NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Disabled Voters Act

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

[PASSED] Disabled Voters Act

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:25 pm

I've had this on my computer for a few months... What do you think?

Image

ImageImage

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 310
Disabled Voters Act
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Image Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that many citizens of member states, in effect, are unjustly deprived of their voting rights because of common physical or mental impairments, such as blindness, that have absolutely no effect on their capacity for making reasoned choices,

Wishing to pass legislation preventing such forms of disenfranchisement,

Seeking to provide reasonable accommodations that enable such people to exercise their democratic freedom,

1. Declares that no person who is otherwise qualified to vote shall be denied the right to vote in a public election on account of blindness, deafness, developmental reading disorder, developmental coordination disorder, limited mobility, or any other physical or mental impairment that does not diminish general intelligence;

2. Requires that member states and their political subdivisions, in all public elections, allow any person covered by Section 1 the freedom to receive assistance in voting from an individual whom he or she has selected freely;

3. Permits member states and their political subdivisions, at their legal discretion, to prevent an individual from rendering assistance under Section 2 if that individual is:

  1. younger than the national or local age of majority;
  2. ineligible to vote because of a criminal conviction;
  3. guilty of committing electoral fraud in the past;
  4. the employer or an agent of the employer of the impaired person;
  5. an agent of the labor union or professional association of the impaired person;
  6. an agent of a political party or a political campaign; or
  7. an agent of the government or one of its instrumentalities;
Provided that no adult family member or cohabitant shall be denied the ability to render assistance if he or she is selected freely by the person who is receiving assistance;

4. Directs member states and their political subdivisions to make good-faith efforts to ensure that all persons covered by Section 1 receive appropriate accommodations allowing them to vote in public elections on an equal basis with voters who do not have physical or mental impairments;

5. Grants any person covered by Section 1 or an appropriate representative the right to sue the government in an appropriate domestic court and to receive appropriate equitable relief from that tribunal if the government does not meet its obligations under this resolution;

6. Affirms that this resolution does not prevent the passage of future resolutions protecting or promoting voting rights in public elections; and

7. Clarifies that this resolution does not affect private elections (such as elections for private clubs or organizations) and that it does not require member states or their political subdivisions to hold elections for public offices.

Passed 10,278 votes to 2,391 votes.
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:15 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
New York Times Democracy

Postby Cardoness » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:50 pm

I support this very reasonable proposal, however, section 2 should be expanded to require a neutral poll worker to assist such persons who don't have family or friends able to assist.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:59 pm

IC: "We don't support any proposals of this nature and pine for the return of the Bananananananistani delegation's proposal."

OOC: That said, the text seems fair enough. Though 'family member or friend' is oddly specific: it seems to omit a legal guardian, a caregiver, a nurse or nursing aid, or other people who might reasonably provide assistance. Can't it just be 'a designated person'?
Last edited by The Dark Star Republic on Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Old Craet
Envoy
 
Posts: 290
Founded: Oct 28, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Old Craet » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:00 pm

I support this.

User avatar
Aligned Planets
Diplomat
 
Posts: 689
Founded: Nov 13, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Aligned Planets » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:13 pm

Grrr. I really like this, but I'm not seeing enough of an international issue for my principally NatSov'ist nation (on non-international issues) to support.

Disclaimer: Although I'd probably vote for it if it reached the floor.
What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the United Federation has become the very evil we've been fighting to destroy?
"The 4,427th nation in the world for Most Scientifically Advanced, scoring 266 on the Kurzweil Singularity Index."
Don't question the FT of AP.


Jaresh-Inyo | World Assembly Delegate
Laura Roslin | President, United Federation of Aligned Planets

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:22 pm

Cardoness wrote:I support this very reasonable proposal, however, section 2 should be expanded to require a neutral poll worker to assist such persons who don't have family or friends able to assist.
The Dark Star Republic wrote:That said, the text seems fair enough. Though 'family member or friend' is oddly specific: it seems to omit a legal guardian, a caregiver, a nurse or nursing aid, or other people who might reasonably provide assistance. Can't it just be 'a designated person'?

That might be a good idea; however, is there anybody whom we'd want to exclude?

I'm afraid that the use of neutral poll workers would open up the possibility of electoral fraud; and U.S. electoral law, for example, bans disabled voters from using employers, unions, or their agents as voting assistants (42 U.S.C. §1973aa–6).
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:31 pm

You have enough character space that you could easily add "a designated person chosen freely blah blah subject to any necessary restrictions to prevent electoral fraud or ballot tampering and preserve ballot secrecy". That way they can designate anyone, including their live-in nurse or their legal guardian, but not the arsonist down the street.

User avatar
Festive Old Folks
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: May 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Festive Old Folks » Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:50 am

I'm inclined to support the above provision by the representative from the Dark Star Republic. Should the draft be amended in such a way it would likely have the support of Festive Old Folks on the voting floor.

Perhaps prepare yourself for those who might see this resolution as a condemnation of states lacking in public elections though. They's a comin'.
His Hellaciousness, Johnny Vulture, Festive Old Folkian Ambassador to the World Assembly

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
New York Times Democracy

Postby Cardoness » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:14 am

Festive Old Folks wrote:Perhaps prepare yourself for those who might see this resolution as a condemnation of states lacking in public elections though. They's a comin'.

They shouldn't. Section 6 is quite clear and we have passed voting resolutions before.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Festive Old Folks
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: May 26, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Festive Old Folks » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:41 am

Cardoness wrote:
Festive Old Folks wrote:Perhaps prepare yourself for those who might see this resolution as a condemnation of states lacking in public elections though. They's a comin'.

They shouldn't. Section 6 is quite clear and we have passed voting resolutions before.


Nobody ever said they were rational, Ambassador. Nor are they the type to uphold precedent.
While you make a fine point, it never hurts to prepare for the possibility of yahoos.
His Hellaciousness, Johnny Vulture, Festive Old Folkian Ambassador to the World Assembly

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!

User avatar
Selvas
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Oct 28, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Selvas » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:48 am

I second the motion.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:59 pm

Would this change to the draft be acceptable?

2. Requires that member states and their political subdivisions, in all public elections, allow any person covered by Section 1 the freedom to receive assistance in voting from an individual whom he or she has selected freely;

3. Permits member states and their political subdivisions, at their legal discretion, to prevent an individual from rendering assistance under Section 2 if that individual is:

  1. younger than the national or local age of majority;
  2. ineligible to vote because of a criminal conviction;
  3. guilty of committing electoral fraud in the past;
  4. the employer or an agent of the employer of the impaired person;
  5. an agent of the labor union of the impaired person;
  6. an agent of a political party or a political campaign; or
  7. an agent of the government or one of its instrumentalities;
Provided that no adult family member or cohabitant shall be denied the ability to render assistance if he or she is selected freely by the person who is receiving assistance;
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
New York Times Democracy

Postby Cardoness » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:23 pm

I find that to be acceptable.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Normlpeople
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1597
Founded: Apr 25, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Normlpeople » Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:13 pm

"I shall start with my usual disclaimer about my personal belief that Democracy is a flawed form of government and we do not use it. That said, I fail to see why the disabled receiving special rights to vote is an issue when there is no universal definition of an eligible voter. Perhaps broadening this into a proper definition of an eligible voter would be more appropriate?"
Words and Opinion of Clover the Clever
Ambassador to the WA for the Armed Kingdom of Normlpeople

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:40 pm

I've edited the draft in accordance with the suggested changes above.

Normlpeople wrote:I fail to see why the disabled receiving special rights to vote is an issue when there is no universal definition of an eligible voter. Perhaps broadening this into a proper definition of an eligible voter would be more appropriate?

I believe each nation, as long as it complies with the anti-discrimination resolutions of this Assembly, should be free to decide for itself who is and is not allowed to cast a ballot in its elections. This proposal simply would strike down de jure and de facto voting restrictions on individuals who have common physical or mental impairments that do not have any negative impact on their general intelligence.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:58 am

I'd like to submit this proposal later this week. Does anybody else have comments?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Philjia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9708
Founded: Sep 15, 2014
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Philjia » Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:05 am

Even the largely antifederal WA should pass this. If they don't, we have bigger problems than letting the disabled vote.
Quick the mind, sharp the action.
⚧ Gender and sex aren't the same thing. ⚧
Progressive reformist libertarian democratic socialist. Egalitarian, pro LGBT rights and gay marriage, pro gay adoption, pro EU, atheist, pro free speech and expression, pro legalisation of prostitution and soft drugs, and pro choice. Anti authoritarian, anti bigotry, anti radfem. White cishet male.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3388
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:48 am

Philjia wrote:Even the largely antifederal WA should pass this. If they don't, we have bigger problems than letting the disabled vote.


OOC: Those problems being mainly, "We don't require WA members to have elections in the first place, but we're letting dictatorships vote on how big an effort we need to go to for compensatory measures for our voting citizens."

Mind you, I'm in favor of this proposal specifically, but I sympathize with those who don't see a place for undemocratic countries to have a say in how democracy is conducted.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
Stephanie Athena Zakalwe
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279



User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2285
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:53 pm

The People's Republic of Bananaistan will oppose this as we do any attempts by the WA to interfere in internal democracy of member nations whilst it has yet to even establish a right to vote in all member nations.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:IC: "We don't support any proposals of this nature and pine for the return of the Bananananananistani delegation's proposal."


OOC: I think I'll bump it. I've been very disappointed so far with the lack of comments so I won't hold out much hope. Unfortunately, RL has interfered significantly in my interweb activities in recent months, this is the first time I've read this forum on a PC rather than my phone in about a month and a half.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:59 pm

I'll remind everyone that General Assembly rules prohibit proposals that would mandate elections (representative democracy). According to the rules, players must remain free to run their World Assembly nations as autocracies if they so wish.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
The Empire of Ebola
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 48
Founded: Oct 13, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby The Empire of Ebola » Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:48 am

Well if you wanted to vote you should NOT have become disabled now should you have?

NOT SUPPORTED.
The Empire of Ebola
causing misery where ever we go

"deal with it"

User avatar
Falcania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1049
Founded: Sep 25, 2004
Anarchy

Postby Falcania » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:30 am

The Empire of Ebola wrote:Well if you wanted to vote you should NOT have become disabled now should you have?

NOT SUPPORTED.


If the ambassador requires a demonstration of how maiming is not necessarily a consensual act, a demonstration is likely to be arranged.
II & Sports: The Free Kingdom of Falcania, Jayla, New Nestia, and Realms Otherwise Beneath the Skies

World Assembly: Ser Jeine Wilhelmsen on behalf of Queen Falcon IV, representing the Free Kingdom and the ancient and great region of Atlantian Oceania

User avatar
Sarigen
Envoy
 
Posts: 288
Founded: Nov 13, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Sarigen » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:38 am

Excellent! A similar law exists in my own country (real life that is to say!)... clients I care for are definitely allowed to vote (physical/mental impairments don't strip a person of those rights!). This would be a great act. :clap:

User avatar
The Empire of Ebola
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 48
Founded: Oct 13, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby The Empire of Ebola » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:00 pm

Falcania wrote:
The Empire of Ebola wrote:Well if you wanted to vote you should NOT have become disabled now should you have?

NOT SUPPORTED.


If the ambassador requires a demonstration of how maiming is not necessarily a consensual act, a demonstration is likely to be arranged.


Perhaps YOU need a demonstration as to how a nuclear explosion can decimate a city?
The Empire of Ebola
causing misery where ever we go

"deal with it"

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2285
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:33 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:I'll remind everyone that General Assembly rules prohibit proposals that would mandate elections (representative democracy). According to the rules, players must remain free to run their World Assembly nations as autocracies if they so wish.


We are well aware of this and therefore we oppose all proposals dealing with elections. We do not appreciate all the undemocratic governments of the WA having a say in how we run our democracy.

As to the proposal itself, it needs some work. I sincerely hope it won't be one of these feel good, touchy feely proposals that romp home easily.

Section 5 seems to assume that all nations have a particular style of justice system. Ofc this is another thing that the WA has failed to implement: independent judiciary. Also, I had though that it was considered unnecessary to include provisions dealing with non-compliance in proposals?

And is section 6 an attempt at the opposite of a blocking clause? One would assume that if this passed, my blocker would then be illegal?

I'd also question if the strength is appropriate.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads