Judge says Minnesota man with guardian can vote

  • Article by: ABBY SIMONS , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 5, 2012 - 12:10 AM

Removal of voting rights in such cases violates the U.S. Constitution, court says.

  • 25
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
AirForceGuyOct. 4, 1210:30 PM

Conservatives have a name for judges who uphold Constitutional rights..."activists".

sharkysharkOct. 4, 1210:50 PM

If a person needs a court-appointed "decision maker", who actually does the voting? Looks like the guardian gets two votes to me.

wildfoxOct. 4, 1210:55 PM

GOP will stop at nothing to disenfranchise people from voting. Trying to take away voting rights from the mentally ill and disabled is sickening. Thank you Judge Quam for upholding EVERYONES right to vote.

inrealityOct. 5, 1212:18 AM

Once people get to a point where they have a severe mental disability like dymentia, mental illness, etc. and they have a guardian then I don't understand how they can understand enough to vote. This seems like an area that could be rampant with fraud if guardians are actually casting the vote or telling the person how to vote. In certain areas of life we need to use common sense........ like it is common sense to require a photo ID to vote and I think it is common sense that people incapable of handling their own affairs due to mental illness shouldn't vote. Voting is a privilege and not a right. We restrict voting in many ways. If a guardian is casting a vote then that is destroying the integrity of our voting system. I see people posting on here and some of the things your saying may seem compassionate and make you "feel" good but they don't make sense. It is NOT sickening in my opinion to prevent someone with a mental illness that is under guardianship from voting. This is common sense. We certainly wouldn't allow this person to sign any legal binding contracts just as we don't allow minors to do this. Voting is on a similar par.

dorkeemnOct. 5, 12 5:15 AM

Of course Lori Swanson didn't appear at the hearing or want this case tried. 99% of the guardians vote for dems - and they want every vote to count - twice in this case. In cases where the law conflicts with the constitution - the constitution is supposed to win. Sadly in this case, the law won and the constitution was kicked aside.

beaglemomOct. 5, 12 6:44 AM

Interesting to see advanced dementia in the mix. My father in law will be voting for Eisenhower this year!

swunderlOct. 5, 12 7:12 AM

Not that big a deal. He probably puts more thought into his vote than 90% of the rest of the voters.

rickbmnOct. 5, 12 7:12 AM

How can they vote? And if they are schizophrenic, does that mean each personality can vote? This judge just did a great injustice to all who legally vote. So if people with these disorders can exercise their constitutional right to vote, I would assume they can exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. After all, all rights under the constitution are equal.

beaglemomOct. 5, 12 7:23 AM

As an election judge I have witnessed entire group homes brought in and people who don't dress or feed themselves guided up to vote by the same caregiver over and over. I have a coworker with an adult developmentally disabled sibling "he has never expressed an interest and really isn't capable, so he has never voted."

photolaryOct. 5, 12 8:14 AM

@Beaglemom...So now we are going to deny voting rights to people who need help dressing and/or feeding? Well, I do need help dressing and I guarantee I am better informed on the issues than 90% of voters. Please do not judge a person's thinking abilities based on their physical abilities.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters