Kansas Voting Disqualification Amendment, Constitutional Amendment Question 2

This amendment would repeal the authority of the legislature to exclude persons with mental illness from voting.

A "YES" vote would ensure that the right to vote for persons with mental illness cannot be taken away by the legislature.

A "NO" vote would continue the current authority of the legislature to take away the right to vote for persons with mental illness.

According to supporters of the amendment, a "mental illness" category is too general and affects as much as 25 percent of Kansas residents.

How will you vote on November 2?

I do not believe it will be in the best interests of the people of the state of Kansas to strip the legislature of the authority to pass any laws of any kind. They are our lawmaking body and supposed to have Kansas citizens best interests at heart. I also realize that from the legislature's voting record of recent years, most people here in Kansas think most of the the legislature has mental illness also. I will go no on this one.

Beaner wrote:

I do not believe it will be in the best interests of the people of the state of Kansas to strip the legislature of the authority to pass any laws of any kind. They are our lawmaking body and supposed to have Kansas citizens best interests at heart. I also realize that from the legislature's voting record of recent years, most people here in Kansas think most of the the legislature has mental illness also. I will go no on this one.

As a vet, I dont want the GENERAL TERM mental illness as a reason to prevent me from voting.(and no I am not diagnosed with PTSD) Sufferage for the women of this nation is an example of the elect trying to keep out those votes they feel uncomfortable with. If you can pay taxes, I say you can vote and no one should have the right to tax you and then say you cant vote. Limited Government MEANS Limited Government. I have to disagree with you slightly Beaner. Respectfully

wally515 wrote:

<quoted text>As a vet, I dont want the GENERAL TERM mental illness as a reason to prevent me from voting.(and no I am not diagnosed with PTSD) Sufferage for the women of this nation is an example of the elect trying to keep out those votes they feel uncomfortable with. If you can pay taxes, I say you can vote and no one should have the right to tax you and then say you cant vote. Limited Government MEANS Limited Government. I have to disagree with you slightly Beaner. Respectfully

I agree with Wally on this one.

"Mental Illnes" is too broad of a term. Any diagnosis in the broad spectrum of mental illnesses classified by the DSM-IV from alcohol dependence, mild depression, or anxiety attacks to bi-polar mood disorder, severe psychosis, or schizophrenia all fall under the umbrella term "mental illness."

Thus, a restriction regarding mental illness would prevent just about every person in Kansas from voting. I don't care for the idea of discrimination against people with mental illnesses when it comes to choosing who will or will not represent them (us?) in government. There is already a stigma related to this area of health which prevents many people from seeking the kind of help that is needed to enable them to function well in society.

Mental health facilities are being closed right and left due to the cost of treatment and the reticence of insurance companies regarding paying for said treatment. I guess they figure if you are well enough to work to pay for your insurance, you aren't sick enough (mentally) to need the benefits.

I'd have to vote "Yes"-- otherwise, what's next? Repeal the right to vote for women? For different ethnicities? For Atheists? For Liberals? For me?

People with mental illness are treated like criminals. This is WRONG. Mental illness is a disease like any other. Do you have heart disease? You can't vote! Do you have cancer? Sorry, you can't vote! You bald-headed convict! There's no way anyone should vote "no" unless prejudiced and bereft of science. Oh, wait. I'm in Kansas where the next governor doesn't believe in evolution. I forgot.

I will vote "Yes". The government recently passed legislation requiring ALL medical records be recorded in electronic form & stored for faster access by health providers by the government. This means as these laws are implemented locally by your family physician, hospital or medical provider, the government will have an instant means by which they can classify you even if you once took anxiety pills to calm you before a surgical proceedure.

I believe there would be no scientific means by which to determine the specific degree of acceptable mental illness a person has in order to deny them their constitutional rights.

A person could have a mild case of bipolar disorder, and while it may interfere at times with the current societal norms of acceptable behavior, society's lack of tolerance for what it doesn't understand does not mean the person suffering the disorder is not capable of either logic or of having an opinion.

Finally, if the government can deprive a person of their right to vote simply by classifying them as having a mental illness, what other rights will the government deem necessary to remove based upon a different catagory of classifications?

The ebb and flow of societal opinions should not be all that is needed to deprive another human being of their rights.

But that's just my opinion.

Referee

Depends would they vote for Obama?

I am registered. I use to vote. I use to get involved. By not anymore. To me it is a waste of time to vote or get involved with politics or any issue under the sun. My mom said it best. Their all a bunch of crooks. They don't give a rats ass about the everyday working stiffs. It'a all about money and power. I got a paper in the mail that would allow me to vote through the mail. I threw it in the trash.

lost boy wrote:

I am registered. I use to vote. I use to get involved. By not anymore. To me it is a waste of time to vote or get involved with politics or any issue under the sun. My mom said it best. Their all a bunch of crooks. They don't give a rats ass about the everyday working stiffs. It'a all about money and power. I got a paper in the mail that would allow me to vote through the mail. I threw it in the trash.

If you dont vote, you deserve what you get. Someone else, like me, will decide what is best for you because you trashed your oportunity to have self direction in your life.

wally515 wrote:

<quoted text>If you dont vote, you deserve what you get. Someone else, like me, will decide what is best for you because you trashed your oportunity to have self direction in your life.

I seldom agree with what you say on Topix; still wonder about your recent arrest; and think you would have made a pi$$ poor college Trustee; however; I have to agree with you that if a person like "lost boy" gives up on the political process then he is asking others to decide for him about a lot of very important issues that affect us all.

People like "lost boy" act like if the political process doesn't go their way on any issue that the whole thing is a waste of time. Remember that it is the majority of votes that decides any question put before the voters; "lost boy" seems to think that his vote ought to count for more than others or he will take his ball and go home.

Like I said before, I may not always agree with you Wally, but at least you do understand the political process. Most of it, anyway.

Hang tough, Marine.

I think it would have to be based on the terms of the mental illness....if it is someone who is capable of understanding the consequences of the vote, then yes, by all means they should be able to vote. But if they don't even know what they are voting for, then why should they. However isn't it the right for EVERYONE to vote. With the exceptions of prisoners, felons, and such.

"if you dont vote you deserve what you get", that would imply that if you DO vote you dont deserve what you get. even when i vote i dont deserve what i get. i think an example of the futility of voting would be the supreme court deciding who won the presidential race in florida by giving it to george bush,, and i am not a bush basher per se,, he was/is just a patsy. there is some truth to what lost boy says. you wont change his views with your idealism. EVERY citizen without a felony sould be allowed to vote. any other amendments to this is fascism.

Vote while we still can. Some people feel the need to go beyond simply voting. They become part of a national movement like the tea party when they see an out of control government moving us away from the ideals framed by our founders. Maybe the law should say no voting for institutionalized mental patients . That way there couldn't be buses pulled up to take them away to The polls.

Get over it. Bush won. Both Al Gore and John Kerry lost. Quit living in fantasy land.

speck rhodes wrote:

"if you dont vote you deserve what you get", that would imply that if you DO vote you dont deserve what you get. even when i vote i dont deserve what i get. i think an example of the futility of voting would be the supreme court deciding who won the presidential race in florida by giving it to george bush,, and i am not a bush basher per se,, he was/is just a patsy. there is some truth to what lost boy says. you wont change his views with your idealism. EVERY citizen without a felony sould be allowed to vote. any other amendments to this is fascism.

That had to be the most closely watched election outcome in recent history and the result was decided as fairly as possible. Media scrutiny was there. Observers from every bent of the political spectrum were there. All counts were conducted in broad daylight.

I blame the State of Florida for having a dumb voting system whereby the ballot has to be "punched". Everyone remembers the "hanging chad" examinations by the voting officials. If the state of Florida had used a ballot system that was idiot proof, there probably wouldn't have been a problem.

Besides, Al Gore is probably in a better position now than he would have been if elected.

well said dick,, i am really happy that al gore did not become president. i only used that as an example. jamal, your comment is very pinheaded to say the least. i assure you i am quite over the bush gore election. so tell me jamal, was there ever another presidential election decided by the supreme court. i anxiously await your tepid and concise informed response.

Considering what we have now, George Bush is looking pretty darn good. You wanted change; you got it!(not to mention, very little in your pocket).

Splechk rhodes:

I am not aware of any other, but I am equally unaware of any state's supreme court ruling in contradiction of a vote tally. I don't want to summarize a well written accurate article on the situation so read it yourself

http://www.florida2000election.com/sections/f...

Get over it!

looks like my post spelled your name right "jamal" not jam al,, i dont have time to read your shit. not sure what you are bugged about. i said i used that election as an example. twit.