|
I do not think this Convention has the
knowledge and the experience to make a
determination that people in any particular
category of mental illness ought not be
entitled to vote. I think that is a legisla-
tive judgment. The purpose of the amend-
ment is merely to make it clear the legis-
lature may disqualify people from voting
if they have a mental illness. I presume
the legislature would consider the nature
of mental illness and I presume also when
dealing with a right as sacred as the right
to vote, that they Avould provide some form
of hearing for a person who was going to
lose his right to vote.
I also intend to provide by this amend-
ment that if the General Assembly does
provide a procedure for disqualification
either by reason of mental illness or by
conviction of crime, it must provide for
removal of the disqualification. The "shall"
is intended there to be mandatory as con-
trasted with "may" at the beginning of the
amendment. If the General Assembly does
provide a method for disqualification, it
must provide a way in which that dis-
qualification may be removed.
I understand that this particular lan-
guage of the Committee was suggested by
a committee which is studying the mental
health laws of Maryland under the leader-
ship of Leon Pierson. I have talked to Mr.
Pierson about this. They recognize that
having a standard of adjudication of non
compos mentis is somewhat arbitrary, but
they believe that if this must be in the
constitution, they would rather that it was
not there, and that the General Assembly
should not be given any discretion.
While there may be some validity in that
point of view, I do not think Ave should
write into the constitution an absolute dis-
qualification of people because they are
mentally ill on the grounds that it has been
decided in one forum and not in another
forum.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the sponsor of the amendment?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Mr. Chair-
man, does the Avord "mental incompetence"
encompass an epileptic?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I do not
know, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: I doubt that
anybody else knows.
|
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: My fur-
ther response to that question, Delegate
Bennett, would be that it Avould be up to
the General Assembly to examine the
nature of the illness of epilepsy and if in
their judgment they determined it Avas an
illness which so impaired one's ability to
function intelligently that he ought not to
have the right to vote, they could so decide.
I think you get at my point. I do not
think this Convention should decide this
question and I Avould leave it to the Gen-
eral Assembly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett,
do you haA'e a further question?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Yes. Do you
think the Avord "mental incompetency" in-
cludes a person Avith an IQ, for example,
under 50?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: No, sir,
that is not Avhat is intended.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett,
do you have a further question?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Of coursa, in
this Avhole field —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett,
this is a period only for questions.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Yes, sir, I
understand. Do you think the Avord "mental
incompetency" can be equated Avith schizo-
phrenia?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I cannot
profess to be an expect on the symptoms
and effects of particular mental illnesses.
The intention is that mental incompetence
shall relate to diseases of the mind and
certainly should not relate to measures of
intelligence of healthy minds.
I am afraid that is the best answer I
can g-i\re you. I certainly do not feel
equipped to respond to questions relating
to particular mental diseases.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Bennett?
Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Bam-
berger answered one of my questions. What
|
