Voting is an essential part of a democratic society where persons who are able should be allowed and provided the opportunity to vote (Developments in the Law, 2008). The opportunity to vote should be afforded to all persons, including those who have a serious mental illness. Lawn et al. (2014) states the being able to vote is a core part of being a citizen and could play a role in helping persons with mental illness recovery. By being able to vote, persons with serious mental illness can feel included in the society where they hold citizenship which could positively benefit their mental health. Unfortunately, for the tens of millions of individuals who have a serious mental illness; voting could be restricted by archaic, vague, and derogatory language found within state laws and policies.
In 2013, there were an estimated 10 million persons treated for serious mental illness (Substance Abuse, 2014). Serious mental illness for Substance Abuse (2014) is defined as 18 or older adults who, in the previous year, had a diagnosable behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder which significantly impaired their major life activities and resulted in functional impairment. This 10 million person estimate does not include individuals who are homeless, on active military duty or living in an institutional setting such as a nursing home, for which no current data could be found (Substance Abuse 2014). Additionally, 43.8 million were treated for any mental illness which did warrant diagnosis but did not affect functional impairment. To first understand how voting rights discriminate against persons with mental illness, we must first examine the historical basis of this problem. …show more content…
Corrigan, Markowitz & Watson (2004) researched stigmas which intentionally restrict opportunities and result in unintended consequences for people with mental illnesses. This article serves as a macro-level analysis of structural stigmas and discrimination which occur through: state laws and policies. Corrigan et al. (2004) assert that mental illness is stigmatized and creating discrimination within the United States through various means, including voting laws which often use vague language to determine who cannot vote. Current forms of voting discrimination towards persons with mental illness occurs through archaic and arguably derogatory language such as this phrase from Article V of the Ohio Constitution: “[n]o idiot, or insane person, shall be entitled to privileges of an elector” (McHugh, 2013, pg. 2189). Aside from the vague language, this article does not clearly define who would be considered an “idiot” or an “insane” person. McHugh (2013) points out this language is “subject to executive determination and judicial interpretation.” Executive determination and judicial interpretation could mean that judges and executive authorities within a state, such as a governor or legislature, determine who cannot vote based upon this law. Smoyak (2007) discusses a personal experience where medical professionals made the determination that a woman was incompetent because she exhibited strange behaviors while recovering from anesthesia. This experience highlighted by Smoyak (2007) shows that while the intent may be for state executives and judges to make the determination; this is not always the case. Vague language and application of the law means there is no consistent application of the law. From this we can posit that the label of idiot or insane could arbitrarily be placed onto an individual with mental illness. Unfortunately, the Ohio Law which we have examined is not the only example of derogatory and archaic language. McHugh (2013) states the Ohio is not the only state whose language in voting laws is destructive towards persons with mental illnesses. Approximately fifteen other states also use vague language to structure voting laws (Corrigan et al., 2004; Development in the Law, 2008; Smoyak, 2007). This language includes: mental illness, idiot, insane, and lunatics (Corrigan et al., 2004; Development in Law, 2008; Raad, Karlawish, & Applebaum, 2009). These destructive terms are creating disenfranchisement and marginalization towards persons who have a mental illness. In addition to vague language which can be inconsistently applied towards person with mental illness, we must also consider the implications for the person being labeled. Words such as “idiot” and “insane” hold negative connotations. What does being labeled as an idiot or insane do to a person with a mental illness? Overturn and Medina (2008) postulate: “negative connotations…
In 2013, there were an estimated 10 million persons treated for serious mental illness (Substance Abuse, 2014). Serious mental illness for Substance Abuse (2014) is defined as 18 or older adults who, in the previous year, had a diagnosable behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder which significantly impaired their major life activities and resulted in functional impairment. This 10 million person estimate does not include individuals who are homeless, on active military duty or living in an institutional setting such as a nursing home, for which no current data could be found (Substance Abuse 2014). Additionally, 43.8 million were treated for any mental illness which did warrant diagnosis but did not affect functional impairment. To first understand how voting rights discriminate against persons with mental illness, we must first examine the historical basis of this problem. …show more content…
Corrigan, Markowitz & Watson (2004) researched stigmas which intentionally restrict opportunities and result in unintended consequences for people with mental illnesses. This article serves as a macro-level analysis of structural stigmas and discrimination which occur through: state laws and policies. Corrigan et al. (2004) assert that mental illness is stigmatized and creating discrimination within the United States through various means, including voting laws which often use vague language to determine who cannot vote. Current forms of voting discrimination towards persons with mental illness occurs through archaic and arguably derogatory language such as this phrase from Article V of the Ohio Constitution: “[n]o idiot, or insane person, shall be entitled to privileges of an elector” (McHugh, 2013, pg. 2189). Aside from the vague language, this article does not clearly define who would be considered an “idiot” or an “insane” person. McHugh (2013) points out this language is “subject to executive determination and judicial interpretation.” Executive determination and judicial interpretation could mean that judges and executive authorities within a state, such as a governor or legislature, determine who cannot vote based upon this law. Smoyak (2007) discusses a personal experience where medical professionals made the determination that a woman was incompetent because she exhibited strange behaviors while recovering from anesthesia. This experience highlighted by Smoyak (2007) shows that while the intent may be for state executives and judges to make the determination; this is not always the case. Vague language and application of the law means there is no consistent application of the law. From this we can posit that the label of idiot or insane could arbitrarily be placed onto an individual with mental illness. Unfortunately, the Ohio Law which we have examined is not the only example of derogatory and archaic language. McHugh (2013) states the Ohio is not the only state whose language in voting laws is destructive towards persons with mental illnesses. Approximately fifteen other states also use vague language to structure voting laws (Corrigan et al., 2004; Development in the Law, 2008; Smoyak, 2007). This language includes: mental illness, idiot, insane, and lunatics (Corrigan et al., 2004; Development in Law, 2008; Raad, Karlawish, & Applebaum, 2009). These destructive terms are creating disenfranchisement and marginalization towards persons who have a mental illness. In addition to vague language which can be inconsistently applied towards person with mental illness, we must also consider the implications for the person being labeled. Words such as “idiot” and “insane” hold negative connotations. What does being labeled as an idiot or insane do to a person with a mental illness? Overturn and Medina (2008) postulate: “negative connotations…