Yes

by Stanley W. Shura

Created on: July 13, 2007   Last Updated: February 22, 2012

It seems that most of the time, questions such as these are posed as "non-question questions" - that is, those the very asking of which reveals the asker's opinion, or at least implication, that the question is actually legit, and that a *particular* answer is thus implied.  In other words, it's putting up for debate (or the "democratic" process, a matter to which the public has NO claim or rightful protest.  Should a gay couple be allowed to hold hands in public?  Duh!  Who the hell is anyone to protest this? 

This is the same regard I hold for this question.  It's moot.  The answer is obvious, and I personally find it to be a burdensome task to explicate the hair-splitting, head-splitting  explanation of a basic human (or "God-given") right.. The question as it is stated is rather simple if taken literally - should an otherwise eligible citizen be barred from voting if s/he has been diagnosed with one of a variety of disorders listed in the the American Psychiatric Association's (APA's) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (the DSM IV).

All that said, the differentiation to which I refer is a matter of A.)defining "mentally ill", B.) deciding whether or not all contexts of the right to vote (local versus national, and candidate selection versus voting on specific referenda, for example) should have the same requirements regarding mental competency, and guardianship and other legal statuses of the citizen desiring to vote.

Let me address item "B" first, and swiftly. I am of the opinion that if you are capable of voting for your local school superintendent, you are likewise capable and eligible to vote for our next United States president. And, I am also of the opinion that if you are of sound enough mind to select a candidate, you are similarly disposed to have your voice count on various propositions and proposed legislation. I only include this in my argument because I can see where some citizens may feel that different contexts have different cognitive criteria. I happen to think not...

Now, to address the first point, item "A" - the definition of "mentally ill". I believe that the current scope of "mentally ill" indicates suffering from one or more disorders affecting mood, behavior, and/or cognitive function, which can range in severity from mild social anxiety or attentional deficits, to full blown (current/active/episodic?) schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders or even Downs Syndrome.

It hardly needs to be said that it would be most inappropriate, and actually UNFAIR, to lump all of those conditions and/or circumstances into one large category (perhaps labelled "defective"?) and to ascribe the same eligibility to all citizens so labelled - UNLESS SAID ELIGIBILITY STATUS APPLIES TO THOSE CITIZENS *NOT* SO LABELLED, AS WELL! In other words, fairness dictates that if you are going to make such a gross generalization to one vague (and large!) subgroup of society, you must regard all subgroups (in other words, *everyone*) in the same fashion.

It seems to me that one of the fairest and *least* convoluted ways to settle this would be to establish a particular standard which applies to EVERY voter or would-be voter. Currently, the only criteria seem to be that you must be at or over the age of majority (18 years), be a legal U.S. citizen (or a citizen of whatever region your vote covers - local, state, or as just stated, national), and that you are not a convicted felon.

If the above criteria are to change (and I am not implying any personal confidence that those are, or are the only, criteria - but they "sound familiar" to me), then such change needs to account for everyone. If, for example, it suddenly becomes law that in order to vote, you must have a 200 IQ? Well, not only would most depressives, schizophrenics, autistics, and obsessive compulsives (including yours truly) be excluded from the privilege/right, so would most citizens NOT so afflicted! Or, perhaps an additional criterion might be that "no one who has any credit card debt shall be afforded suffrage".

My point is that whatever criteria you assign, whatever rules you/we establish, they must apply to everyone equally.

I know how to settle this. Let's take a vote!

Learn more about this author, Stanley W. Shura.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.