1 / 19

The right to vote of persons with severe disabilities – recent developments in international human rights law

The right to vote of persons with severe disabilities – recent developments in international human rights law. Janos Fiala-Butora Disability Rights Center (DRC) Budapest, Hungary. CRPD – Article 29. Right to vote to all persons with disabilities – no exceptions

amal
Download Presentation

The right to vote of persons with severe disabilities – recent developments in international human rights law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The right to vote of persons with severe disabilities – recent developments in international human rights law Janos Fiala-Butora Disability Rights Center (DRC) Budapest, Hungary

  2. CRPD – Article 29 • Right to vote to all persons with disabilities – no exceptions • UN Committee: observations on Tunisia, Spain

  3. All persons with disabilities • Including those who are found to be incapable of voting after an individual assessment • Including those who are indeed incapable of voting

  4. Individual assessment of voting capacity • Some countries do not conduct individual assessments, they chose not to exclude anybody

  5. In Europe: Kiss Alajos v. Hungary • European Court of Human Rights: the automatic disenfranchisement of persons under guardianship without an individualized assessment violates the European Convention

  6. In Europe: Kiss Alajos v. Hungary • The Court left open the possibility that exclusion after an individual assessment is acceptable – but did not actually say so

  7. New developments in international law • The question is the legitimacy of individualized assessment • S.H. v. Hungary (European Court of Human Rights) • Zs. B. and Others v. Hungary (UN CRPD)

  8. Restrictions on the right to vote • All electoral systems have to comply with two seemingly contradictory requirements • Accessibility to as wide segment of the population as possible • Maintaining the integrity of the electoral system

  9. What interferes with the integrity of elections? • Fraud • Incompetence • Manipulation

  10. Is it unique to PWD? • Fraud – not a disability issue (but: institutions) • Incompetence – 3% of all votes are a result of mistakes; people vote strangely sometimes • Manipulation – if done without force or deceit, legitimate – and widespread

  11. Why are PWD singled out for disenfranchisement? • Seems to be problematic – they are the only ones the system is protected from • First rational explanation: assumption that contrary to others, the incompetent PWD can be identified

  12. Individual assessment • Few methods exist in the World • CAT-V (USA): most well known • All of them are bound to produce false positives and negatives in the grey zone between clearly incapable and capable

  13. Individual assessment • Given the prevalence of incompetent votes in general, and thus the lack of compelling justification to disenfranchise, is the exclusion of even one competent person justified?

  14. Individual assessment • In practise: hugely over-inflated numbers of excluded persons (UN CRPD Spain). This is what worries PWD, not the few ones in coma • Would the states really invest enough resources to conduct proper assessments?

  15. Why are PWD singled out for disenfranchisement? • Second rational explanation: assumption that most PWD (/those under guardianship) are incompetent to vote

  16. Why are PWD singled out for disenfranchisement? • The fact that many are unable to vote is related to their historic exclusions: they never learned to vote. Their situation is similar to non-nobles, working class people, racial minorities and women who gained access to the franchise gradually

  17. Solution • The CRPD does not allow for disenfranchisement – it requires support of the person with disability • Support not only ensures that PWD can participate, but also that they cast a competent vote • What was the aim of the measure?

  18. Solution • Maybe the basic contradiction of electoral systems does not exist • Supporting measures not only ensure that PWD can participate, they also protect the integrity of the electoral system • Paradigm shift: it does not matter that PWD cannot participate “alone”, without support – the process needs to accommodate their needs, they need to be supported, not excluded

  19. The right to vote of persons with severe disabilitiesThank you for your attention! • Janos Fiala-Butora • jfiala@freemail.hu • Disability Rights Center (DRC) Budapest, Hungary

More Related