RSS Feeds
 |
|
|||||||||||||
News » Breaking News
Article rated a 0
by 0
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Voters asked to remove 'idiot' reference from state voting law
By MIKE GLOVER, AP Political Writer
DES MOINES — It’s drawn little attention and no organized opposition, but voters next month will be asked to change Iowa’s constitution to remove the term "idiot" in defining who is eligible to vote.
Rep. Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque, has been a driving force behind the 10-year effort to clean up the outdated language included when the constitution was ratified in 1857.
"They used the language they thought would fit at the time," said Jochum. "We do know a whole lot more today. We now understand mental illness. There is absolutely no reason our constitution should refer to these people as idiots, because they’re not."
At issue is language in the constitution that prohibits voting by anyone identified as an "idiot or insane person." The proposed change would make that read "a person adjudged mentally incompetent to vote."
The campaign is a highly personal one for Jochum, whose 31-year-old daughter, Sarah, is mentally disabled.
The drive began in 1998 when Jochum and then-Rep. Betty Grundberg, a Des Moines Republican who also has a child who is mentally disabled, discovered the "idiot" language in the constitution.
"I certainly understand that then the knowledge of mental illness and mental retardation was nil," said Jochum.
The two set off on what would be a decade-long journey to amend the constitution, a process that early Iowa residents deliberately made very tough. The effort faced additional challenges beyond what the framers intended.
Jochum said many local election officials backed the effort because they often had to decide who should be allowed to vote.
To amend the constitution, both the House and Senate must approve a resolution calling for the change during a two-year General Assembly, and then approve the same resolution in the next General Assembly following an election.
While that process was under way for the language change, backers wrote into state law new provisions for deciding who should be allowed to vote. Those procedures say that when people go to court seeking to be named a legal guardian or conservator, a judge is asked to decide if a person is competent to make financial or other life decisions without assistance.
The law was revamped to include a requirement that the judge also decide if the person is competent to vote.
"Judges can bring in whoever they want to help them make a decision if this person is competent to cast a vote," Jochum said. That would include social workers, psychiatrists or other experts in behavior, Jochum said.
"Basically what we’re trying to do is modernize our constitution to reflect our knowledge and understanding on mental illness," said Jochum.
A more sophisticated understanding shows that many people with mental disorders have mental strengths as well, Jochum said.
"Most people with mental illness have an above-average IQ," she said.
While there’s no organized opposition, the term "electors" is sometimes substituted for "voters" and Jochum worries that some will mistakenly think the amendment is related to the state’s electoral college electors.
There has already been something of a sidetrack for the proposed amendment, which was approved by the Legislature in time to go on the ballot for the 2000 election, An administrative goof prevented it from going on the ballot that year.
After the Legislature approves a resolution calling for a measure to go on the ballot, it’s delivered to the secretary of state, who is required to publish a notice that the issue will be on the ballot. Then-Secretary of State Chet Culver’s office didn’t publish the legal notice through an oversight and lawmakers had to start all over again.
Jochum said the effort is only the latest in an effort to update a constitution, which originally allowed the vote only for white male property owners.
"The road to equality has been under construction since our constitution was written," said Jochum.
Rep. Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque, has been a driving force behind the 10-year effort to clean up the outdated language included when the constitution was ratified in 1857.
"They used the language they thought would fit at the time," said Jochum. "We do know a whole lot more today. We now understand mental illness. There is absolutely no reason our constitution should refer to these people as idiots, because they’re not."
At issue is language in the constitution that prohibits voting by anyone identified as an "idiot or insane person." The proposed change would make that read "a person adjudged mentally incompetent to vote."
The campaign is a highly personal one for Jochum, whose 31-year-old daughter, Sarah, is mentally disabled.
The drive began in 1998 when Jochum and then-Rep. Betty Grundberg, a Des Moines Republican who also has a child who is mentally disabled, discovered the "idiot" language in the constitution.
"I certainly understand that then the knowledge of mental illness and mental retardation was nil," said Jochum.
The two set off on what would be a decade-long journey to amend the constitution, a process that early Iowa residents deliberately made very tough. The effort faced additional challenges beyond what the framers intended.
Jochum said many local election officials backed the effort because they often had to decide who should be allowed to vote.
To amend the constitution, both the House and Senate must approve a resolution calling for the change during a two-year General Assembly, and then approve the same resolution in the next General Assembly following an election.
While that process was under way for the language change, backers wrote into state law new provisions for deciding who should be allowed to vote. Those procedures say that when people go to court seeking to be named a legal guardian or conservator, a judge is asked to decide if a person is competent to make financial or other life decisions without assistance.
The law was revamped to include a requirement that the judge also decide if the person is competent to vote.
"Judges can bring in whoever they want to help them make a decision if this person is competent to cast a vote," Jochum said. That would include social workers, psychiatrists or other experts in behavior, Jochum said.
"Basically what we’re trying to do is modernize our constitution to reflect our knowledge and understanding on mental illness," said Jochum.
A more sophisticated understanding shows that many people with mental disorders have mental strengths as well, Jochum said.
"Most people with mental illness have an above-average IQ," she said.
While there’s no organized opposition, the term "electors" is sometimes substituted for "voters" and Jochum worries that some will mistakenly think the amendment is related to the state’s electoral college electors.
There has already been something of a sidetrack for the proposed amendment, which was approved by the Legislature in time to go on the ballot for the 2000 election, An administrative goof prevented it from going on the ballot that year.
After the Legislature approves a resolution calling for a measure to go on the ballot, it’s delivered to the secretary of state, who is required to publish a notice that the issue will be on the ballot. Then-Secretary of State Chet Culver’s office didn’t publish the legal notice through an oversight and lawmakers had to start all over again.
Jochum said the effort is only the latest in an effort to update a constitution, which originally allowed the vote only for white male property owners.
"The road to equality has been under construction since our constitution was written," said Jochum.
 |
 |
More Stories from News » Breaking News
Voters not bound by dress codeChef DiSpirito keeps 'Dancing with the Stars'PICTURE: Shawn Johnson visits White HouseHanenberger promoted to UNI assistant track and field coachUPDATE My Morning Jacket member injured at Iowa concertPolice shoot attacking pit bullBlonde sues over brown dye; judge brushes off suitTrain hauling ethanol derails near DyersvilleDamm's testimony too much for parents to hearPICTURE: Chicago cop freed from Iowa prison2 UNI athletes suspended for theft convictionsVoters asked to remove 'idiot' reference from state voting lawMan convicted of killing family in SE Iowa seeks new trialMarshalltown high school locked down, man held
cf1981 wrote on Oct 10, 2008 1:52 AM:
" I agree with Jochum, remove the term "idiot" so McCain supporters can cast their votes! "
Reader54 wrote on Oct 10, 2008 2:07 PM:
" I wonder how many people will misread this think they are voting to remove Chet Culver from office??? "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
ozymandias wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:10 PM:
As a legal term, and legal definition, I find the restriction preventing someone with especially profound mental ret*tion(redacted due to the comment filter) acceptable. I would not be against using an updated definition (swap idiot and 'person with especially profound mental ret*tion(redacted due to the comment filter)' for instance) but I feel that the intended meaning is important to keep.
Personally, I feel that someone who is incapable of being their own guardian, and is so deemed by the state is also incapable of rationally and intelligently voting. If they are unable to be responsible for their own actions in their private life, they are unable to understand the issues enough to vote responsibly.
I think the same standard should be applied to the 'insane' portion. If you are not considered stable enough to be your own guardian and manage your own life, you are not qualified to vote on the direction the country is taking, which is again, the legal definition. To be legally insane, one is deemed to lack the capacity to enter into certain relationships or contracts --something that is less important than the ability to vote.
I feel that this article, and perhaps those interviewed skewed the issue, as I see no case where the legal definitions of the two words under contest prohibit a legitimate voter. Insane is not the same as mentally ill, it is more akin to SEVERELY mentally ill, and idiot does not mean mentally ret*tion(redacted due to the comment filter), it means SEVERELY mentally ret*tion(redacted due to the comment filter) -- the sorts of people who will be in monitored care facilities for life. "