W is also developmentally disabled, which is clear from the interview, which at some point has Laura talking about how she'll just tie W to the grill in the back yard and not let him do anything but turn charred flesh. Yep, that's what she said.

In regards to the mother of the disabled adult, she is technically correct: adults who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent and assigned a guardian was legally unable to vote. They have all the legal rights of a minor. I just doubt if she'd have made such a fuss if she knew her son was going to vote for McCain.

As to the State Trooper pulling over the pregnant woman, it is worth noting that two other State Troopers pulled them over in the same lane and allowed them to continue unmolested. It wasn't until they encountered the third trooper that they ran afoul asshole fuckfacery. Somehow, I think the fact that 2 out of 3 of the State Troopers they encountered that day treated them with dignity makes the act of the third even more asshole fuckfacey.

You know things are fucked up when Bank of America is protecting the environment and the EPA isn't.

Probably the most dangerous time to have Bush in office - he's out of there anyway, come hell or high (polluted) water. Why not trash some furniture on his way out?

Fucking turd.

No, she's not correct in the slightest, technically or otherwise. The linked article has a University of Iowa law professor stating very clearly what the law is with regard to developmentally disabled adults voting, which is that the courts have to take specific action to take away the specific right to vote from a developmentally disabled adult in order for that adult not to be allowed to vote; otherwise, developmentally disabled adults can vote just like anyone else. That's why, when she challenged her son's ballot, she failed. So, no, she's not technically correct; she's entirely wrong.

He probably shouldn't be allowed to vote, then.

Exactly!!

Fear The Reaper's article stated that this woman was the man legal guardian and conservator. That means that he has been adjudicated mentally incompetent and another adult has been placed in charge of their welfare. If this is the case, then NO, he cannot vote. If it is NOT the case that she is his guardian and conservator, then he can vote.

There is no law that states people who are mentally disabled cannot vote, and I did not mean to imply that. I apologize if that was the impression I gave. I would also like to thank you for bringing your concerned about this to me, and foremost for not being a gigantic bitch about it. So often, on an internet forum, people overreact at the slightest disagreement and treat other posters with disdain and outright contempt. I am very thankful that this was not what happened here, and that you refrained from acting like some kind of terrible cunt-monster.

Again, sorry for the misunderstanding, and thank you for your courteous and mature reply.

It doesn't say she was his legal guardian and conservator. It says that she retains guardianship over him for most decisions. Voting specifically not being one of them.

It does not say that voting is not specifically one of them. It only says guardianship over most legal decisions. Whether he can vote or not may be one of them. It would be HIGHLY unusual for a person to be determined mentally incompetent by the court, assigned a guardian, and still allowed to vote. Not impossible...but extremely unlikely. I am glad that she was unsuccessful in challenging his ballot, and happy that he was allowed to vote. Please do not interpret this as an attack on this disabled man's rights. I'm simply pointing out how things usually work, and why this woman might think that, as his guardian, she had the power to prevent him from voting.

You are pointing out how things usually work in your jurisdiction. Suffrage, guardianship and all ancillary issues related to developmental disability vary widely from state to state in their scope and determinations.

I'll defer to your knowledge on that, but I was under the impression that Federal law forbade anyone who had been adjudicated mentally incompetent by the courts from voting. Thank you for clarifying.

I know this will get me flack, but mentally disabled people should not be allowed to vote. Then we might actually have a chance at fixing the gov. The fact is the only reason our gov has been declining has been because of the masses who actually vote... Over the past 40+ years there has not been a good candidate for presidency, including Obama... Sadly people give into pretty words, sadly pretty words dont save the country.

You certainly seem to have all the answers. So what, exactly, is the percentage of "mentally disabled people" that are voting that is throwing our "chance at fixing the gov" off so completely?

Seriously, think for a moment about the fact that you just asserted that the reason we can't fix our government is that there are too many mentally disabled citizens voting. Think about that.

Interesting thread. The question seems to be whether or not suffrage should be truly universal, or whether it should be constrained in some way (or, whether or not any constraints are EVER acceptable.) Currently, suffrage may currently be denied in the United States based on age, status of citizenship, and/or current criminal status (may be others, I dunno; legal eagles please speak up!) Then there's the division between what is legal and what is ethical, i.e. prior to the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920, women were legally denied the right to vote, something that is thankfully considered unethical today (and was considered so by many in 1919 as well, I hope!)

So, the question is (leaving aside the argument of what is currently legal for now), is it EVER ethical to limit suffrage based on intelligence? Second (related) question, if your answer to the first is an affirmative, how would a government go about determining the minimum intelligence required in order to obtain suffrage? SAT scores? Ability to use a map and compass? Speed at which one can find Waldo? Skill at racking up head shots in Call of Duty?

Fuck if I know. This is the slipperiest of all slopes. The knee jerk reaction is to say "No, it is never acceptable." And my knee jerks as quickly as anyone else's. So let me play devil's advocate. Let's assume Person A, Sally, is of completely average intelligence, in every possible way: average IQ, average grades in high school, average ability to recite the alphabet backwards during a sobriety test. By what I am assuming is universal agreement, Sally should be allowed to vote. Now we have Person B, Maude. Maude recently had a car accident which left her with a severe traumatic brain injury. Maude is able to open her eyes, but cannot speak, respond to stimuli, feed herself, swallow, or comprehend her environment in any sense of the word. In other words, a persistent vegetative state. Let's assume that Maude, by similar universal agreement, should not be allowed to vote. The question then is, what is the fundamental difference between Sally and Maude i.e. at what point do you draw the line?

Discuss.