Systemic Exclusion and the Democratic Process: An Analysis of Disability Disenfranchisement and Legal Autonomy

Full report

On this page

The fundamental right to vote serves as the absolute cornerstone of democratic participation, a liberty interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and rigorously defended by federal civil rights legislation. Yet, for millions of citizens with physical, intellectual, developmental, or psychiatric disabilities, this inalienable right remains heavily encumbered by systemic barriers and archaic legal frameworks that operate in direct contravention of equitable participation. Despite the ostensible protections enshrined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Voting Rights Act (VRA), and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the United States electoral system continues to grapple with the widespread and structural disenfranchisement of disabled citizens. This exclusion is not a singular failure but rather operates concurrently across multiple dimensions of civic life. It is perpetrated through state-sanctioned guardianship proceedings that strip individuals of legal autonomy without individualized capacity assessments, through physical and digital electoral infrastructure that routinely fails to meet baseline accessibility standards, and through the profound institutional isolation of highly vulnerable populations in long-term care and psychiatric facilities. By the 2024 general election, an estimated 40.2 million individuals with disabilities were eligible to vote, representing nearly one-sixth of the total American electorate and indicating a demographic segment growing at more than double the rate of voters without disabilities1. Despite this massive voting bloc—which experts at the Rutgers University Program for Disability Research have termed the "sleeping tiger in American politics"—data consistently demonstrates a persistent voter turnout gap of 10 to 11.7 percentage points between disabled and non-disabled voters1. This disparity is definitively not born of political apathy. Rather, it is the direct and measurable result of intersecting structural failures. Survey data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) reveals that approximately 20 percent of disabled voters report facing significant difficulties in casting their ballots, compared to a mere 6 percent of non-disabled voters2. For those voting in person, 25 percent of disabled individuals require assistance compared to 7 percent of the non-disabled population5. This report provides an exhaustive, multi-disciplinary investigation into the exact mechanisms of this systemic exclusion. It presents a comprehensive and comparative legal audit of state statutes governing guardianship and voter competency, an assessment of current physical and digital voting accessibility gaps driven by technological transitions in ballot auditing, a deep investigation into institutional and intersectional disenfranchisement, and a strategic policy blueprint centered on the deployment of universal design and the legal transition toward supported decision-making.

Legal Autonomy, Guardianship, and the Fragmentation of Voter Competency

The intersection of state guardianship law and federal voting rights represents one of the most highly contentious and legally ambiguous arenas in contemporary disability jurisprudence. Guardianship—often statutorily referred to as conservatorship in jurisdictions such as California, Tennessee, and Idaho—is a legal mechanism by which a state probate court determines that an individual lacks the requisite capacity to make decisions regarding their health, safety, welfare, or property6. While ostensibly designed as a protective, parens patriae measure to shield vulnerable adults from exploitation or self-harm, the imposition of a plenary (full) guardianship frequently results in a state of "civil death"6. In this state, the individual is systematically stripped of fundamental rights, including the right to marry, the right to enter into contracts, the right to dictate medical treatment, and, crucially, the right to participate in the democratic process6.

The Patchwork Legal Audit of State Voter Competency Laws

State constitutions and election codes explicitly govern voter qualifications, leading to a highly fragmented national landscape regarding the disenfranchisement of individuals under guardianship. Historically, many state constitutions categorically disenfranchised individuals categorized by archaic, stigmatizing terminology—such as "idiots," "insane persons," or those deemed "non compos mentis"11. Today, state laws governing voting rights for individuals under guardianship fall broadly into three overlapping statutory categories: state constitutional provisions outlining qualified electors, state voting registration statutes, and state probate or guardianship codes11. Out of fifty states and the District of Columbia, thirty-five possess constitutional provisions that explicitly restrict the voting rights of mentally incapacitated individuals, while thirteen state constitutions remain utterly silent on the matter, leaving the determination to lower statutory interpretation11. Approximately fifteen states continue to enforce laws that bar voting by individuals who are "under guardianship" or adjudged "mentally incompetent," frequently without requiring the court to specifically assess the individual's actual cognitive capacity to understand the electoral process12. The standard for determining voter competency under guardianship varies wildly across jurisdictions, creating deep inequalities based merely on geographic location.

The imposition of functional capacity tests that specifically target individuals under guardianship clearly violates the ADA, which strictly prohibits public entities from applying eligibility criteria that screen out individuals with disabilities16. Probate courts in states with competency requirements frequently subject individuals to intense questioning that goes far beyond the baseline requirements applied to the non-disabled public16. By demanding that a disabled individual prove a deep understanding of political science to retain their fundamental rights—a standard that is never applied to non-disabled citizens at the polling place—the state enacts a discriminatory and asymmetric barrier to the ballot box. In Illinois, the Probate Act of 1975 (755 ILCS 5/11a) offers a slightly more protective framework. The statute dictates that guardianship must be utilized as a tool of last resort and ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual's actual mental, physical, and adaptive limitations21. Crucially, under Illinois law, a person under guardianship inherently retains the right to vote unless specifically revoked, provided they satisfy the functional capacity to exercise the vote and meet all other legal requirements21. However, even in states like Illinois, the initiation of guardianship inherently places the burden on the ward and their Guardian ad Litem to protect civil rights that might otherwise be swept away in overly broad judicial orders22.

Landmark Jurisprudence: The Capacity Standard Debate

The constitutionality of categorical disenfranchisement was successfully challenged and dismantled in the landmark federal district court case Doe v. Rowe (156 F. Supp. 2d 35, D. Me. 2001). The case centered on a Maine constitutional provision that broadly disenfranchised individuals "under guardianship for reasons of mental illness"15. The court struck down the provision on both Due Process and Equal Protection grounds. It found that disenfranchising individuals under guardianship without providing advance procedural notice that their voting rights were at stake violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment24. Furthermore, the court held that the classification was arbitrary—both fatally under-inclusive and over-inclusive—because it disenfranchised individuals who possessed the cognitive capacity to vote simply because they had a guardian, while allowing other severely incapacitated persons not under guardianship to retain their voting rights25. The Doe v. Rowe court endorsed a narrow functional standard: a person may only be denied the franchise if they explicitly lack the capacity to understand the nature and effect of voting such that they cannot make an individual choice13. Despite the powerful precedent set in Maine, other jurisdictions have actively resisted the shift toward individualized capacity assessments, leading to deeply contradictory jurisprudence. In Missouri, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a constitutional restriction on voting by persons under guardianship for mental disabilities in Missouri Protection and Advocacy Services v. Carnahan (499 F.3d 803, 2007). The appellate court saved the statute from being struck down by narrowly interpreting the law to implicitly require individualized assessments rather than acting as a blanket ban13. However, in a stark demonstration of jurisdictional friction, a subsequent Missouri appellate court decision, Estate of Posey v. Bergin (299 S.W.3d 6, 2009), adopted a strict, maximalist interpretation of the state's statutes. The state court ruled that Missouri law establishes a "clear and unambiguous" bar on voting by individuals under guardianship, completely foreclosing the possibility of restoring voting rights by presenting evidence of capacity, effectively neutralizing the federal court's protective interpretation within state probate proceedings14. Recognizing the inherently discriminatory nature of subjective capacity testing, the American Bar Association (ABA) and the Uniform Law Commission have pushed for a new, progressive legal standard: the "expression of desire" test. Embedded within the 2017 Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act (UGCOPAA), this standard dictates that a person subject to guardianship inherently retains the right to vote unless a court specifically determines by clear and convincing evidence that the individual cannot communicate, with or without reasonable accommodations, a desire to participate in the voting process14. This standard radically shifts the evidentiary burden away from proving political cognition and directly aligns with civil rights principles by emphasizing the fundamental act of choice, ensuring that communicative barriers are not conflated with a lack of legal capacity.

Physical, Technological, and Digital Accessibility Gaps

Even in scenarios where individuals with disabilities possess full legal autonomy and retain their right to vote, they frequently encounter insurmountable logistical and technological barriers at the ballot box. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) mandated that jurisdictions conducting federal elections provide at least one accessible voting system for people with disabilities at each polling place, ensuring the opportunity for privacy and independence29. Yet, rigorous auditing data reveals a profound failure of municipalities to actualize these statutory mandates, functionally disenfranchising millions through systemic negligence.

In-Person Voting Barriers and ADA Non-Compliance

According to a pivotal and highly cited 2016 audit conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an assessment of 137 polling places nationwide revealed that only a staggering 40 percent fully accommodated people with disabilities30. This represents a systemic, nationwide violation of Title II of the ADA, which explicitly requires state and local governments to provide equal access to public programs, services, and activities5. The physical barriers are pervasive and multifaceted. Organizations supporting disabled voters report that physical impediments—such as inaccessible parking, the absence of ADA-compliant ramps, heavy doors, narrow hallways, and prolonged wait times without adequate seating for those with chronic pain or mobility issues—severely depress voter turnout1. Furthermore, of the polling places audited by the GAO, 65 percent featured accessible voting stations that were improperly set up, thereby impeding the casting of a private and independent vote. Voting machines were frequently positioned in ways that failed to accommodate wheelchair users or placed in highly visible areas with high foot traffic, forcing disabled voters to rely on poll worker assistance and thereby compromising the constitutional guarantee of a secret ballot30.

The VVSG 2.0 and the Paradox of the Paper Audit Trail

The technological evolution of voting systems, driven by cybersecurity concerns, has inadvertently generated acute new accessibility crises for disabled voters. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) develops the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), which dictate the rigorous technical standards for manufacturing and deploying voting machines33. The adoption of VVSG 2.0 in 2021 was championed as a major, generational upgrade for election security, primarily due to its stringent requirements for a Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT)33. VVPATs allow for post-election manual audits and recounts, assuaging deep public concerns over hacking, software glitches, and electronic fraud associated with older, purely electronic Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) machines36. However, the mandatory integration of paper ballots creates a severe and unresolved accessibility paradox. Traditional paper voting is inherently inaccessible to blind, low-vision, and dexterity-impaired voters, who simply cannot independently hand-mark or visually verify a printed physical ballot2. To comply with both security and accessibility mandates, jurisdictions deploy Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs), which feature audio-tactile interfaces, screen readers, sip-and-puff technology, and rocker paddles29. Disability rights advocates argue compellingly that the implementation of VVSG 2.0 effectively creates a "segregated" voting system. Because the guidelines assume the vast majority of the electorate will hand-mark paper ballots, jurisdictions often provide only the bare statutory minimum—exactly one accessible BMD per precinct38. This segregation results in frequent machine malfunctions that go unnoticed until a disabled voter arrives, poll workers who are untrained in activating the complex accessibility features, and disproportionately long delays for disabled voters38. Furthermore, if a blind voter utilizes a BMD to generate a printed paper ballot, they cannot visually verify the final printed text on the paper before it drops into the ballot box, fundamentally undermining the very premise of the "voter-verified" paper audit trail and forcing them to rely on third-party verification, nullifying their independence36. The tension between cybersecurity protocols and HAVA's mandate for private, independent voting remains largely unresolved, leaving modern electronic voting systems structurally biased against disabled users.

The Digital Chasm: Web Accessibility Failures

The democratic process increasingly relies on digital infrastructure. Voter registration, absentee ballot requests, polling location lookups, and sample ballots are primarily hosted on state and county websites. Unfortunately, government digital accessibility remains exceptionally poor, creating an invisible barrier to entry long before election day arrives. Under Title II of the ADA, and clarified by a rigorous 2024 Final Rule issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), state and local governments must ensure their web content and mobile applications conform strictly to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, Level AA42. Despite this clear, actionable legal obligation, digital compliance across the public sector is abysmal. A comprehensive 2026 WebAIM analysis found that an astonishing 95.9 percent of all web home pages exhibited detectable WCAG failures, and 92 percent of U.S. federal websites failed to meet basic accessibility guidelines, averaging over 56 distinct errors per web page44.

The consequences of these digital failures are profound and statistically measurable. According to a joint study by the EAC and Rutgers University, voters with disabilities were highly likely to seek out voting information via printed mailings in the 2022 elections explicitly because state and county election websites were rated as inaccessible and deeply frustrating to navigate with assistive technology29. When the digital front door to democracy is locked, the subsequent stages of participation see precipitous drop-offs.

Institutionalized Populations and the Battle for Voter Assistance

Civic exclusion is particularly acute and systemic for disabled individuals residing in long-term care facilities, nursing homes, assisted living centers, and psychiatric hospitals. Ambulatory limitations, chronic illness, diminished capacity, and profound institutional isolation pose massive barriers to the exercise of the franchise10. State laws regarding institutional voting access are highly variable. While patients in psychiatric hospitals generally retain the right to vote unless explicitly adjudicated incompetent by a judge, hospital administrators and chief medical officers often act as de facto legal gatekeepers. In many instances, administrators unilaterally restrict voting access citing vague concerns over a patient's "medical welfare," circumventing judicial due process entirely17. In states like Montana, investigations have revealed that facility staff frequently make arbitrary assumptions about patient competency, leading to delayed, mishandled, or outright denied ballot access2. An American Bar Association (ABA) survey investigating the extent to which states have established specific procedures for absentee voting in nursing homes and assisted living facilities found critical gaps. Only twenty-three states were identified as having absentee voting procedures expressly addressing residents of nursing homes10. In twenty-one of these states, the procedures are mandatory statewide, but in others, the protocols remain purely discretionary, leaving institutionalized voters at the mercy of localized county election boards and facility administrators who may view voter mobilization as an unnecessary operational burden10.

Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act: The Right to Assistance

To combat this isolation and ensure that disabled voters can successfully navigate the complexities of the ballot, Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) explicitly guarantees that any voter who requires assistance by reason of blindness, disability, or an inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice. The only exception to this rule is that the assistor cannot be the voter's employer or an agent of their labor union5. This provision was enacted specifically by Congress to shield vulnerable voters from manipulation and to ensure they have the absolute logistical support necessary to navigate the electoral process with someone they trust5. For institutionalized voters and disabled individuals voting by mail, assistance is not a luxury; it is a fundamental prerequisite for participation. Over 18 percent of disabled voters require help from family members to vote in person, and 45 percent rely on assistance to manage absentee ballots5.

The Criminalization of Voter Assistance and the Chilling Effect

Despite the clear federal mandate of Section 208, a wave of recent state legislation has severely curtailed the ability of disabled voters to receive adequate assistance, framing these restrictions under the guise of preventing voter fraud and coercion. Between 2021 and 2024, states passed a total of 79 restrictive voting laws, many of which targeted and criminalized vital voter assistance mechanisms1. In Texas, Senate Bill 1 (SB1) established draconian limitations on what a voter assistant could physically and verbally do, preventing them from answering a voter's questions, explaining the voting process, or paraphrasing complex ballot language into plain terminology. Crucially, SB1 also introduced criminal penalties for compensating assistors and imposed strict identification requirements49. While the Western District of Texas ruled that portions of SB1 flagrantly violated Section 208 by improperly narrowing the definition of assistance, the chilling effect on direct support professionals and personal care attendants was immediate, severe, and measurable. Testimonies presented at trial revealed that care staff frequently refused to assist disabled voters entirely due to the looming threat of felony prosecution50. Similar restrictions have proliferated nationwide. At least 25 states currently restrict exactly who can return another voter's absentee ballot, severing the lifelines of homebound individuals. In Ohio, a law making it a potential criminal offense for a grandchild to return a grandparent's absentee ballot if they do not meet highly specific criteria is currently facing a Section 208 challenge brought by the League of Women Voters51. In Missouri, only relatives within the second degree of consanguinity are permitted to return a voter's ballot, explicitly excluding trusted professional caregivers, neighbors, and non-familial advocates upon whom many disabled individuals entirely rely51. By criminalizing the very support networks that disabled individuals use to navigate the voting process, states are effectively disenfranchising institutionalized and homebound voters through intimidation and the threat of prosecution.

Intersectional Disenfranchisement and the Compounded Turnout Gap

Disability does not exist in a vacuum; it is an identity that deeply intersects with race, age, language proficiency, and socioeconomic status. The systemic barriers erected against disabled voters exert a compounded, exponential toll on marginalized communities, generating a massive turnout gap that alters electoral outcomes on a national scale.

The Mathematics of the Turnout Gap

Data aggregated by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and Rutgers University clearly outlines the vast scope of the crisis. In the 2022 midterm elections, 31.1 million disabled people were eligible to vote, yet they turned out at a rate roughly 10 to 11.7 percentage points lower than the non-disabled population, a gap that remained even after controlling for other personal characteristics1. The mere expectation of voting difficulty heavily depresses participation. In 2022, 28 percent of disabled individuals who did not vote reported that they expected difficulties voting in person, compared to just 7.4 percent of non-disabled non-voters2. The rollback of inclusive pandemic-era policies directly exacerbates this gap. For instance, when Connecticut reverted from universal no-excuse absentee voting back to an excuse-required system in 2022, the disability turnout gap surged to an astonishing 11 percent—one of the highest in the nation and vastly exceeding the national average of 1.5 percent for that cycle4. Conversely, states that transitioned to permanent no-excuse mail voting witnessed an almost 7 percent increase in disabled voter turnout4.

Compounded Vulnerabilities: Race, Age, and Language

The demographics of the disabled electorate reveal deep intersectional disparities. Individuals who identify as non-Hispanic Black, Indigenous (American Indian/Alaska Native), and multiracial report substantially higher rates of disability than their Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander counterparts52. The intersection of race and disability means that restrictive voting laws—such as strict voter ID requirements, precinct closures in urban centers, and aggressive signature-matching protocols—disproportionately disenfranchise disabled voters of color2. Age is another critical vector. As the American population ages, cognitive decline and physical mobility issues become paramount. People experiencing cognitive decline, whether from age-related dementia or traumatic brain injuries, are among those least likely to cast a ballot29. This demographic requires robust access to accessible absentee voting, yet they are the exact population most heavily targeted by restrictive guardianship proceedings and restrictions on ballot return assistance51. Furthermore, Section 208's protections explicitly extend to voters with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). The restriction of voter assistance, combined with the lack of accessible, translated election materials, creates an insurmountable hurdle for aging, disabled, and non-English-speaking citizens48. When poll workers aggressively challenge voters based on assumptions about their cognitive competence or their language skills—such as reports of poll workers challenging Latina voters on their citizenship and English proficiency during the 2024 early voting period—it creates a hostile environment that not only suppresses the current vote but deters future civic participation48.

Strategic Policy Blueprint: Universal Design and Supported Decision-Making

To actively dismantle the systemic exclusion of disabled individuals from the democratic process, structural reforms must transcend reactive, piecemeal ADA compliance. True enfranchisement requires a radical paradigm shift toward Supported Decision-Making (SDM) in the legal realm and the absolute integration of Universal Design in election administration.

Transitioning from Guardianship to Supported Decision-Making (SDM)

The most effective, evidence-based method for preserving legal autonomy and voting rights is to aggressively limit the application of plenary guardianship. Supported Decision-Making (SDM) is a formal, legally recognized framework wherein an individual with a disability retains all their fundamental civil rights but designates trusted supporters—friends, family, or professionals—to help them understand information, weigh complex options, and communicate their decisions to third parties7. State legislatures are increasingly recognizing SDM as a highly viable, less-restrictive alternative to guardianship that preserves the dignity and autonomy of the individual. Over 24 states, including Texas, California, Washington, New Hampshire, and Delaware, have passed comprehensive SDM agreement legislation7. Furthermore, at least 18 states have adopted explicit statutory provisions requiring probate courts to rigorously evaluate SDM and other less-restrictive alternatives before stripping an individual of their rights, aligning with the core principles of the UGCOPAA7. In 2026 alone, states like Illinois, Idaho, and Kansas expanded their legislative frameworks to mandate SDM consideration in probate courts, marking a major national shift7. To decisively protect the franchise, states must enact the following statutory reforms:

1. Abolish Categorical Disenfranchisement: Amend state constitutions and statutes to ensure that guardianship status does not automatically or implicitly result in the loss of voting rights14.

2. Adopt the 'Desire to Vote' Standard: If competency evaluations must be conducted, they should be strictly limited to evaluating whether an individual can communicate a desire to vote, with or without accommodations, explicitly prohibiting subjective tests of political knowledge or candidate platforms14.

3. Mandate Due Process Notifications: Require probate courts to explicitly notify individuals, in plain language, if their voting rights are at risk during guardianship proceedings, and mandate the provision of court-appointed counsel specifically tasked with defending those civil rights24.

Implementing Universal Design in Election Systems

Universal Design dictates that products, environments, and systems should be intuitively usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. In the context of elections, this means creating holistic systems that do not segregate disabled voters into "special" voting booths or alternative, highly burdensome processes.

1. Remote Accessible Vote by Mail (RAVBM) and Electronic Return: Traditional absentee voting remains physically inaccessible to blind and mobility-impaired voters who cannot independently mark, fold, or mail a paper ballot2. States must universally deploy RAVBM systems that allow voters to receive, mark, and read their ballots electronically using their own familiar, at-home assistive technologies29. Furthermore, expanding secure electronic ballot return (via email, fax, or secure online portal)—currently available in many states strictly for overseas military personnel—to voters with disabilities would seamlessly bypass the physical barriers of postal mail29.

2. Ensuring WCAG 2.1 AA Compliance for all Digital Election Infrastructure: State and local election officials must immediately audit and remediate their websites to comply with the DOJ's Title II Rule. This requires prioritizing the remediation of inaccessible PDFs (such as voter registration and absentee request forms), ensuring proper heading hierarchies, implementing high-contrast color schemes, and guaranteeing that all interactive elements are fully navigable via keyboard32.

3. Reforming VVSG 2.0 Implementation: To resolve the VVPAT accessibility paradox, the EAC must heavily incentivize the development of end-to-end verifiable electronic voting systems that do not rely exclusively on visually verified paper outputs. In the interim, jurisdictions must ensure that Ballot Marking Devices are deployed universally—meaning all voters, regardless of disability, utilize the BMDs to mark their ballots. This operational shift prevents the segregation of disabled voters, normalizes the technology for poll workers, ensures the machines are continuously tested and functional, and fiercely protects ballot secrecy38.

4. Protecting Section 208 Voter Assistance: Federal oversight must be strengthened to strike down state laws that criminalize or arbitrarily restrict voter assistance. Election administrators must provide rigorous, mandatory training for poll workers to deeply understand that disabled and LEP voters have an unconditional federal right to be assisted by a person of their choice5.

The systemic exclusion of individuals with physical, intellectual, developmental, or psychiatric disabilities from the democratic process is a massive, multi-layered crisis rooted deeply in the denial of legal autonomy and the chronic failure of public infrastructure. The ongoing reliance on plenary guardianship to inflict "civil death," combined with the proliferation of unconstitutional, subjective capacity tests, actively silences millions of eligible citizens. Concurrently, the failure to meet baseline ADA and WCAG standards at polling places and across digital platforms, exacerbated by legislative crackdowns criminalizing vital voter assistance, transforms the act of voting into an arduous, sometimes impossible task for disabled Americans. To achieve true electoral equity, the integration of Supported Decision-Making into state probate codes must be coupled with the absolute adoption of Universal Design principles across all electoral architecture, ensuring the democratic process fulfills its constitutional promise of equal participation for all citizens.

Works cited

1. Mapping Disabled Americans' Access to Democracy \- Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/accessibledemocracy/

2. The Most Powerful Right: \- Disability Rights Montana, https://disabilityrightsmt.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/The-Most-Powerful-Rightj-RevApr22.pdf

3. Ensuring Voting Access Across the Electorate \- Cameron Wimpy, https://cwimpy.com/uploads/schur2025ensuring.pdf

4. Connecticut ballot measure could make voting more inclusive \- CT Mirror, https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/18/ct-no-excuse-absentee-voting-inclusivity/

5. The Right to Voter Assistance for People with Disabilities Support for this project and Disclaimer: This resource was produced u, https://www.ndrn.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Memo-re-Right-to-Voter-Assistance-AC121123.pdf

6. Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination \- National Council on Disability, https://www.ncd.gov/assets/uploads/docs/ncd-guardianship-report-accessible.pdf

7. U.S. Supported Decision-Making Laws, https://supporteddecisions.org/resources-on-sdm/state-supported-decision-making-laws-and-court-decisions/

8. Life Planning: Guardianship, Housing & Transition (2026), https://specialneedstrustbystate.com/life-planning/

9. A Critique of Guardianship Theory from the Perspective of Catholic Thought: The Tension Between the Duty to Protect and Preserva \- NDLScholarship, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1937\&context=ndjlepp

10. BIFOCAL | American Bar Association, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/bifocal/bifocal\_261.pdf

11. Updates to State Voting Laws for Individuals with Limited Capacity, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law\_aging/publications/bifocal/vol-43/vol43-issue3/voting-laws-limited-capacity/

12. A-Guide-to-the-Voting-Rights-of-People-with-Mental-Disabilities, https://drok.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/A-Guide-to-the-Voting-Rights-of-People-with-Mental-Disabilities.pdf

13. The Capacity to Vote of Persons With Serious Mental Illness | Psychiatric Services, https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ps.2009.60.5.624

14. Voting Rights of Individuals Subject to Guardianship \- NDRN, https://www.ndrn.org/resource/voting-guardianship/

15. Barriers to Voting: Individuals under Guardianship for Mental Disability \- Maryland Department of Legislative Services, https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/InterGovMatters/Elect/Barriers-to-Voting-Individuals-under-Guardianship-for-Mental-Disability.pdf

16. Comments on RFI for Promoting Access to Voting \- Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, https://www.nist.gov/document/rfi-comment-promoting-access-voting-bazelon-center-mental-health-law-attachment

17. State Voter Competence Laws, https://cslib.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p128501coll2/id/667402/download

18. 2018-Voter-Guide-Updated.pdf \- Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, https://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-Voter-Guide-Updated.pdf

19. Voting Rights of People Subject to Guardianship, https://www.ndrn.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Voting-Rights-and-Guardianship-07-18-23-AC071723.pdf

20. Guide to the Voting Rights of People with Mental Disabilities \- Santa Cruz County Elections Department, https://votescount.santacruzcountyca.gov/Portals/16/pdfs/Guide%20to%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20of%20People%20with%20Mental%20Disabilities%202016.pdf

21. Ethics of Guardianship \- August 2021 \- Illinois Department on Aging, https://ilaging.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/aging/protectionadvocacy/documents/ethics-of-guardianship-ppt-slides.pdf

22. Chicago Volunteer Legal Services GAL TRAINING MANUAL, https://www.cvls.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-Adult-GAL-Manual.pdf

23. A Guide to A Guide to Adult Guardianship in Illinois in Illinois, https://gac.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/gac/osg/documents/guideadultguardianship20112025rev.pdf

24. The Right to Vote \- Disability Justice, https://disabilityjustice.org/basic-legal-rights/right-to-vote/

25. Out of Mind, Out of Sight: Voting Restrictions Based on Mental Competency \- Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law, https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164\&context=idaho-law-review

26. The Ban on Voting in Elections, Imposed on Persons With Mental Disabilities, Unconstitutional | News | Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova, https://constcourt.md/libview.php?l=en\&idc=7\&id=1302

27. Voting Rights Guide 2016 | Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, https://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/voting-rights-guide-2016.pdf

28. NOT JUST GUARDIANSHIP: UNCOVERING THE INVISIBLE TAXONOMY OF LAWS, REGULATIONS AND DECISIONS THAT LIMIT OR DENY THE RIGHT OF LEGA, https://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/article/24017-not-just-guardianship-uncovering-the-invisible-taxonomy-of-laws-regulations-and-decisions-that-limit-or-deny-the-right-of-legal-capacity-for-persons.pdf

29. Voters with Disabilities \- National Conference of State Legislatures, https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voters-with-disabilities

30. GAO-18-4, VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES: Observations on Polling Place Accessibility and Related Federal Guidance \Reissued on Decemb, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-4.pdf

31. Volunteers Survey Accessibility of Polling Places for People with, https://www.dlcv.org/volunteers-survey-accessibility-of-polling-places-for-people-with-disabilities

32. ADA Website Compliance Guide: Accessibility and the Law, https://accessible.org/ada-website-compliance/

33. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.0 to \- U.S. Election Assistance Commission, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/Voluntary\_Voting\_System\_Guidelines\_Version\_2\_0.pdf

34. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines \- U.S. Election Assistance Commission, https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines

35. U.S. Election Assistance Commission Adopts New Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0, https://www.eac.gov/news/2021/02/10/us-election-assistance-commission-adopts-new-voluntary-voting-system-guidelines-20

36. Voter-verified paper audit trail \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter-verified\_paper\_audit\_trail

37. Handbook for the Observation of New Voting Technologies \- OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/0/6/104939.pdf

38. Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 Requirements \- Regulations.gov, https://downloads.regulations.gov/EAC-2020-0002-0064/attachment\_1.pdf

39. Direct Recording Electronic \- Avante International Technology, Inc., https://www.avantetech.com/products/elections/dre

40. Companion Document for the Election Official Community \- National Institute of Standards and Technology, https://www.nist.gov/document/vvsg-companion-document-20080702pdf

41. Voting machines I recommend \- CITP Blog, https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2019/03/14/voting-machines-i-recommend/

42. ADA Compliance \- KGIS, https://www.kgis.org/portal/AboutUs/ADACompliance.aspx

43. WCAG 2.1 AA Compliance for Government Meeting Portals: The Complete Guide, https://www.escribemeetings.com/web-content-accessibility-guidelines-2-1/

44. Government Website Accessibility: Ensuring Equal Access for Every Citizen, https://www.tranistics.com/government-websites-and-digital-accessibility-ensuring-equal-access-for-everyone/

45. Designing Election Websites, https://civicdesign.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Designing-Election-Websites-2.pdf

46. Step-by-Step Guide to Website Accessibility \- Texas Association of Counties, https://www.county.org/resources/resource-library/tac-cira/cira-step-by-step-guide-website-accessibility

47. State Laws Affecting the Voting Rights of People with Mental Disabilities1, https://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2016\_State-Laws-Affecting-Voting-Rights-of-PWD.pdf

48. THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF YOUR CHOICE AT THE POLLS: \- Asian Americans Advancing Justice, https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/sites/default/files/2016-09/Section%20208%20Report.pdf

49. Brief in Opposition \- Supreme Court of the United States, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-904/409373/20260520150944668\_25-904%20%20%2025-916%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

50. Voting and Disability Rights — HPOD, https://hpod.law.harvard.edu/news/voting-disability-rights/

51. Protecting the Rights of Voters with Disabilities, https://www.lwv.org/blog/protecting-rights-voters-disabilities

52. Report: Power of the Disability Vote Across Southern Swing States, https://www.newdisabledsouthrising.org/disability-vote

53. Best practices and policy proposals for North Carolina to improve voting, combat corruption, and promote good government \- Institute for Southern Studies, https://www.southernstudies.org/sites/default/files/25BlueprintPreview.pdf

54. Supported Decision-Making in the U.S. \- The Council on Quality and Leadership, https://www.c-q-l.org/resources/guides/supported-decision-making-in-the-u-s/

55. The Legal Landscape for Supported Decision-Making in the United States and its Application to Clinical Research | Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics \- Cambridge University Press & Assessment, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-medicine-and-ethics/article/legal-landscape-for-supported-decisionmaking-in-the-united-states-and-its-application-to-clinical-research/8A25F9D620324B8D054696568C66B889

56. Feigenholtz leads expansion of supported decision-making law, https://www.senatorsara.com/feigenholtz-leads-expansion-of-supported-decision-making-law/

57. Enfranchisement of People Subject to Guardianship \- NDRN, https://www.ndrn.org/resource/enfranchisement-of-people-subject-to-guardianship/

58. ENFRANCHISEMENT OF PEOPLE SUBJECT TO GUARDIANSHIP \- Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, https://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Toolkit-for-Enfranchisement-in-Guardianship-2022-02-08.pdf

59. Draft EAP January 2024-January 2028 \- San Mateo County Clerk, https://smcacre.gov/system/files/2023-10/EAP%20Jan2024-Jan%202028%20draft.pdf