Serving children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities

November 2007 Ballot Question

   This November, New Jersey voters will be given the opportunity to offer individuals with disabilities a gesture of respect by voting YES on a ballot question that proposes to amend the New Jersey Constitution to remove archaic and offensive language.
   Specifically, the proposal is to remove the phrase "[n]o idiot or insane person shall enjoy the right of suffrage" from the New Jersey Constitution, replacing it with the phrase "[n]o person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting shall enjoy the right of suffrage." The old language, dating back to a time when individuals with disabilities were disregarded in most areas of life, is demeaning and offensive. The new language, which is derived from court decisions, merely codifies the standards already set by the courts in New Jersey. 
   It is important to understand that changing this language will, IN NO WAY, affect or change the rights of individuals to vote in New Jersey's elections. Despite some prior media coverage to the contrary, voters are NOT being asked to decide who does and does not have the right to vote. It is merely a question of language. 
   But while it will not alter voting rights, a YES vote on this ballot question will send the message to New Jersey's citizens with disabilities that they are valued and respected members of society. For while this issue is one of language only, it can have powerful consequences for the individuals directly affected. If validated by New Jersey's voters, this language change will not, on its own, resolve problems of discrimination at polling places. Nor will it improve upon the stigma that still exists for many people with disabilities. What it will do, however, is ensure that no New Jerseyan will be forced to stand and prove that they are "not an idiot" to secure their fundamental right to vote. 
   New Jersey is one of only six states to continue to use this demeaning language to describe individuals with disabilities. The time for this change is long overdue. Please vote YES on this question on November 6, 2007!
 

John's Story

   There's a story that illustrates this issue. It concerns a man with a disability who was turned away from the polls by a Clerk who believed he should not be allowed to vote. Refusing to be discouraged, he traveled six blocks to the County Courthouse to ask a judge for an order showing that he was entitled to vote, just like everyone else. He found the Court House on his own. He navigated the judicial process on his own. He argued his own case. When he was done, the Judge handed him a court order with his name on it and the judge's decision. It read: "It is decided by This Court that, despite his limitation, [this man] is not an idiot and may therefore exercise his right to vote.".
   Although he was successful, and he had spent several hours in the pursuit of voting, the man went home without returning to the polls. When asked about it, he told a friend that the indignity was just too much. He'd had the fortitude to withstand an ignorant Clerk and the fortitude to force his way through the judicial process, but having to stand in a court room and prove that he was "not an idiot" had been too disheartening. 
  The indignity of this scenario should be unacceptable to all of us.