Voting Rights

  • Bruce Dennis Sales
  • D. Matthew Powell
  • Richard Van Duizend


Most of us take for granted our right to vote, whether we exercise it or not. Even if we do not vote, we know that if something makes us mad enough or if someone happens to inspire us sufficiently, we can exercise our right to vote. Yet, it has not always been so. For example, it was not so long ago that women were not allowed to vote in most jurisdictions. Even more recently, blacks were prevented from voting in many states by law or administrative practices. Despite our progress in this area, however, restrictions on the voting rights of disabled persons still persist either because some are seen as too unintelligent and irresponsible to cast a ballot, as women once were; because in some communities where large numbers have been institutionalized, their political power is feared; or because the state has shown little interest in providing the means to overcome administrative, physical or structural barriers to voting.


Disable Person Polling Place Equal Protection Voter Registration Fourteenth Amendment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561–62 (1964).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    42 U.S.C.A. §1973 through 1973aa-5 (1974 and Supp. 1980).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See, e.g., UTAH CONST, art IV, §6, amended in 1977 by dropping the terms idiots and insane persons and substituting mentally incompetent persons.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See KAN. CONST, art. V, §2 (amended in 1974); MICH. CONST. art II, §3 (amended in 1963); OKLA. CONST, art. 3, §1 (amended 1979).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See, e.g., FLA. STAT. ANN. §97.041(3) (West Supp. 1980).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See Boyd v. Board of Registrars of Voters of Belchertown, 334 N.E.2d 629 (Mass. 1975).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See, e.g., WYO. STAT. §25–3–124(d) (1977).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See, e.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §16–165 (Supp. 1979–1980).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See WIS. STAT. ANN. §12.59 (West 1967).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See, e.g., Boyd v. Board of Registrars of Voters of Belchertown, 334 N.E.2d 629 (Mass. 1975). Often these cases are generated by provisions prohibiting voting by “persons under guardianship.”Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    360 U.S. 45(1959). 13 Id. at 50–51.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966).Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1966).Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    See generally Tussman and ten Broeck, The Equal Protection of the Laws, 37 CAL. L. REV. 341 (1949).Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    See generally Gunther, In Search of Evolving Doctrine of a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection, 86 HARV. L. REV. 1 (1972). The court has recognized only three classifications as suspect—race, alienage and illegitimacy. Therefore, the remainder of this discussion will focus on fundamental rights as the basis for strict scrutiny of state action. For an argument that disability should be recognized as a suspect classification, based upon the criteria set out by the Court in United States v. Caroline Prod. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152–53, n. 4 (1938), see Burgdorf and Burgdorf, A History of Unequal Treatment: The Qualifications of Handicapped Persons as a “Suspect Class” Under the Equal Protection Clause, 15 SANTA CLARA LAW. 855 (1975).Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    See Gunther, supra, note 17.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    See, e.g., Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972); Evans v. Corn-man, 398 U.S. 419 (1970); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968); Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    number of early cases upheld such restrictions but were decided before the advent of strict scrutiny and so are no longer reliable precedent. See, e.g., Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 (1904); Lassiter v. Northampton Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959).Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    405 U.S. 330 (1972).Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Id. at 356.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Id. at 357 n. 29. The 1965 Act generally prohibits the denial of the right to vote on the basis of race or color because of the failure to comply with any test or device and defines “test or device” to mean, among other things, any requirement that a person demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand or interpret any matter, or demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject. 42 U.S.C.A. §1973(b) (1974).Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    See, e.g., Carroll v. Cobb, 139 N.J. Super. 439, 354 A.2d 355 (1976); Boyd v. Board of Registrars of Voters of Belchertown, 334 N.E.2d 629 (Mass. 1975). In Carroll v. Cobb the court quotes the following statement of the trial judge: From what I have heard here, I am firmly convinced that the reason why those men were not permitted to vote was the hostility that the Municipal Fathers and even the County Board of Election had against people who were confined to such a school. I don’t think that they really were concerned about their idiocy or their insanity because it hasn’t been satisfactorily proven that these persons were in that category at all. 345 A.2d at 357.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    The Supreme Court appears somewhat hostile to restrictions which purport to establish “intelligence” criteria for voting, but has shown a reluctance to address this issue. Rather, the Court has decided the question of constitutionality of such restrictions using the second part of the equal protection analysis (see text at note 19 supra) and finding that the means chosen to further the asserted state interest are insufficiently narrow and impinge upon right to vote.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    See Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972), in which the Court struck down a statute requiring new residents to reside in the state for a fairly lengthy period of time before they were eligible to vote, ostensibly to insure they were knowledgable about state and local issues before they voted. However, the Court noted that this “classification obviously permit(s) any longtime resident to vote regardless of his knowledge of the issues—and obviously many (longtime residents) do not have any.” Id. at 358.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Klein and Grossman, Voting Patterns of Mental Patients in a Community State Hospital, 3 Community Mental Health J. 149–152 (Summer 1967).Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Howard and Anthony, The Right to Vote and Voting Patterns of Hospitalized Psychiatric Patients, 49 Psychiatric Quarterly 124 (1977).Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    415 U.S. 724, 730(1974).Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    See text at supra, notes 28 and 29.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    A. B. Small Co. v. American Sugar Ref. Co. 267 U.S. 233, 239 (1925).Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    Giacciuo v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402 (1966).Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    Graynel v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108–09 (1972) (footnotes omitted).Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    334 N.E.2d 629 (Mass. 1975).Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    70 Wis.2d 610, 235 N.W.2d 435 (1975).Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    See Carroll v. Cobb, 139 N.J. Super, 439, 354 A.2d 355 (1976); Boyd v. Board of Registrars of Voters of Belchertown, 334 N.E.2d 629 (Mass. 1975); Town of Lafayette v. City of Chippawa Falls, 70.Wis.2d 610, 235 N.W.2d 435 (1975).Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    Carroll v. Cobb, 139 N.J. Super. 439, 354 A.2d 355, 359 (1976).Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    See text at supra, notes 35 and 36.Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    405 U.S. 330, 356(1972).Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    See Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    See Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Carrington v. Rash 380 U.S. 89 (1965).Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    For a concise history of the unequal treatment of disabled persons, particularly the mentally disabled, see Burgdorf and Burgdorf, supra, note 17.Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    97 A.L.R.2d 264, §3.Google Scholar
  44. 45.
    373 F. Supp. 353 (D. Conn. 1974).Google Scholar
  45. 46.
    Id. at 357.Google Scholar
  46. 47.
    For a summary of state registration and absentee ballot provisions see 1 MENTAL DISABILITY LAW REPORTER 237 (November-December 1976).Google Scholar
  47. 48.
    Id. See also McDonald v. Board of Election, 394 U.S. 802, 810–811 n. 9 (1969) in which the court discusses state absentee ballot provisions.Google Scholar
  48. 49.
    See Fidell v. Board of Election, 343 F. Supp. 913, 916 (E.D.N.Y. 1972); See also Whalen v. Heimann, 373 F. Supp. 353 (D. Conn. 1974).Google Scholar
  49. 50.
    390 F. Supp. 58 (CD. Cal. 1975).Google Scholar
  50. 51.
    394 U.S. 802 (1969).Google Scholar
  51. 52.
    390 F. Supp. 58, 62 (CD. Cal. 1975).Google Scholar
  52. 53.
  53. 54.
    IOWA CODE ANN. §49.21 (Supp. 1980–81).Google Scholar
  54. 55.
    IDAHO CODE §34–302 (Supp. 1979). 56 KAN. STAT. ANN. §25–2710 (Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
  55. 57.
    320 F. Supp. 131 (W.D. Tex. 1970), vacated on other grounds 401 U.S. 1006 (1971). See also Smith v. Dunn, 381 F. Supp. 822, 826 n. 3 (M.D. Tenn. 1974). Contra State v. Sweeney, 154 Ohio St. 223, 94 N.W.2d 785 (1950). (The Ohio Secretary of State had no authority to issue regulations providing voting assistance for illiterate voters.)Google Scholar
  56. 58.
    Special Committee on Election Law and Voter Participation of the American Bar Association, Report to the House of Delegates (August 1980). The specific sections referred to in the Report are: 42 U.S.C., §§1973 cc-11, 1973 aa-1, 1973dd through 1973dd-5.Google Scholar
  57. 59.
    See Smith v. Dunn, 381 F. Supp. 822 (M.D. Tenn. 1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Dennis Sales
    • 1
  • D. Matthew Powell
    • 1
  • Richard Van Duizend
    • 1
  1. 1.Developmental Disabilities State Legislative Project of the American Bar Association’sCommission on the Mentally DisabledUSA

Personalised recommendations