Center for American Progress

Donate

Center for American Progress

Democracy Denied for Disabled Americans: Guardianship and the Right To Vote
Report

Democracy Denied for Disabled Americans: Guardianship and the Right To Vote

Protecting the right to vote for many disabled Americans requires eliminating guardianship laws that restrict access to the ballot.

Advancing Racial Equity and Justice, Disability, Federal Legislation, +2 More

Media Contact

[email protected]

Government Affairs

[email protected]

[email protected]

In this article
Signs in English, Spanish, and Chinese and indicating accessibility inform registered voters of where to cast their ballots in New York.
Signs in English, Spanish, and Chinese and indicating accessibility inform registered voters of where to cast their ballots in New York. (Getty/Deb Cohn-Orbach/UCG/Universal Images Group)

Author’s note: The disability community is rapidly evolving to use identity-first language in place of person-first language. This is because it views disability as being a core component of identity, much like race and gender. Some members of the community, such as people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, prefer person-first language. In this report, the terms are used interchangeably.

Introduction and summary

Disabled Americans have long faced barriers to voting, and recently enacted anti-voting state laws have increased these barriers.1 A total of 79 restrictive voting laws were passed between 2021 and 2024,2 including constraints on who is allowed to assist with completing and returning a disabled person’s ballot in both Texas3 and Georgia4 in 2021. President Donald Trump is also considering ways to eliminate mail-in voting, which would add to disabled voters’ current voting barriers that already include physically inaccessible polling places and heightened health risks.5 At the same time, some members of the disability community have already had their voting rights stripped entirely due to state guardianship laws. In many states, people under guardianship are automatically barred from voting or may lose their rights at the discretion of a judge or guardian. Guardianship can have sweeping consequences for the civil rights of people with disabilities, including the loss of autonomy, privacy, and political participation.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Default Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Variable Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

As part of the Center for American Progress’ continued work on disabled people’s access to democracy, this report analyzes how guardianships can significantly restrict the voting rights of people with disabilities.6 It explores the legal processes by which guardianships are initiated and how these processes can result in the loss of voting rights; the lack of comprehensive data on guardianship; and the inconsistent and inequitable ways voting restrictions are applied across states. The report documents how state-level policies curtail voting access and analyzes recent legislative activity on the voting rights of people under guardianship. It also offers policy recommendations around ensuring voting rights are preserved, expanding the use of supported decision-making (SDM), and strengthening oversight of guardianship proceedings. Ultimately, policymakers should work to eliminate the use of guardianships and move to SDM agreements.7

What is guardianship?

Guardianship refers to a legal status in which a court deems an individual “incapacitated” and allows for an identified guardian to make decisions for the individual.8 There is no federal legislation establishing a consistent standard for guardianship. Therefore, state laws and definitions surrounding guardianship vary widely.9 States may also use different terminology when discussing guardianships. However, in general, the arrangements can be categorized in these ways:

  • Guardianships that are focused on an individual: The guardian makes personal affair choices related to voting, health care, living arrangements, and/or other legal decisions on the individual’s behalf.10
  • Guardianships that are focused on property: Called conservatorships in some states, these involve the guardian handling an individual’s financial matters, assets, and benefits.11
  • Full or limited guardianships:12 In a full guardianship, the guardian can make virtually all decisions for an individual. In a limited guardianship, the guardian only has specific decision-making control specified in the court order.13 Full, or “plenary,” guardianships are much more common than limited guardianships for disabled adults.14

Definition of “incapacity”

A judicial finding of “incapacity” may mean that a person is unable to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter due to a disability, or that they are judged as being unable to “make certain decisions.”15 States differ in how they define “incapacity.” For example, Virginia’s statute—like those of several other states—specifies that “poor judgment alone [is] not sufficient evidence” to meet the definition of “incapacity.”16 Most states include the ability to make or communicate decisions and evaluate information in their definition of “incapacity.”17

As Zoë Brennan-Krohn, now director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Disability Rights Program, shared with the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 2021, “[Guardianship] takes a rigid view that if one doesn’t have capacity for everything, then one doesn’t have capacity for anything.”18 This approach can result in an overly broad loss of rights, including the right to vote. Guardianship proceedings also may not take into account different forms of communication that disabled people use, such as augmentative and alternative communication devices or the use of plain language.

To learn about the process of initiating guardianship, see also

What laws govern guardianship?

Guardianship laws set the legal framework that determines when and how a court can appoint someone to make decisions on behalf of another person. These laws vary across states, but they generally outline the process for establishing guardianship, the rights that may be limited, and the responsibilities of the guardian. While intended to provide protection, these laws also raise important questions about autonomy, civil rights, and, in many cases, the right to vote.

Across the country, nearly all states claim that guardianship should be a last resort.19 Yet in practice, courts overwhelmingly default to full guardianships20 rather than alternatives such as limited guardianships or supported decision-making. SDM is a person-centered alternative in which a disabled person chooses trusted supporters to help them understand and communicate decisions.21 The default to full guardianships has profound implications for voting rights: Someone placed under a full guardianship often loses not only decision-making authority in areas such as health care and finances but also the fundamental right to vote.

Although 84 percent of U.S. jurisdictions require courts to consider less restrictive alternatives to guardianship, and about 22 percent explicitly reference SDM, these alternatives are rarely implemented.22 Instead, individuals are routinely placed under full guardianships, which are often “overbroad and unwarranted.”23 In Virginia, an average of 96 percent of guardianships granted between 2015 and 2021 were full guardianships, and only 10 people in the state had their rights restored in that period out of more than 4,000 guardianships granted.24 In Alabama, although the state has recognized SDM as a formal alternative,25 2023-2024 data show that full guardianships remain the default outcome: 22 percent of guardianships are full and 7 percent are limited.26

Forty-seven states and Washington, D.C., have adopted the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act, which introduced reforms including stronger procedural protections, clearer decision-making standards, and recognition of the right to social interaction.27 Yet the act also streamlines the transfer of guardianships across state lines, which can extend the duration of guardianships and make restoration of rights more difficult.28

Without robust oversight, enforcement, and restoration mechanisms, guardianship systems function as one-way doors: Once someone is placed under guardianship, they are often stripped of their rights, including their right to vote, permanently.

What do we know from the data on guardianship and voting?

1.3 million

Estimated number of adults under guardianship or conservatorship in the United States as of 2018

Comprehensive data on guardianship are severely lacking. At a national level, there is no reliable estimate of the total number of adults currently under guardianship in the United States.29 The most-cited estimate is that as of 2018, 1.3 million adults were under guardianship or conservatorship in the United States.30 However, this estimate is seven years old and based on limited state-level data.31 No federal agency or office tracks guardianship decisions, terminations, or their impact on voting rights. This data vacuum makes it difficult to evaluate the scope of disenfranchisement.

Addressing the intersection of guardianship and disenfranchisement requires both policy reform and robust data collection. Without accurate information on the number of people under guardianship and how voting restrictions are applied, policymakers cannot assess the scope of disenfranchisement or develop effective safeguards to protect voting rights. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has highlighted the absence of reliable guardianship data in at least two reports to Congress,32 and members of Congress have addressed the matter in several hearings.33 Likewise, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators have repeatedly emphasized the need for stronger data collection on guardianship within state courts.34

How does guardianship affect voting rights?

In the United States, states are generally charged with administering elections and establishing voter registration and voting policies.35 There is great variance between states in election rules, including whether people under guardianship keep or lose the right to vote.36 Guardianship can operate as a widespread and systemic form of voter suppression. Statutes on guardianship and voting eligibility are based on outdated, ableist, and discriminatory views of disabled people.37 Analysis of state policies shows that referring to people under guardianship as “incapacitated” in state election statutes is most common. Utilizing the word “ward”—such as in Alaska,38 Georgia,39 and Oklahoma40 statutes—is also common. Another recurrent term in state statutes is “mentally incompetent,” used, for example, in Delaware,41 South Carolina,42 and South Dakota.43 Nebraska uses the term “non compos mentis,”44 meaning “not of sound mind.”45

State constitutions maintain ableist language as well. The Oregon Constitution refers to a “person suffering from a mental handicap”46 and the Ohio Constitution to an “idiot or insane person.”47 These words appear in Section 6 of Article V of the Ohio Constitution, added in 1851 and never repealed, even when other sections of Article V were repealed and amended.48 The Ohio Voters Bill of Rights, a proposed constitutional amendment, would eliminate “idiot or insane person” from Article V and make other changes, such as allowing same-day voter registration and using a school ID as proof of identification.49 Voting rules in many state statutes and constitutions bar two groups of people from voting: those under guardianship and those with a felony conviction.50 Utilizing stigmatizing language, some states employ Jim Crow-era rules by disenfranchising large groups of people deemed “mentally incompetent.”51

State laws governing the voting rights of people under guardianship vary widely. Some states automatically strip individuals of their voting rights when placed under guardianship, others require courts to make individualized determinations of voting capacity, and several impose no voting restrictions at all. This patchwork of laws produces deep inequities and creates confusion for voters, election officials, and courts alike.

Most states, plus Washington, D.C., have statutory or constitutional provisions that restrict access to voting only if a court has determined that a person under guardianship specifically lacks the “capacity” to vote.52 Nine states—Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia—bar voting by people under guardianship.53 Nine other states—Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont—do not restrict the voting rights of people under guardianship.54 Michigan has a constitutional provision authorizing the legislature to “by law exclude persons from voting because of mental incompetence,” but its legislature has not done so.55 The result is a patchwork of protections that leaves millions of disabled voters vulnerable to disenfranchisement.

It is important to note that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division issued guidance in 2024, stating: “The [Americans with Disabilities Act] also prohibits a state from categorically disqualifying individuals who have intellectual or mental health disabilities from registering to vote or from voting because of their disability or guardianship status. Further, a state may not subject groups of people with disabilities—including individuals who are under guardianship—to a higher standard than that imposed on other voters for demonstrating the capacity to vote.”56

What new legislation addresses voting rights under guardianship?

On February 7, 2024, then-Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced the Accessible Voting Act of 2024.57 The bill mandated that states could not remove individuals’ voting rights on the grounds that they are in a guardianship, unless a court finds “that the individual cannot communicate, with or without accommodations, a desire to participate in the voting process.”58 Unfortunately, the bill has yet to pass.

Since January 2023, at least 52 bills across 20 states and at the federal level have addressed voting rights and guardianship.59 After a surge of activity in 2023 (25 bills), legislation dipped in 2024 (five bills) before rebounding in 2025 (22 bills).60 This renewed momentum suggests that the intersection of voting rights and guardianship remains an active and contested area of state policymaking. The breadth of states introducing bills demonstrates that this issue cuts across regions and partisan lines, reflecting ongoing debates over voting rights, disability rights, and the role of guardianship in determining civic participation.

Although guardianship and voting laws are gaining the attention of state lawmakers, few bills have become law. Only seven of 51 state bills introduced between 2023 and 2025 were signed into law.61 Most stalled in committee.62 Moreover, a majority of these bills did not expand access to the ballot for people under guardianship. Many of the bills focused on removing people under guardianship who were “adjudicated mentally incapacitated” from voter registration lists at regular intervals, rather than affirming or restoring rights.63 Of the bills proposed between 2023 and 2025, 15 would have explicitly increased the voting rights of people under guardianship, but none of them passed.64 Only one of the bills, Montana’s H.B. 395, would have decreased the voting rights of people under guardianship, but it did not pass.65

Patterns within recent state-proposed laws point to growing awareness of guardianship and voting but show limited structural change. Analysis shows that lawmakers are far more likely to refine administrative processes for voter registration than to protect or restore the right to vote for people under guardianship in their states. Advocacy efforts in 2026 and beyond should prioritize converting legislative interest into action by promoting model bills that explicitly protect voting rights for people under guardianship. Without sustained advocacy and federal guidance, the current patchwork of state laws risks deepening existing disparities in access to the ballot for people with disabilities under guardianship.

Beyond legislative movement, several states have introduced or voted on proposed constitutional amendments that would redefine voting rights for people under guardianship. In Virginia, identical resolutions from 2025—H.J.R. 2 and S.J. 248—propose replacing the phrase “mentally incompetent” in the state constitution with “lacking the capacity to understand the act of voting” and allowing people under guardianship to vote unless they are “adjudicated by a court…to [lack] the capacity to understand the act of voting.”66 Although the amendment must be approved again in the 2026 legislative session before reaching the ballot, it provides some guardrails around the voting rights of people under guardianship in Virginia.67

In Maine, Question 8 on the 2023 ballot sought to remove a constitutional provision barring people under guardianship “for reasons of mental illness” from voting—a restriction already found unconstitutional by a federal court.68 While voters narrowly rejected the amendment—46.6 percent were in favor of removal, while 53.4 percent opposed—the campaign marked a significant public debate on guardianship and voting rights.69

Finally, in Ohio, organizers of the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights have proposed an amendment that would expand access to voting, allowing same-day registration and modernizing voter ID options while also removing ableist language such as “idiot or insane person” from Article V of the state constitution.70 Although the measure is still in the signature collection stage, it demonstrates a growing recognition that exclusionary constitutional language has no place in democracy.71

Together, these efforts underscore a broader trend toward language reform and rights restoration through constitutional mechanisms. Even when such measures do not immediately pass, they shift public conversation, strengthen advocacy efforts, and lay the groundwork for future reforms that affirm the voting rights of people under guardianship.

TABLE 1

Scroll to the section

Policy recommendations

Protecting the right to vote for people under guardianship requires targeted reforms. States can revise their laws to ensure voting rights are preserved, expand the use of SDM, and strengthen oversight of guardianship proceedings. Federal legislation affirming the rights of people under guardianship, including the right to vote, would strengthen existing protections and help ensure consistent standards nationwide.

Federal policy recommendations

Clarify and strengthen protections under federal voting rights laws
  • The U.S. Election Assistance Commission should update its guidance for protecting disabled people, including those under guardianship.72 This should include ensuring the process to register to vote is accessible and available for those under guardianship; providing access to multiple forms of accessible voting, including mail-in ballot, absentee ballot, drive-thru, and in-person voting; and allowing for assistance with completing the ballot.73
  • Congress should pass federal legislation such as the Accessible Voting Act.74
Provide funding to support voting access for people under guardianship
  • Congress should fund federal grant programs to support the production of accessible voter education materials, including in plain language and in multiple languages, targeted to people under guardianship.
  • Congress should fund training for court personnel, guardians, attorneys, election officials, and disability service providers about guardianship law, voting rights, and practices for ensuring voting access and autonomy of persons under guardianship.
  • Congress should protect and increase funding for the protection and advocacy (P&A) system. Congress established the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Accessibility program under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to ensure that disabled people could fully participate in elections, with more than $130 million distributed to state P&A agencies since 2003.75 P&A agencies use these funds to monitor polling accessibility, collaborate with election officials, and provide outreach, education, and direct assistance to help disabled voters overcome barriers to participation.76 Unfortunately, the Trump administration proposed eliminating P&A funding for 2026.77
Create a federal bill of rights for people under guardianship

A guardianship bill of rights should include education on all options before being placed under guardianship, which would center SDM; the right to at least an annual review of guardianship status; independent legal counsel that prioritizes the disabled person’s interests and wishes; a requirement of review of guardianship before being reinstated in a different state; and explicit protection of the right to vote.78

Federally recognize supported decision-making

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) clarified that SDM constitutes a reasonable modification under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when necessary to prevent discrimination based on disability.79 In doing so, HHS affirmed that a disabled person’s right to use SDM is protected and enforceable under federal law. HHS’ final rule also illustrates how SDM can be integrated into health care settings.80 To that end:

  • Congress should pass the Alternatives to Guardianship Education Act.81 Introduced in 2024, the bill would establish grants to support training and education on guardianship alternatives, such as SDM, directed toward health care providers, educators, family members, and those working in court systems.82 The bill specifically states, “Less restrictive options to guardianship, such as SDM and advance directives, offer ways to help people make decisions without losing their independence.”83
  • Federal legislation should fund court programs to educate judges and lawyers on SDM, guardianship, and the rights of disabled people under such legal decisions. This could be modeled on the Child Welfare Court Improvement Program84 to fund state courts in strengthening case handling.85
  • Congress should establish a federal supported decision-making act that sets minimum standards for states to implement SDM frameworks for their constituents.
Strengthen data collection and oversight
  • Congress should pass a guardianship bill of rights that increases the collection and reporting of state-level guardianship data. The 2023 Guardianship Bill of Rights Act included this provision.86
  • Congress should pass legislation requiring standardized state data collection on guardianships similar to the Child Welfare Court Improvement Program.87 State courts should be required to use the National Open Court Data Standards,88 gather nonidentifying demographic information on both guardians and those under guardianship, collect disenfranchisement data, and submit aggregated data to the DOJ. State courts should also adopt standardized, multilingual, and culturally competent forms to ensure consistent, respectful, and accessible data practices.89

State policy recommendations

Adopt state laws about supported decision-making agreements
  • State legislatures should require courts to consider SDM and other less restrictive options before granting guardianship, with the goal of abolishing guardianship altogether.
  • States should follow Texas, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Nevada, and Rhode Island by codifying SDM agreements so that more people can be supported by SDM instead of placed under guardianship.90
  • States legislators should utilize the Autistic Self Advocacy Network’s (ASAN) model language for the Supported Health Care Decision-Making Agreement Act, which creates forms for SDM agreements in health care.91 States should apply and expand this language to settings beyond health care, such as employment, education, and voting.
  • State legislatures should establish clear procedures to review and terminate guardianships.
  • State legislatures should provide training for judges, attorneys, and guardians ad litem on SDM.
  • State legislatures should support community programs that help individuals and families create SDM arrangements.
  • State legislatures should support organizations working to end guardianship, such as the ASAN, a national leader in advancing alternatives to guardianship and promoting SDM.92 ASAN emphasizes that guardianship removes disabled people’s fundamental rights and choices, including the right to vote.93
Require due process safeguards in court orders that affect voting rights
  • State legislation should require that any petition for guardianship proceeding that could lead to loss of voting rights must include:
    • Clear notice that voting rights are at stake.
    • The person under guardianship, or the person who may be under guardianship, has the right to legal representation—independent from the guardian or potential guardian—that represents their wishes.
  • Court orders should require annual review (“restoration of rights”) procedures94 so that voting rights can be restored without undue burden.
Protect the voting rights of people under guardianship
  • State legislatures should adopt laws or constitutional amendments that explicitly protect the right to vote for people under guardianship.
  • State legislatures should eliminate statutory or constitutional provisions that automatically revoke voting rights based on guardianship status.
  • State legislatures should ensure that people under guardianship receive information and support to register and vote, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other civil rights laws.
Create simplified restoration processes

States should have legally required yearly periodic reviews of guardianship status to evaluate whether a person should have some or all rights restored, explicitly including voting. Such reviews should include mechanisms so that when guardianship terminates, or when a limited guardianship is in place, voting rights are restored without the person having to reregister or jump through excessive procedural hurdles.

Improve guardianship training

States should require comprehensive training on alternatives to guardianship for judges, attorneys, and guardians ad litem involved in guardianship cases.95 Training should address how alternatives can be effectively applied for people with various types of disabilities and how to assess the most appropriate supports for those at risk of guardianship. Guardians ad litem must also receive instruction on communicating directly, accessibly, and respectfully with disabled people and their families using culturally competent practices.

Texas offers a model. Under Texas Government Code §81.114, the state provides specialized training on guardianship to attorneys “who represent any person’s interests in guardianship cases or who serve as court-appointed guardians.”96 Other states should expand on this model to include training on disability bias, available community services, and alternatives to guardianship and make the training mandatory before an attorney is able to bring a guardianship claim to court.

Ensure accessibility and support in voting
  • States legislatures should require that election officials ensure that voter registration and mail-in, drive thru, and in-person voting are in accessible formats to voters under guardianship. This includes providing assistive technologies, allowing the disabled voter to pick a person of their choice to assist with filling out the ballot, and offering alternative voting formats.
  • States legislatures should clarify rules about whether guardians or designated support people can assist in voting, following the voter’s expressed will, and protect against coercion.
Monitoring and accountability measures
  • State legislatures should mandate utilization of federal data collection standards.
  • States should create or empower an ombudsman or state agency, such as an office of disability rights, to investigate complaints from people under guardianship who believe their voting rights have been improperly restricted or denied. Such offices should partner with the federally funded P&A systems in each state.
  • State legislatures should establish civil remedies—such as the ability to challenge disenfranchisement in court, receive legal assistance, and possibly receive damages or other relief—for people under guardianship whose rights have been violated.

Conclusion

This report demonstrates how guardianship functions as a structural barrier to full civic participation for many disabled people. Across the country, state laws continue to allow judges and guardians to determine whether a person can vote, often based on outdated and ableist concepts of “capacity.” Since 2023, at least 52 bills across 20 states and at the federal level have addressed this issue, but few have been enacted.97 The growing attention to voting rights under guardianship marks important progress—but awareness alone is not enough. Without clear standards, robust oversight, and enforcement of existing civil rights protections, the patchwork of state policies will continue to disenfranchise people under guardianship.

The growing attention to voting rights under guardianship marks important progress—but awareness alone is not enough.

Ensuring equal access to the ballot requires dismantling the systems that permit others to decide whose voice counts. States must reform their laws to explicitly protect the voting rights of people under guardianship, replace discriminatory language, and embrace SDM as the default model of autonomy. Federal leadership through guidance, funding, and legislation can help align these efforts and ensure consistent protections nationwide.

The path forward is clear: The United States cannot claim to be a representative democracy while denying disabled people under guardianship their political agency. Ending the use of guardianship as a tool of disenfranchisement and expanding supported decision-making are essential steps toward a democracy where every person’s right to vote is both recognized and realized.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Mia Ives-Rublee, Vilissa Thompson, William Roberts, Peter Gordon, Alex Cogan, Devon Ombres, Greta Bedekovics, and Huá Huī Vogel for their valuable contributions to this report; Chandler Hall, Allie Preston, Ben Greenho, and Haley Norris for their thorough fact-checking; and the Center for American Progress’ Art, Editorial, and Legal teams for their guidance.

Endnotes

  1. Rick Schmitt, “The disabled face significant obstacles to voting in America’s political system, Stanford expert finds,” Stanford Report, May 23, 2016, available at https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2016/05/disabled-face-significant-obstacles-voting-americas-political-system-stanford-expert-finds; Jonathan Diaz, “The Barriers to Voting Faced by Americans with Disabilities,” Campaign Legal Center, April 9, 2024, available at https://campaignlegal.org/update/barriers-voting-faced-americans-disabilities.
  2. Brennan Center for Justice, “State Voting Laws Roundup: 2024 in Review,” January 15, 2025, available at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-2024-review.
  3. Lindsey Norward, “Fighting for an Inclusive Democracy: Texas Voters with Disabilities Share their Stories,” Legal Defense Fund, February 1, 2024, available at https://www.naacpldf.org/texas-voter-suppression-voters-with-disabilities/.
  4. Caitlin May, Brian Dimmick, and Casey Smith, “Here’s How Georgia’s New Voting Law Harms Voters With Disabilities,” American Civil Liberties Union, May 19, 2023, available at https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/heres-how-georgias-new-voting-law-harms-voters-with-disabilities.
  5. Julia Métraux, “Trump’s Promise to End Vote-by-Mail Is Yet Another Attack on Disabled Voters,” Mother Jones, August 18, 2025, available at https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/08/trump-vote-mail-disabled-ballot-order/.
  6. Danielle Root and Mia Ives-Rublee, “Enhancing Accessibility in U.S. Elections” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2021), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/enhancing-accessibility-u-s-elections/.
  7. Autistic Self Advocacy Network, “Ending Guardianship: How State Governments Take Away Our Right to Make Choices and How We Can Stop It,” available at https://autisticadvocacy.org/actioncenter/issues/choices/guardianship/ (last accessed November 2025).
  8. U.S. Department of Justice, “Guardianship: Key Concepts and Resources,” available at https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice/guardianship-key-concepts-and-resources (last accessed November 2025).
  9. Ibid.
  10. National Council on Disability, “Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination” (Washington: 2018), p. 32, available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-Y3_D63_3-PURL-gpo90585/pdf/GOVPUB-Y3_D63_3-PURL-gpo90585.pdfhttps://www.ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Guardianship_Report_Accessible.pdf.
  12. J. Matt Jameson and others, “Guardianship and the Potential of Supported Decision Making With Individuals With Disabilities,” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 40 (1) (2015): 1–16, available at https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Research-and-Practice-for-Persons-with-Severe-Disabilities-2015-Jameson-1540796915586189.pdf.
  13. U.S. Department of Justice, “Guardianship: Key Concepts and Resources.”
  14. Jameson and others, “Guardianship and the Potential of Supported Decision Making With Individuals With Disabilities.”
  15. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and others, “Vote. It’s your right: A Guide to the Voting Rights of People with Mental Disabilities” (Washington: 2016), available at https://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/voting-rights-guide-2016.pdf.
  16. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging and Sally Balch Hurme, “Capacity Definition & Initiation of Guardianship Proceedings Statutory Revisions as of December 2022,” available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_aging/chartcapacityandinitiation.pdf (last accessed November 2025).
  17. Ibid.
  18. American Civil Liberties Union, “Written Statement of Zoë Brennen-Krohn, Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Program,” September 27, 2021, available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Brennan-Krohn%20Testimony2.pdf.
  19. Emily DiMatteo and others, “Rethinking Guardianship To Protect Disabled People’s Reproductive Rights” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2022), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/rethinking-guardianship-to-protect-disabled-peoples-reproductive-rights/.
  20. Ibid.
  21. Autistic Self Advocacy Network, “Supported Decision-making: Why the Right to Make Choices With Support Matters,” available at https://autisticadvocacy.org/actioncenter/issues/choices/sdm/ (last accessed November 2025); Administration for Community Living, “Supported Decision Making Program,” available at https://acl.gov/programs/consumer-control/supported-decision-making-program(last accessed November 2025).
  22. Jonathan Martinis and others, “State Guardianship Laws and Supported Decision-Making in the United States After Ross and Ross v. Hatch: Analysis and Implications for Research, Policy, Education, and Advocacy,” Journal of Disability Policy Studies 34 (1) (2021): 8–16, available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10442073211028586.
  23. DiMatteo and others, “Rethinking Guardianship To Protect Disabled People’s Reproductive Rights.”
  24. Ibid.
  25. Center for Public Representation, “U.S. Supported Decision-Making Laws,” available at https://supporteddecisions.org/resources-on-sdm/state-supported-decision-making-laws-and-court-decisions/#f61a59a9-a6e8-4455-bf0a-11bed614895b (last accessed November 2025).
  26. National Core Indicators – Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, “National Core Indicators In-Person Survey (IPS) State Report: 2023-24 Alabama Report” (Cambridge, MA, and Alexandria, VA: Human Services Research Institute and National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services, 2025), available at https://idd.nationalcoreindicators.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/AL-IPS-23-24.pdf.
  27. Benjamin Orzeske and Diana Noel, “Reforming Guardianship Law for the 21st Century – Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act,” Uniform Law Commission and AARP, July 9, 2018, available at https://47484369.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/47484369/NGA-UGCOPA%20Act.pdf; Uniform Law Commission, “Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act,” available at https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?CommunityKey=0f25ccb8-43ce-4df5-a856-e6585698197a (last accessed November 2025).
  28. Orzeske and Noel, “Reforming Guardianship Law for the 21st Century – Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act.”
  29. Jim Berchtold, “Guardianship Data Reform” (Washington: Justice in Aging, 2024), available at https://justiceinaging.org/guardianship-data-reform/.
  30. National Council on Disability, “Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination.”
  31. Berchtold, “Guardianship Data Reform.”
  32. Ibid.; U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Elder Abuse: The Extent of Abuse by Guardians Is Unknown, but Some Measures Exist to Help Protect Older Adults” (Washington: 2016), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-33.pdf; U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Guardianships: Collaboration Needed to Protect Incapacitated Elderly People” (Washington: 2004), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-04-655.pdf.
  33. Berchtold, “Guardianship Data Reform”; U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, “Ensuring Trust: Strengthening State Efforts to Overhaul the Guardianship Process and Protect Older Americans” (Washington: 2018), available at https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Guardianship_Report_2018_gloss_compress.pdf.
  34. Berchtold, “Guardianship Data Reform.”
  35. Grace Olson, “The States Decide How Elections Are Run,” National Conference of State Legislatures, July 9, 2025, available at https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/the-states-decide-how-elections-are-run#:~:text=Presidents%20of%20both%20parties%20have,amended%20topic%20in%20the%20Constitution.
  36. National Disability Rights Network, “Voting Rights of Individuals Subject to Guardianship” (Washington: 2023), available at https://www.ndrn.org/resource/voting-guardianship/.
  37. The Disability Justice Resource Center, “The Right to Vote,” available at https://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-vote/ (last accessed November 2025).
  38. Alaska Statute Title 13, Chapter 26, available at https://www.akleg.gov/basis/statutes.asp#13.26.316 (last accessed November 2025).
  39. Rights of the ward; impact on voting and testamentary capacity, § 29-4-20, Code of Georgia, available at https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=499c41eb-28f2-4e90-9d0e-477861233854&nodeid=ABDAAFAAEAAB&nodepath=%2fROOT%2fABD%2fABDAAF%2fABDAAFAAE%2fABDAAFAAEAAB&level=4&haschildren=&populated=false&title=29-4-20.+Rights+of+the+ward%3b+impact+on+voting+and+testamentary+capacity.&config=00JAA1MDBlYzczZi1lYjFlLTQxMTgtYWE3OS02YTgyOGM2NWJlMDYKAFBvZENhdGFsb2feed0oM9qoQOMCSJFX5qkd&pddocfullpath=%2fshared%2fdocument%2fstatutes-legislation%2furn%3acontentItem%3a6348-FWY1-DYB7-W20N-00008-00&ecomp=6gf59kk&prid=3f1b0a41-9a0a-4a1e-a3cd-10d7ed5081e5 (last accessed November 2025).
  40. Guardian and Ward, Title 30, Oklahoma Statutes, available at https://www.oklegislature.gov/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os30.pdf (last accessed November 2025).
  41. Elections, Title 15, Chapter 17, Delaware Code, available at https://delcode.delaware.gov/title15/title15.pdf (last accessed November 2025).
  42. Requirement of and Qualifications for Registration, Article 3, Chapter 5, South Carolina Code of Laws, available at  https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t07c005.php (last accessed November 2025).
  43. Persons declared mentally incompetent, deceased, or serving sentence for felony conviction—Removed from registration records—Promulgation of rules–Certification, South Dakota Codified Laws 12-4-18, available at https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/12-4-18 (last accessed November 2025).
  44. Qualifications of elector; abstract of felony convictions; clerks of court; duty; notification of federal court felony conviction; how treated, Nebraska Revised Statute 32-313, available at https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=32-313#:~:text=No%20person%20who%20has%20been,automatically%20removed%20at%20such%20time (last accessed November 2025).
  45. Merriam-Webster, “Non Compos Mentis,” available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20compos%20mentis (last accessed November 2025).
  46. Oregon Constitution (2024), available at https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OrConst.aspx.
  47. Idiots or insane persons, Article V, Section 6, Ohio Constitution (September 1, 1851), available at https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-5.6.
  48. Frank W. Lewis, “Why does the word ‘idiot’ appear in the Ohio constitution?”, Signal Cleveland, January 18, 2024, available at https://signalcleveland.org/why-does-the-word-idiot-appear-in-the-ohio-state-constitution/.
  49. Ibid.
  50. Rachel Nostrant, “In Some States, Having a Guardian Means Not Having a Vote,” The New York Times, August 29, 2024, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/29/us/guardianship-voting-rights-disabilities.html; National Conference of State Legislatures, “Restoration of Voting Rights for Felons,” August 19, 2025, available at https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.
  51. Patricia A. Broussard and Joi Cardwell, “‘How Dare You Vote!’ The Enactment of Racist and Undemocratic Voting Laws to Preserve White Supremacy, Maintain the Status Quo, and Prevent the Rise of the Black Vote – Saying the Quiet Parts Out Loud,” University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review 14 (1) (2023): 1–31, available at https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=umrsjlr; Elections, Title 15, Chapter 17, Delaware Code; Requirement of and Qualifications for Registration, Article 3, Chapter 5, South Carolina Code of Laws; Persons declared mentally incompetent, deceased, or serving sentence for felony conviction—Removed from registration records—Promulgation of rules–Certification, South Dakota Codified Laws 12-4-18.
  52. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and others, “Vote. It’s your right: A Guide to the Voting Rights of People with Mental Disabilities”; Autistic Self Advocacy Network, “Your Vote Counts: A Self-Advocate’s Guide to Voting in the U.S.” (Washington: 2019), available at https://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ER-Your-Vote-Counts-state-laws.pdf; state legislation on file with author.
  53. Ibid.
  54. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and others, “Vote. It’s your right: A Guide to the Voting Rights of People with Mental Disabilities”; Autistic Self Advocacy Network, “Your Vote Counts: A Self-Advocate’s Guide to Voting in the U.S.”; state legislation on file with author.
  55. Ibid.
  56. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, “The Americans with Disabilities Act and Other Federal Laws Protecting the Rights of Voters with Disabilities,” April 18, 2024, available at https://www.ada.gov/resources/protecting-voter-rights/.
  57. Accessible Voting Act of 2024, S.3748, 118th Cong., 2nd sess. (February 7, 2024), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3748/text.
  58. Ibid.
  59. Data collected from Quorum, the Voting Rights Lab, state legislative trackers, and correspondence with state protection & advocacy organizations, current through October 30, 2025.
  60. Legislation and analysis on file with author.
  61. Legislation and analysis on file with author.
  62. Legislation and analysis on file with author.
  63. Legislation and analysis on file with author.
  64. Legislation and analysis on file with author.
  65. An Act Generally Revising Voting Laws Related to Individuals who are of unsound mind, H.B. 395, Montana State Legislature (February 5, 2025), available at https://custom.statenet.com/public/resources.cgi?id=ID:bill:MT2025000H395&ciq=urn:user:PA186293417&client_md=a38ad09d16c03bb93470f472b7f558a8&mode=current_text.
  66. Proposing an amendment to Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of Virginia, relating to qualifications of voters; right to vote; persons not entitled to vote, Senate Joint Resolution No. 248, Chapter 604, Virginia Acts of Assembly, available at https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1078113.PDF (last accessed November 2025); Proposing an amendment to Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of Virginia, relating to qualifications of voters; right to vote; persons not entitled to vote, House Joint Resolution No. 2, Chapter 601,Virginia Acts of Assembly, available at https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1078101.PDF (last accessed November 2025).
  67. Fair Elections Center, “Virginia Voting Rights Restoration Amendment,” available at https://fairelectionscenter.org/advocacy/virginia-voting-rights-restoration/ (last accessed November 2025).
  68. Molly Thompson, “What is Question 8?”, Disability Rights Maine, October 3, 2023, available at https://drme.org/2023-10-03/.
  69. Ibid.; The New York Times, “Maine Question 8 Election Results: Amend the State Constitution to Enfranchise People in Guardianships Because of Mental Illness,” December 5, 2023, available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/11/07/us/elections/results-maine-question-8-voting-under-guardianship.html#:~:text=5%2C%202023-,Maine%20Question%208%20Election%20Results:%20Amend%20the%20State%20Constitution%20to,race%20called.
  70. Frank W. Lewis, “Proposed constitutional amendment would expand voting access in Ohio,” Signal Cleveland, December 21, 2023, available at https://signalcleveland.org/proposed-constitutional-amendment-would-expand-voting-access-in-ohio/.
  71. Nick Evans, “Ballot board clears Ohio Voters Bill of Rights, organizers can begin collecting signatures,” Ohio Capital Journal, November 19, 2024, available at https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/11/19/ballot-board-clears-ohio-voters-bill-of-rights-organizers-can-begin-collecting-signatures/.
  72. Vote.gov, “Voting with a disability,” available at https://vote.gov/guide-to-voting/disability (last accessed November 2025).
  73. Ibid.
  74. Accessible Voting Act of 2024.
  75. Grace Klinefelter and others, “The Protection and Advocacy System: A Little-Known Program Strengthening Community Living and Voting Access for People with Disabilities,” Bipartisan Policy Center, June 24, 2025, available at https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/the-protection-and-advocacy-system-a-little-known-program-strengthening-community-living-and-voting-access-for-people-with-disabilities/.
  76. Ibid.
  77. Autistic Self Advocacy Network, “Speak out now to save Protection & Advocacy agencies!”, June 24, 2025, available at https://autisticadvocacy.org/2025/06/speak-out-now-to-save-protection-advocacy-agencies/.
  78. DiMatteo and others, “Rethinking Guardianship To Protect Disabled People’s Reproductive Rights.”
  79. Angela Rapp Kennedy, “Supported Decision-Making: An Update on Trends in the United States,” The Council on Quality and Leadership, November 21, 2024, available at https://www.c-q-l.org/resources/newsletters/supported-decision-making-an-update-on-trends-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=Effective%20July%208%2C%202024%2C%20the,health%20care%20and%20human%20services; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Final Rule: Section by Section Fact Sheet for Recipients of Financial Assistance from HHS,” available at https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/section-504-rehabilitation-act-of-1973/ocr-detailed-504-fact-sheet/index.html#:~:text=On%20May%209%2C%202024%2C%20the,to%20comply%20with%20Section%20504 (last accessed November 2025).
  80. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “45 CFR Part 84: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance,” Federal Register 89 (91) (2024), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-05-09/pdf/2024-09237.pdf.
  81. Alternatives to Guardianship Education Act of 2024, H.R. 8328, 118th Cong., 2nd sess. (May 8, 2024), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8328/text.
  82. Ibid.
  83. Ibid.
  84. Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Court Improvement Programs,” available at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/courts/court-improvement-programs/?top=1498 (last accessed November 2025).
  85. Berchtold, “Guardianship Data Reform.”
  86. Guardianship Bill of Rights Act of 2023, S. 1148, 118th Cong., 1st sess. (March 30, 2023), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1148.
  87. Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Court Improvement Programs”; Berchtold, “Guardianship Data Reform.”
  88. National Center for State Courts, “National Open Court Data Standards,” available at https://www.ncsc.org/our-centers-projects/national-open-court-data-standards (last accessed November 2025); Berchtold, “Guardianship Data Reform.”
  89. Berchtold, “Guardianship Data Reform.”
  90. Autistic Self Advocacy Network, “Supported Decision-making: Why the Right to Make Choices With Support Matters.”
  91. Autistic Self Advocacy Network and Quality Trust, “Model Legislation: An Act Relating to the Recognition of a Supported Health Care Decision-Making Agreement for Adults with Disabilities,” available at https://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ASAN-Supported-Decisionmaking-Model-Legislature.pdf (last accessed November 2025).
  92. Autistic Self Advocacy Network, “About ASAN,” available at https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/ (last accessed November 2025).
  93. Autistic Self Advocacy Network, “Ending Guardianship: How State Governments Take Away Our Right to Make Choices and How We Can Stop It.”
  94. Jenica Cassidy, “Restoration of Rights for Adults Under Guardianship,” Bifocal: A Journal of ABA Commission on Law and Aging 36 (3) (2015): 63–64, available at https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/publications/bifocal/vol_36/issue_3_february2015/restoration_of_rights_under_guardianship/.
  95. DiMatteo and others, “Rethinking Guardianship To Protect Disabled People’s Reproductive Rights.”
  96. Texas Government Code 81.114, State Bar of Texas, available at https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.81.htm#81.114 (last accessed November 2025).
  97. Data collected from Quorum, the Voting Rights Lab, state legislative trackers, and correspondence with state protection and advocacy organizations, current through October 30, 2025.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Author

Casey Doherty

Policy Analyst, Disability Justice Initiative

Team

Disability Justice Initiative

We promote policies to ensure disabled people of color and those most marginalized by ableism and other forms of oppression can participate in the economy and democracy.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Default Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Variable Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.