By Mike Hendricks, Kansas City Star, October 21, 2010
Amendment 2 had no trouble getting on the Kansas ballot and faces no organized opposition. So why are mental health advocates sweating it?
Exactly because it is so uncontroversial. Little attention is being paid to the proposal that would remove overly broad, discriminatory language aimed at the mentally ill in the state constitution.
Factor into that the tendency voters have to say “no” to ballot issues with which they’re unfamiliar. And no wonder some are nervous about this change that would strip lawmakers’ authority to keep those with mental illness from voting.
“My honest answer for you is simply, I’m not sure how this will turn out,” says Mark Wiebe, spokesman for the Kansas Mental Health Coalition.
It’s hard getting excited about Amendment 2. At first blush it appears to be a symbolic gesture geared to combat a theoretical threat.
True, one in five of us suffer from some form of mental illness, from mild depression, to post traumatic stress syndrome to schizophrenia.
And, as it’s now written, the Kansas Constitution says the Legislature has the power to “exclude persons from voting because of mental illness.”
Yet lawmakers have done no such thing since voters approved that language in 1974.
But here’s the counterargument to those who dismiss Amendment 2 as a feel-good measure:
“Why have something in the state constitution when it’s insulting to people with mental illness,” says Marie Dimenna, a mental health social worker who suffers from bipolar disorder.
Why allow restrictions that are “unnecessarily biased against any particular group of people?” she asks.
Courts could still restrict the rights of individuals declared incompetent.
However, what moved the needle for me was learning that some states have denied suffrage to broad groups of people with mental illness.
Until 2001, Maine denied the vote to functioning folks who were under some form of guardianship because they needed someone to look after their medical care or finances. (Think Lisabeth Salander, the girl with the dragon tattoo in those Stieg Larsson books.)
Twice, in 1997 and 2000, Maine voters rejected ballot measures similar to Kansas’.
“Enough crazy people are voting already,” one voter reportedly said, according to Psychiatric News.
The Maine Disability Rights Center sued on behalf of three women who were refused ballots in 2000.
The following year, a federal judge struck down Maine’s voting restriction, saying it discriminated against “a subset of mentally ill citizens based on a stereotype rather than any actual, relevant incapacity.”
This is not an issue in Missouri, but other states have since changed their constitutions.
Now it’s Kansas’ turn.
To reach Mike Hendricks, call 816-234-7708 or send email to mhendricks@kcstar.com.