardianship. It also offers policy recommendations around
ensuring voting rights are preserved, expanding the use of supported
decision-making (SDM), and strengthening oversight of guardianship
proceedings. Ultimately, policymakers should work to eliminate the use
of guardianships and move to SDM agreements.7
What is guardianship?
Guardianship refers to a legal status in
which a court deems an individual “incapacitated” and allows for an
identified guardian to make decisions for the individual.8
There is no federal legislation establishing a consistent standard for
guardianship. Therefore, state laws and definitions surrounding
guardianship vary widely.9
States may also use different terminology when discussing
guardianships. However, in general, the arrangements can be categorized
in these ways:
- Guardianships that are focused on an individual:
The guardian makes personal affair choices related to voting, health
care, living arrangements, and/or other legal decisions on the
individual’s behalf.10
- Guardianships that are focused on property: Called
conservatorships in some states, these involve the guardian handling an
individual’s financial matters, assets, and benefits.11
- Full or limited guardianships:12
In a full guardianship, the guardian can make virtually all decisions
for an individual. In a limited guardianship, the guardian only has
specific decision-making control specified in the court order.13 Full, or “plenary,” guardianships are much more common than limited guardianships for disabled adults.14
Definition of “incapacity”
A judicial finding of “incapacity”
may mean that a person is unable to meet basic needs for food,
clothing, and shelter due to a disability, or that they are judged as
being unable to “make certain decisions.”15
States differ in how they define “incapacity.” For example, Virginia’s
statute—like those of several other states—specifies that “poor judgment
alone [is] not sufficient evidence” to meet the definition of
“incapacity.”16 Most states include the ability to make or communicate decisions and evaluate information in their definition of “incapacity.”17
As Zoë Brennan-Krohn, now director of the
American Civil Liberties Union’s Disability Rights Program, shared with
the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee in 2021, “[Guardianship] takes a rigid view that if one
doesn’t have capacity for everything, then one doesn’t have capacity for
anything.”18
This approach can result in an overly broad loss of rights, including
the right to vote. Guardianship proceedings also may not take into
account different forms of communication that disabled people use, such
as augmentative and alternative communication devices or the use of
plain language.
What laws govern guardianship?
Guardianship laws set the legal
framework that determines when and how a court can appoint someone to
make decisions on behalf of another person. These laws vary across
states, but they generally outline the process for establishing
guardianship, the rights that may be limited, and the responsibilities
of the guardian. While intended to provide protection, these laws also
raise important questions about autonomy, civil rights, and, in many
cases, the right to vote.
Across the country, nearly all states claim that guardianship should be a last resort.19 Yet in practice, courts overwhelmingly default to full guardianships20
rather than alternatives such as limited guardianships or supported
decision-making. SDM is a person-centered alternative in which a
disabled person chooses trusted supporters to help them understand and
communicate decisions.21
The default to full guardianships has profound implications for voting
rights: Someone placed under a full guardianship often loses not only
decision-making authority in areas such as health care and finances but
also the fundamental right to vote.
Although 84 percent of U.S. jurisdictions
require courts to consider less restrictive alternatives to
guardianship, and about 22 percent explicitly reference SDM, these
alternatives are rarely implemented.22 Instead, individuals are routinely placed under full guardianships, which are often “overbroad and unwarranted.”23
In Virginia, an average of 96 percent of guardianships granted between
2015 and 2021 were full guardianships, and only 10 people in the state
had their rights restored in that period out of more than 4,000
guardianships granted.24 In Alabama, although the state has recognized SDM as a formal alternative,25
2023-2024 data show that full guardianships remain the default outcome:
22 percent of guardianships are full and 7 percent are limited.26
Forty-seven states and Washington, D.C.,
have adopted the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings
Jurisdiction Act, which introduced reforms including stronger procedural
protections, clearer decision-making standards, and recognition of the
right to social interaction.27
Yet the act also streamlines the transfer of guardianships across state
lines, which can extend the duration of guardianships and make
restoration of rights more difficult.28
Without robust oversight, enforcement, and
restoration mechanisms, guardianship systems function as one-way doors:
Once someone is placed under guardianship, they are often stripped of
their rights, including their right to vote, permanently.
What do we know from the data on guardianship and voting?
Comprehensive
data on guardianship are severely lacking. At a national level, there
is no reliable estimate of the total number of adults currently under
guardianship in the United States.
29 The most-cited estimate is that as of 2018, 1.3 million adults were under guardianship or conservatorship in the United States.
30 However, this estimate is seven years old and based on limited state-level data.
31
No federal agency or office tracks guardianship decisions,
terminations, or their impact on voting rights. This data vacuum makes
it difficult to evaluate the scope of disenfranchisement.
Addressing the intersection of guardianship
and disenfranchisement requires both policy reform and robust data
collection. Without accurate information on the number of people under
guardianship and how voting restrictions are applied, policymakers
cannot assess the scope of disenfranchisement or develop effective
safeguards to protect voting rights. The U.S. Government Accountability
Office has highlighted the absence of reliable guardianship data in at
least two reports to Congress,32 and members of Congress have addressed the matter in several hearings.33
Likewise, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State
Court Administrators have repeatedly emphasized the need for stronger
data collection on guardianship within state courts.34
How does guardianship affect voting rights?
In the United States, states are
generally charged with administering elections and establishing voter
registration and voting policies.35
There is great variance between states in election rules, including
whether people under guardianship keep or lose the right to vote.36
Guardianship can operate as a widespread and systemic form of voter
suppression. Statutes on guardianship and voting eligibility are based
on outdated, ableist, and discriminatory views of disabled people.37
Analysis of state policies shows that referring to people under
guardianship as “incapacitated” in state election statutes is most
common. Utilizing the word “ward”—such as in Alaska,38 Georgia,39 and Oklahoma40 statutes—is also common. Another recurrent term in state statutes is “mentally incompetent,” used, for example, in Delaware,41 South Carolina,42 and South Dakota.43 Nebraska uses the term “non compos mentis,”44 meaning “not of sound mind.”45
State constitutions maintain ableist
language as well. The Oregon Constitution refers to a “person suffering
from a mental handicap”46 and the Ohio Constitution to an “idiot or insane person.”47
These words appear in Section 6 of Article V of the Ohio Constitution,
added in 1851 and never repealed, even when other sections of Article V
were repealed and amended.48
The Ohio Voters Bill of Rights, a proposed constitutional amendment,
would eliminate “idiot or insane person” from Article V and make other
changes, such as allowing same-day voter registration and using a school
ID as proof of identification.49
Voting rules in many state statutes and constitutions bar two groups of
people from voting: those under guardianship and those with a felony
conviction.50
Utilizing stigmatizing language, some states employ Jim Crow-era rules
by disenfranchising large groups of people deemed “mentally
incompetent.”51
State laws governing the voting rights of
people under guardianship vary widely. Some states automatically strip
individuals of their voting rights when placed under guardianship,
others require courts to make individualized determinations of voting
capacity, and several impose no voting restrictions at all. This
patchwork of laws produces deep inequities and creates confusion for
voters, election officials, and courts alike.
Most states, plus Washington, D.C., have
statutory or constitutional provisions that restrict access to voting
only if a court has determined that a person under guardianship
specifically lacks the “capacity” to vote.52
Nine states—Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia—bar voting by people under
guardianship.53
Nine other states—Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont—do not restrict the
voting rights of people under guardianship.54
Michigan has a constitutional provision authorizing the legislature to
“by law exclude persons from voting because of mental incompetence,” but
its legislature has not done so.55 The result is a patchwork of protections that leaves millions of disabled voters vulnerable to disenfranchisement.
It is important to note that the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division issued guidance in
2024, stating: “The [Americans with Disabilities Act] also prohibits a
state from categorically disqualifying individuals who have intellectual
or mental health disabilities from registering to vote or from voting
because of their disability or guardianship status. Further, a state may
not subject groups of people with disabilities—including individuals
who are under guardianship—to a higher standard than that imposed on
other voters for demonstrating the capacity to vote.”56
What new legislation addresses voting rights under guardianship?
On February 7, 2024, then-Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced the Accessible Voting Act of 2024.57
The bill mandated that states could not remove individuals’ voting
rights on the grounds that they are in a guardianship, unless a court
finds “that the individual cannot communicate, with or without
accommodations, a desire to participate in the voting process.”58 Unfortunately, the bill has yet to pass.
Since January 2023, at least 52 bills across 20 states and at the federal level have addressed voting rights and guardianship.59 After a surge of activity in 2023 (25 bills), legislation dipped in 2024 (five bills) before rebounding in 2025 (22 bills).60
This renewed momentum suggests that the intersection of voting rights
and guardianship remains an active and contested area of state
policymaking. The breadth of states introducing bills demonstrates that
this issue cuts across regions and partisan lines, reflecting ongoing
debates over voting rights, disability rights, and the role of
guardianship in determining civic participation.
Although guardianship and voting laws are
gaining the attention of state lawmakers, few bills have become law.
Only seven of 51 state bills introduced between 2023 and 2025 were
signed into law.61 Most stalled in committee.62
Moreover, a majority of these bills did not expand access to the ballot
for people under guardianship. Many of the bills focused on removing
people under guardianship who were “adjudicated mentally incapacitated”
from voter registration lists at regular intervals, rather than
affirming or restoring rights.63
Of the bills proposed between 2023 and 2025, 15 would have explicitly
increased the voting rights of people under guardianship, but none of
them passed.64
Only one of the bills, Montana’s H.B. 395, would have decreased the
voting rights of people under guardianship, but it did not pass.65
Patterns within recent state-proposed laws
point to growing awareness of guardianship and voting but show limited
structural change. Analysis shows that lawmakers are far more likely to
refine administrative processes for voter registration than to protect
or restore the right to vote for people under guardianship in their
states. Advocacy efforts in 2026 and beyond should prioritize converting
legislative interest into action by promoting model bills that
explicitly protect voting rights for people under guardianship. Without
sustained advocacy and federal guidance, the current patchwork of state
laws risks deepening existing disparities in access to the ballot for
people with disabilities under guardianship.
Beyond legislative movement, several states
have introduced or voted on proposed constitutional amendments that
would redefine voting rights for people under guardianship. In Virginia,
identical resolutions from 2025—H.J.R. 2 and S.J. 248—propose replacing
the phrase “mentally incompetent” in the state constitution with
“lacking the capacity to understand the act of voting” and allowing
people under guardianship to vote unless they are “adjudicated by a
court…to [lack] the capacity to understand the act of voting.”66
Although the amendment must be approved again in the 2026 legislative
session before reaching the ballot, it provides some guardrails around
the voting rights of people under guardianship in Virginia.67
In Maine, Question 8 on the 2023 ballot
sought to remove a constitutional provision barring people under
guardianship “for reasons of mental illness” from voting—a restriction
already found unconstitutional by a federal court.68
While voters narrowly rejected the amendment—46.6 percent were in favor
of removal, while 53.4 percent opposed—the campaign marked a
significant public debate on guardianship and voting rights.69
Finally, in Ohio, organizers of the Ohio
Voters Bill of Rights have proposed an amendment that would expand
access to voting, allowing same-day registration and modernizing voter
ID options while also removing ableist language such as “idiot or insane
person” from Article V of the state constitution.70
Although the measure is still in the signature collection stage, it
demonstrates a growing recognition that exclusionary constitutional
language has no place in democracy.71
Together, these efforts underscore a
broader trend toward language reform and rights restoration through
constitutional mechanisms. Even when such measures do not immediately
pass, they shift public conversation, strengthen advocacy efforts, and
lay the groundwork for future reforms that affirm the voting rights of
people under guardianship.
TABLE 1
A
heatmap table listing state and federal bills addressing the voting
rights of people under guardianship. For each bill, the table lists the
state/jurisdiction, bill number, year introduced, status, and how it
would have affected the voting rights of people under guardianship in
that state (increased voting rights, no change, decreased voting
rights).
Policy recommendations
Protecting the right to vote for people
under guardianship requires targeted reforms. States can revise their
laws to ensure voting rights are preserved, expand the use of SDM, and
strengthen oversight of guardianship proceedings. Federal legislation
affirming the rights of people under guardianship, including the right
to vote, would strengthen existing protections and help ensure
consistent standards nationwide.
Federal policy recommendations
Clarify and strengthen protections under federal voting rights laws
- The U.S. Election Assistance Commission should update its guidance
for protecting disabled people, including those under guardianship.72
This should include ensuring the process to register to vote is
accessible and available for those under guardianship; providing access
to multiple forms of accessible voting, including mail-in ballot,
absentee ballot, drive-thru, and in-person voting; and allowing for
assistance with completing the ballot.73
- Congress should pass federal legislation such as the Accessible Voting Act.74
Provide funding to support voting access for people under guardianship
- Congress should fund federal grant programs to support the
production of accessible voter education materials, including in plain
language and in multiple languages, targeted to people under
guardianship.
- Congress should fund training for court personnel, guardians,
attorneys, election officials, and disability service providers about
guardianship law, voting rights, and practices for ensuring voting
access and autonomy of persons under guardianship.
- Congress should protect and increase funding for the protection and
advocacy (P&A) system. Congress established the Protection and
Advocacy for Voting Accessibility program under the Help America Vote
Act of 2002 to ensure that disabled people could fully participate in
elections, with more than $130 million distributed to state P&A
agencies since 2003.75
P&A agencies use these funds to monitor polling accessibility,
collaborate with election officials, and provide outreach, education,
and direct assistance to help disabled voters overcome barriers to
participation.76 Unfortunately, the Trump administration proposed eliminating P&A funding for 2026.77
Create a federal bill of rights for people under guardianship
A guardianship bill of rights should
include education on all options before being placed under guardianship,
which would center SDM; the right to at least an annual review of
guardianship status; independent legal counsel that prioritizes the
disabled person’s interests and wishes; a requirement of review of
guardianship before being reinstated in a different state; and explicit
protection of the right to vote.78
Federally recognize supported decision-making
The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) clarified that SDM constitutes a reasonable modification
under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when necessary to prevent
discrimination based on disability.79
In doing so, HHS affirmed that a disabled person’s right to use SDM is
protected and enforceable under federal law. HHS’ final rule also
illustrates how SDM can be integrated into health care settings.80 To that end:
- Congress should pass the Alternatives to Guardianship Education Act.81
Introduced in 2024, the bill would establish grants to support training
and education on guardianship alternatives, such as SDM, directed
toward health care providers, educators, family members, and those
working in court systems.82
The bill specifically states, “Less restrictive options to
guardianship, such as SDM and advance directives, offer ways to help
people make decisions without losing their independence.”83
- Federal legislation should fund court programs to educate judges and
lawyers on SDM, guardianship, and the rights of disabled people under
such legal decisions. This could be modeled on the Child Welfare Court
Improvement Program84 to fund state courts in strengthening case handling.85
- Congress should establish a federal supported decision-making act
that sets minimum standards for states to implement SDM frameworks for
their constituents.
Strengthen data collection and oversight
- Congress should pass a guardianship bill of rights that increases
the collection and reporting of state-level guardianship data. The 2023
Guardianship Bill of Rights Act included this provision.86
- Congress should pass legislation requiring standardized state data
collection on guardianships similar to the Child Welfare Court
Improvement Program.87 State courts should be required to use the National Open Court Data Standards,88
gather nonidentifying demographic information on both guardians and
those under guardianship, collect disenfranchisement data, and submit
aggregated data to the DOJ. State courts should also adopt standardized,
multilingual, and culturally competent forms to ensure consistent,
respectful, and accessible data practices.89
State policy recommendations
Adopt state laws about supported decision-making agreements
- State legislatures should require courts to consider SDM and other
less restrictive options before granting guardianship, with the goal of
abolishing guardianship altogether.
- States should follow Texas, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Alaska, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Nevada, and Rhode Island by codifying
SDM agreements so that more people can be supported by SDM instead of
placed under guardianship.90
- States legislators should utilize the Autistic Self Advocacy
Network’s (ASAN) model language for the Supported Health Care
Decision-Making Agreement Act, which creates forms for SDM agreements in
health care.91 States should apply and expand this language to settings beyond health care, such as employment, education, and voting.
- State legislatures should establish clear procedures to review and terminate guardianships.
- State legislatures should provide training for judges, attorneys, and guardians ad litem on SDM.
- State legislatures should support community programs that help individuals and families create SDM arrangements.
- State legislatures should support organizations working to end
guardianship, such as the ASAN, a national leader in advancing
alternatives to guardianship and promoting SDM.92 ASAN emphasizes that guardianship removes disabled people’s fundamental rights and choices, including the right to vote.93
Require due process safeguards in court orders that affect voting rights
- State legislation should require that any petition for guardianship
proceeding that could lead to loss of voting rights must include:
- Clear notice that voting rights are at stake.
- The person under guardianship, or the person who may be under
guardianship, has the right to legal representation—independent from the
guardian or potential guardian—that represents their wishes.
- Court orders should require annual review (“restoration of rights”) procedures94 so that voting rights can be restored without undue burden.
Protect the voting rights of people under guardianship
- State legislatures should adopt laws or constitutional amendments
that explicitly protect the right to vote for people under guardianship.
- State legislatures should eliminate statutory or constitutional
provisions that automatically revoke voting rights based on guardianship
status.
- State legislatures should ensure that people under guardianship
receive information and support to register and vote, consistent with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and other civil rights laws.
Create simplified restoration processes
States should have legally required yearly
periodic reviews of guardianship status to evaluate whether a person
should have some or all rights restored, explicitly including voting.
Such reviews should include mechanisms so that when guardianship
terminates, or when a limited guardianship is in place, voting rights
are restored without the person having to reregister or jump through
excessive procedural hurdles.
Improve guardianship training
States should require comprehensive
training on alternatives to guardianship for judges, attorneys, and
guardians ad litem involved in guardianship cases.95
Training should address how alternatives can be effectively applied for
people with various types of disabilities and how to assess the most
appropriate supports for those at risk of guardianship. Guardians ad
litem must also receive instruction on communicating directly,
accessibly, and respectfully with disabled people and their families
using culturally competent practices.
Texas offers a model. Under Texas
Government Code §81.114, the state provides specialized training on
guardianship to attorneys “who represent any person’s interests in
guardianship cases or who serve as court-appointed guardians.”96
Other states should expand on this model to include training on
disability bias, available community services, and alternatives to
guardianship and make the training mandatory before an attorney is able
to bring a guardianship claim to court.
Ensure accessibility and support in voting
- States legislatures should require that election officials ensure
that voter registration and mail-in, drive thru, and in-person voting
are in accessible formats to voters under guardianship. This includes
providing assistive technologies, allowing the disabled voter to pick a
person of their choice to assist with filling out the ballot, and
offering alternative voting formats.
- States legislatures should clarify rules about whether guardians or
designated support people can assist in voting, following the voter’s
expressed will, and protect against coercion.
Monitoring and accountability measures
- State legislatures should mandate utilization of federal data collection standards.
- States should create or empower an ombudsman or state agency, such
as an office of disability rights, to investigate complaints from people
under guardianship who believe their voting rights have been improperly
restricted or denied. Such offices should partner with the federally
funded P&A systems in each state.
- State legislatures should establish civil remedies—such as the
ability to challenge disenfranchisement in court, receive legal
assistance, and possibly receive damages or other relief—for people
under guardianship whose rights have been violated.
Conclusion
This report demonstrates how
guardianship functions as a structural barrier to full civic
participation for many disabled people. Across the country, state laws
continue to allow judges and guardians to determine whether a person can
vote, often based on outdated and ableist concepts of “capacity.” Since
2023, at least 52 bills across 20 states and at the federal level have
addressed this issue, but few have been enacted.97
The growing attention to voting rights under guardianship marks
important progress—but awareness alone is not enough. Without clear
standards, robust oversight, and enforcement of existing civil rights
protections, the patchwork of state policies will continue to
disenfranchise people under guardianship.
The growing attention to voting rights under guardianship marks important progress—but awareness alone is not enough.
Ensuring equal access to the ballot
requires dismantling the systems that permit others to decide whose
voice counts. States must reform their laws to explicitly protect the
voting rights of people under guardianship, replace discriminatory
language, and embrace SDM as the default model of autonomy. Federal
leadership through guidance, funding, and legislation can help align
these efforts and ensure consistent protections nationwide.
The path forward is clear: The United
States cannot claim to be a representative democracy while denying
disabled people under guardianship their political agency. Ending the
use of guardianship as a tool of disenfranchisement and expanding
supported decision-making are essential steps toward a democracy where
every person’s right to vote is both recognized and realized.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Mia
Ives-Rublee, Vilissa Thompson, William Roberts, Peter Gordon, Alex
Cogan, Devon Ombres, Greta Bedekovics, and Huá Huī Vogel for their
valuable contributions to this report; Chandler Hall, Allie Preston, Ben
Greenho, and Haley Norris for their thorough fact-checking; and the
Center for American Progress’ Art, Editorial, and Legal teams for their
guidance.
