|
is the extent of the substantive and pro-
cedural due process that the General As-
sembly has to provide before one's right to
vote may be removed on account of mental
incompetence?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I have not
had occasion to research the law on it, but
I would think the General Assembly could
not provide for any procedure which de-
prived a person of a right to vote without
a hearing and the normal guarantees of
due process.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: I thought you
had given as an illustration of one of the
things that might be clone a certification by
two doctors of insanity.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: No, sir. I
was trying to point out an inequity that
could exist under the committee's recom-
mendation. Let us take two people who
both suffer in the same degree from the
same mental illness. If it is decided to
treat a person and confine him to a hos-
pital through the process of an adjudica-
tion of non compos mentis that person
could be disenfranchised.
On the other hand, another person with
exactly the same mental illness could be
treated by merely having two physicians
certify that he is insane. He may be con-
fined to a hospital, but he is not disen-
franchised.
I merely wanted to point out the in-
equity contained in the committee draft
which said that if you are found insane by
this process, you may not vote. However,
if you are found insane by this other
process, you may still vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot,
there are two other delegates desiring to
ask questions and Delegate Bamberger has
only two minutes. I shall have to recognize
the others.
Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: Delegate Bam-
berger, can you explain to me why you
would require them specifically to establish
a standard of disqualification but leave it
discretionary in the area of removal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: It is the
reverse of that, Delegate White. I am
|
making it discretionary for empowering
the General Assembly to establish stand-
ards to take away the right to vote. But
the intention is that if they do set up such
a procedure, they must provide a method
for removing the disqualification for al-
lowing the person to vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: Delegate Bam-
berger, in reference to this language, "the
General Assembly in the event it establishes
disqualification, then must provide for the
removal of such disqualification," does this
leave any discretion for the General As-
sembly not to provide for removal, for
instance, in bribery or extortion cases?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Well, the
intention is that the General Assembly
should provide a method for disqualifica-
tion. I suppose it is possible they could say
this cannot be removed in these areas of
crime, but it is the intention they should
provide some way in which the matter may
be reconsidered at a future date.
THE CHAIRMAN: I take it, Delegate
Bamberger, that the legislature under that
could provide that the disqualification
could be removed only by pardon, for
instance?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes. The
intention is that there must at least be
some way in which the matter may be
reconsidered and by pardon or some other
method be removed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberg-
er's time for questions has expired. The
Chair recognizes Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Mr. Chairman, and
fellow delegates: The Committee, of course,
had before it the exact language or as
slightly amended by Delegate Bamberger
in Delegate Proposal No. 2.
After we started holding hearings on
various aspects of our article, we were con-
tacted by the Commission to Revise the
Mental Health Laws as Delegate Bam-
berger has indicated and also by the Mary-
land Association for Mental Health.
They strongly urged that we adopt in
our committee recommendation the lan-
guage in S&E-2.
I would like to read part of their letter
to you. The Commission, that refers to the
Commission to Revise Mental Health Laws,
has a number of professional members who
|
