[PASSED] Disabled Voters Act

[Christian Democrats]

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

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

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: 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.

[Cardoness]

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]

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'?

[Old Craet]

I support this.

[Aligned Planets]

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.

[Christian Democrats]

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.

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).

[The Dark Star Republic]

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.

[Festive Old Folks]

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'.

[Cardoness]

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.

[Festive Old Folks]

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.

[Selvas]

I second the motion.

[Christian Democrats]

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;

[Cardoness]

I find that to be acceptable.

[Normlpeople]

"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?"

[Christian Democrats]

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

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.

[Christian Democrats]

I'd like to submit this proposal later this week. Does anybody else have comments?

[Philjia]

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

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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.

[Bananaistan]

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.

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.

[Christian Democrats]

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.

[The Empire of Ebola]

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

NOT SUPPORTED.

[Falcania]

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.

[Sarigen]

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.

[The Empire of Ebola]

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?

[Bananaistan]

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.