Inclusive elections? The case of persons with disabilities in the European Union

IF 0.8 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Armin Rabitsch, Alejandro Moledo, Michael Lidauer
{"title":"Inclusive elections? The case of persons with disabilities in the European Union","authors":"Armin Rabitsch, Alejandro Moledo, Michael Lidauer","doi":"10.1080/10220461.2023.2275669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThe Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) clarifies that persons with disabilities have the right to participate in political life and enshrines their right to vote and stand as candidates in elections. This article evaluates compliance and current practices in the European Union, finding a great variety of implementation to facilitate the electoral participation of persons with disabilities. Despite CRPD ratification by all EU member states, inaccessibility of elections, lack of suitable information, removal of legal capacity, and other disability-based discrimination remain barriers to political participation. Nevertheless, there are increasingly good practices of inclusion by which legislators and election administrators can learn from each other. Based on the example of the EU, the judicial activism of disabled persons organisations in particular highlights the key role of civil society organisations and their cooperation with public authorities to make electoral processes more inclusive, alleviating political inequality overall.KEYWORDS: Electionsinclusionaccessibilitypersons with disabilitiesEuropean UnionCRPDstrategic litigation AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank EDF member organisations for reviewing the initial findings and the EDF for granting the permission to use the research and findings for this article. We also thank the members of the Election-Watch.EU network for participating in the research.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Smets Kaat and C. van Ham, ‘The Embarrassment of Riches? A Meta-Analysis of Individual-Level Research on Voter Turnout,’ Electoral Studies 32, no. 2 (2013): 344–59.2 T.S. James and H.A. Garnett, ‘Introduction: The Case for Inclusive Voting Practices,’ Policy Studies 41, no. 2–3 (2020): 113.3 A. Blais, L. Massicotte and A. Yoshinaka, ‘Deciding Who Has the Right to Vote: A Comparative Analysis of Election Laws,’ Electoral Studies 20 (2001): 41–62.4 For the United States, compare for example L. Schur, M. Adya and M. Ameri, ‘Accessible Democracy: Reducing Voting Obstacles for People with Disabilities,’ Election Law Journal 14, no. 1 (2015); and A. Johnson and S. Powell, ‘Disability and Election Administration in the United States: Barriers and Improvements,’ Policy Studies 41, no. 2–3 (2020): 249–70. For Africa compare B. Virendrakumar et al., ‘Disability Inclusive Elections in Africa: A Systematic Review of Published and Unpublished Literature,’ Disability & Society 33, no. 4: 509–38.5 James and Garnett, ‘Introduction: The Case for Inclusive Voting Practices,’ 115, following inter alia L. Schur et al., ‘Enabling Democracy: Disability and Voter Turnout,’ Political Research Quarterly 55 (2002): 167–90.6 World Health Organisation, ‘Disability: Key Facts,’ https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health (accessed August 23, 2023, last updated March 7, 2023).7 Among electoral practitioners, IFES has long been promoting disability rights: https://www.ifes.org/our-expertise/inclusion-human-rights/disability-rights. Among international election observers, the OSCE/ODIHR ‘Handbook on Observing and Promoting the Electoral Participation of Persons with Disabilities’ (2017) serves as a benchmark: https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/handbook-observing-people-with-disabilities.8 Cf. James and Garnett, ‘Introduction: The Case for Inclusive Voting Practices’.9 The EDF HRR 2022 was authored by Alejandro Moledo and Marine Uldry. The comparative research for the EDF HRR was led by Armin Rabitsch and Michael Lidauer involving all 27 Election-Watch.EU focal points as well as EDF partner organizations at EU member state level. See: Alejandro Moledo and Marine Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities,’ European Human Rights Report no. 6 (2022).10 April A. Johnson and Sierra Powell, ‘Disability and Election Administration in the United States: Barriers and Improvements,’ Policy Studies 41, no. 2–3: 249–70.11 Emmanuel Sackey, ‘Disability and Political Participation in Ghana: An Alternative Perspective,’ Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 17, no. 4 (2015): 366–81.12 Lisa Schur and Meera Adya, ‘Sidelined or Mainstreamed? Political Participation and Attitudes of People with Disabilities in the United States,’ Social Science Quarterly 94, no. 3 (2013): 811–39.13 T.S. James and A. Clark, ‘Electoral Integrity, Voter Fraud and Voter ID in Polling Stations: Lessons from English Local Elections,’ Policy Studies 41, no. 2-3 (2020): 190–209. Lisa Schur, Mason Ameri, and Meera Adya, ‘Disability, Voter Turnout, and Polling Place Accessibility,’ Social Science Quarterly 98, no. 5 (2017): 1374–90.14 Peter Miller and Sierra Powell, ‘Overcoming Voting Obstacles: Convenience Voting by People with Disabilities,’ American Politics Research 44, no. 1 (2016): 28–55.15 Research Alliance for Accessible Voting, 2014, ‘RAAV Poll Worker Training Project 2.’ Cited in Suzanne G. M. van Hees, Hennie R. Boeije, and Iris de Putter, ‘Voting Barriers and Solutions: The Experiences of People with Disabilities During the Dutch National Election in 2017.’ Disability & Society 34, no. 5 (2019): 819–36.16 James and Garnett, ‘Introduction: The Case for Inclusive Voting Practices,’ 113.17 See the United Nations overview of countries that have ratified: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-15&chapter=418 When ratifying the CRPD, three EU member states (Estonia, France, and Netherlands) entered a declaration, and one Member State (Poland) raised a reservation with respect to CRPD article 12 on equal recognition before the law. This implies that these countries implement article 12 in accordance with their respective national legislation, which in each case allows for restrictions on the right to vote of persons deprived of legal capacity. Malta raised reservations with respect to article 29 on participation in political and public life, and reserved the right to continue applying its existing electoral legislation concerning voting procedures, electoral facilities and materials, and assisted voting.19 The EU as well its member states Bulgaria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania have not ratified the Optional Protocol.20 M. Priestley et al., ‘The Political Participation of Disabled People in Europe: Rights, Accessibility and Activism,’ Electoral Studies 42 (2016): 1–9.21 The research was conducted between 2021 and 2022 by Election-Watch.EU and the European Disability Forum (EDF) and its member organisations, which resulted in the EDF Human Rights Report 6 by M. Alejandro and M. Uldry (with support of A. Price and V. James): ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities,’ Brussels: EDF, 2022 (https://www.edf-feph.org/publications/human-rights-report-2022-political-participation-of-persons-with-disabilities/).22 Countries such as Germany, France, Spain and Slovakia have removed such limitations, and Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, and Portugal reduced them.23 FRA, ‘Who will (not) get to vote in the 2019 European Parliament elections? Developments in the right to vote of people deprived of legal capacity in EU member states,’ Vienna, 2019, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2019/who-will-not-get-vote-2019-european-parliament-elections.24 EESC, ‘The Need to Guarantee Real Rights for Persons with Disabilities to Vote in European Parliament Elections (Additional Opinion),’ Brussels, 2020, https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/need-guarantee-real-rights-persons-disabilities-vote-european-parliament-elections-additional-opinion.25 Moledo and Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities’.26 Moledo and Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities’.27 These 8 are Austria, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Croatia, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.28 Available information indicates that no candidate has ever been disqualified on the basis of ‘unsound mind’ in Ireland. Yet it is arguable that candidates could be disqualified based on psychosocial disabilities.29 Moledo and Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities’.30 Moledo and Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities’.31 Moledo and Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities’.32 https://www.scb.se/publication/2630733 Voters are required to mark their preference numerically, with their number ‘1’ being interpreted as the vote for the party as well as their preferred candidate. This is the single transferable vote system.34 https://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/article-2-definitions (accessed August 28, 2023).35 R. Wolfinger and S.J. Rosenstone, Who Votes? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), 8, quoted in James and Garnett, , ‘Introduction: The Case for Inclusive Voting Practices,’ 118.36 For comparison, International IDEA provides an overview of special voting arrangements: https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/special-voting-arrangements.37 Internet voting is only available in Estonia, where voters can decide to go to a polling station on election day or to cast their vote on a website during the elections period.38 Belgium and France provide proxy voting, but this is not meeting international standards as it transfers the right to somebody else. Whilethis can be convenient for persons with certain disabilities, it is not considered as a measure to facilitate their right to vote.39 Only those with officially confirmed severe or moderate disability. To access it one needs to put a motion and attach a copy of a valid decision of the competent authority on the degree (severe/moderate) of disability.40 Provision of mobile ballot boxes exists in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden.41 In the case of Luxembourg, the possibility of changing polling station is only available in Luxembourg city. In Finland, voters can choose the polling station during the early voting period, but not on election day, when they are assigned to a specific polling station near their residence.42 International standards for democratic elections require ensuring the secrecy and equality of the vote and respect for voters’ choices; see: Article 25 of the ICCPR; General Comment to Article 25, paras 20–22; the 1950 Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Protocol 1 of 1952, Article 3.43 None are available in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.44 European Union, ‘Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies,’ https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/web-accessibility.45 Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in member states concerning the provision of audio-visual media services (Audio-visual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities.46 By law, during election day, the local health units must guarantee that there is an adequate number of doctors in the various municipalities.47 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights48 Law Society Gazette Ireland, ‘ECHR Ruling’s ‘Europe-Wide Implications’ on Disability,’ October 2021, https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2021/10-october/echr-ruling-has-europe-wide-implications-on-disability.49 Sinnott v Minister for the Environment [2017] IEHC 214, the High Court.50 Cf. T.X. James and H.A. Garnett, ‘Inclusive Voting Practices: Lessons for Theory, Praxis, and the Future Research Agenda,’ Policy Studies 41, no. 2-3: 292.Additional informationNotes on contributorsArmin RabitschArmin Rabitsch is a Senior Elections Expert and the Chairperson of Election-Watch.EU.Alejandro MoledoAlejandro Moledo is the Deputy Director and Head of Policy at the European Disability Forum (EDF).Michael LidauerMichael Lidauer is Senior Advisor at Election-Watch.EU and a doctoral researcher at Goethe University Frankfurt.","PeriodicalId":44641,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of International Affairs-SAJIA","volume":"119 38","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of International Affairs-SAJIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2023.2275669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) clarifies that persons with disabilities have the right to participate in political life and enshrines their right to vote and stand as candidates in elections. This article evaluates compliance and current practices in the European Union, finding a great variety of implementation to facilitate the electoral participation of persons with disabilities. Despite CRPD ratification by all EU member states, inaccessibility of elections, lack of suitable information, removal of legal capacity, and other disability-based discrimination remain barriers to political participation. Nevertheless, there are increasingly good practices of inclusion by which legislators and election administrators can learn from each other. Based on the example of the EU, the judicial activism of disabled persons organisations in particular highlights the key role of civil society organisations and their cooperation with public authorities to make electoral processes more inclusive, alleviating political inequality overall.KEYWORDS: Electionsinclusionaccessibilitypersons with disabilitiesEuropean UnionCRPDstrategic litigation AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank EDF member organisations for reviewing the initial findings and the EDF for granting the permission to use the research and findings for this article. We also thank the members of the Election-Watch.EU network for participating in the research.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Smets Kaat and C. van Ham, ‘The Embarrassment of Riches? A Meta-Analysis of Individual-Level Research on Voter Turnout,’ Electoral Studies 32, no. 2 (2013): 344–59.2 T.S. James and H.A. Garnett, ‘Introduction: The Case for Inclusive Voting Practices,’ Policy Studies 41, no. 2–3 (2020): 113.3 A. Blais, L. Massicotte and A. Yoshinaka, ‘Deciding Who Has the Right to Vote: A Comparative Analysis of Election Laws,’ Electoral Studies 20 (2001): 41–62.4 For the United States, compare for example L. Schur, M. Adya and M. Ameri, ‘Accessible Democracy: Reducing Voting Obstacles for People with Disabilities,’ Election Law Journal 14, no. 1 (2015); and A. Johnson and S. Powell, ‘Disability and Election Administration in the United States: Barriers and Improvements,’ Policy Studies 41, no. 2–3 (2020): 249–70. For Africa compare B. Virendrakumar et al., ‘Disability Inclusive Elections in Africa: A Systematic Review of Published and Unpublished Literature,’ Disability & Society 33, no. 4: 509–38.5 James and Garnett, ‘Introduction: The Case for Inclusive Voting Practices,’ 115, following inter alia L. Schur et al., ‘Enabling Democracy: Disability and Voter Turnout,’ Political Research Quarterly 55 (2002): 167–90.6 World Health Organisation, ‘Disability: Key Facts,’ https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health (accessed August 23, 2023, last updated March 7, 2023).7 Among electoral practitioners, IFES has long been promoting disability rights: https://www.ifes.org/our-expertise/inclusion-human-rights/disability-rights. Among international election observers, the OSCE/ODIHR ‘Handbook on Observing and Promoting the Electoral Participation of Persons with Disabilities’ (2017) serves as a benchmark: https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/handbook-observing-people-with-disabilities.8 Cf. James and Garnett, ‘Introduction: The Case for Inclusive Voting Practices’.9 The EDF HRR 2022 was authored by Alejandro Moledo and Marine Uldry. The comparative research for the EDF HRR was led by Armin Rabitsch and Michael Lidauer involving all 27 Election-Watch.EU focal points as well as EDF partner organizations at EU member state level. See: Alejandro Moledo and Marine Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities,’ European Human Rights Report no. 6 (2022).10 April A. Johnson and Sierra Powell, ‘Disability and Election Administration in the United States: Barriers and Improvements,’ Policy Studies 41, no. 2–3: 249–70.11 Emmanuel Sackey, ‘Disability and Political Participation in Ghana: An Alternative Perspective,’ Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 17, no. 4 (2015): 366–81.12 Lisa Schur and Meera Adya, ‘Sidelined or Mainstreamed? Political Participation and Attitudes of People with Disabilities in the United States,’ Social Science Quarterly 94, no. 3 (2013): 811–39.13 T.S. James and A. Clark, ‘Electoral Integrity, Voter Fraud and Voter ID in Polling Stations: Lessons from English Local Elections,’ Policy Studies 41, no. 2-3 (2020): 190–209. Lisa Schur, Mason Ameri, and Meera Adya, ‘Disability, Voter Turnout, and Polling Place Accessibility,’ Social Science Quarterly 98, no. 5 (2017): 1374–90.14 Peter Miller and Sierra Powell, ‘Overcoming Voting Obstacles: Convenience Voting by People with Disabilities,’ American Politics Research 44, no. 1 (2016): 28–55.15 Research Alliance for Accessible Voting, 2014, ‘RAAV Poll Worker Training Project 2.’ Cited in Suzanne G. M. van Hees, Hennie R. Boeije, and Iris de Putter, ‘Voting Barriers and Solutions: The Experiences of People with Disabilities During the Dutch National Election in 2017.’ Disability & Society 34, no. 5 (2019): 819–36.16 James and Garnett, ‘Introduction: The Case for Inclusive Voting Practices,’ 113.17 See the United Nations overview of countries that have ratified: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-15&chapter=418 When ratifying the CRPD, three EU member states (Estonia, France, and Netherlands) entered a declaration, and one Member State (Poland) raised a reservation with respect to CRPD article 12 on equal recognition before the law. This implies that these countries implement article 12 in accordance with their respective national legislation, which in each case allows for restrictions on the right to vote of persons deprived of legal capacity. Malta raised reservations with respect to article 29 on participation in political and public life, and reserved the right to continue applying its existing electoral legislation concerning voting procedures, electoral facilities and materials, and assisted voting.19 The EU as well its member states Bulgaria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania have not ratified the Optional Protocol.20 M. Priestley et al., ‘The Political Participation of Disabled People in Europe: Rights, Accessibility and Activism,’ Electoral Studies 42 (2016): 1–9.21 The research was conducted between 2021 and 2022 by Election-Watch.EU and the European Disability Forum (EDF) and its member organisations, which resulted in the EDF Human Rights Report 6 by M. Alejandro and M. Uldry (with support of A. Price and V. James): ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities,’ Brussels: EDF, 2022 (https://www.edf-feph.org/publications/human-rights-report-2022-political-participation-of-persons-with-disabilities/).22 Countries such as Germany, France, Spain and Slovakia have removed such limitations, and Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, and Portugal reduced them.23 FRA, ‘Who will (not) get to vote in the 2019 European Parliament elections? Developments in the right to vote of people deprived of legal capacity in EU member states,’ Vienna, 2019, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2019/who-will-not-get-vote-2019-european-parliament-elections.24 EESC, ‘The Need to Guarantee Real Rights for Persons with Disabilities to Vote in European Parliament Elections (Additional Opinion),’ Brussels, 2020, https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/need-guarantee-real-rights-persons-disabilities-vote-european-parliament-elections-additional-opinion.25 Moledo and Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities’.26 Moledo and Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities’.27 These 8 are Austria, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Croatia, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.28 Available information indicates that no candidate has ever been disqualified on the basis of ‘unsound mind’ in Ireland. Yet it is arguable that candidates could be disqualified based on psychosocial disabilities.29 Moledo and Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities’.30 Moledo and Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities’.31 Moledo and Uldry, ‘Human Rights Report on Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities’.32 https://www.scb.se/publication/2630733 Voters are required to mark their preference numerically, with their number ‘1’ being interpreted as the vote for the party as well as their preferred candidate. This is the single transferable vote system.34 https://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/article-2-definitions (accessed August 28, 2023).35 R. Wolfinger and S.J. Rosenstone, Who Votes? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), 8, quoted in James and Garnett, , ‘Introduction: The Case for Inclusive Voting Practices,’ 118.36 For comparison, International IDEA provides an overview of special voting arrangements: https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/special-voting-arrangements.37 Internet voting is only available in Estonia, where voters can decide to go to a polling station on election day or to cast their vote on a website during the elections period.38 Belgium and France provide proxy voting, but this is not meeting international standards as it transfers the right to somebody else. Whilethis can be convenient for persons with certain disabilities, it is not considered as a measure to facilitate their right to vote.39 Only those with officially confirmed severe or moderate disability. To access it one needs to put a motion and attach a copy of a valid decision of the competent authority on the degree (severe/moderate) of disability.40 Provision of mobile ballot boxes exists in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden.41 In the case of Luxembourg, the possibility of changing polling station is only available in Luxembourg city. In Finland, voters can choose the polling station during the early voting period, but not on election day, when they are assigned to a specific polling station near their residence.42 International standards for democratic elections require ensuring the secrecy and equality of the vote and respect for voters’ choices; see: Article 25 of the ICCPR; General Comment to Article 25, paras 20–22; the 1950 Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Protocol 1 of 1952, Article 3.43 None are available in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.44 European Union, ‘Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies,’ https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/web-accessibility.45 Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in member states concerning the provision of audio-visual media services (Audio-visual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities.46 By law, during election day, the local health units must guarantee that there is an adequate number of doctors in the various municipalities.47 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights48 Law Society Gazette Ireland, ‘ECHR Ruling’s ‘Europe-Wide Implications’ on Disability,’ October 2021, https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2021/10-october/echr-ruling-has-europe-wide-implications-on-disability.49 Sinnott v Minister for the Environment [2017] IEHC 214, the High Court.50 Cf. T.X. James and H.A. Garnett, ‘Inclusive Voting Practices: Lessons for Theory, Praxis, and the Future Research Agenda,’ Policy Studies 41, no. 2-3: 292.Additional informationNotes on contributorsArmin RabitschArmin Rabitsch is a Senior Elections Expert and the Chairperson of Election-Watch.EU.Alejandro MoledoAlejandro Moledo is the Deputy Director and Head of Policy at the European Disability Forum (EDF).Michael LidauerMichael Lidauer is Senior Advisor at Election-Watch.EU and a doctoral researcher at Goethe University Frankfurt.
包容的选举?欧洲联盟的残疾人情况
摘要《残疾人权利公约》明确规定残疾人有参与政治生活的权利,并规定了残疾人的选举权和被选举权。本文评估了欧洲联盟的遵守情况和目前的做法,发现了促进残疾人参与选举的各种执行情况。尽管所有欧盟成员国都批准了《残疾人权利公约》,但选举不便、缺乏适当的信息、丧失法律行为能力以及其他基于残疾的歧视仍然是阻碍政治参与的障碍。然而,有越来越多的包容的良好做法,立法者和选举管理人员可以相互学习。以欧盟为例,残疾人组织的司法行动主义特别强调了民间社会组织的关键作用,以及他们与公共当局的合作,使选举过程更具包容性,总体上减轻了政治不平等。关键词:选举,包容,无障碍,残疾人,欧盟,战略诉讼作者感谢EDF成员组织对初步研究结果的审查,并感谢EDF授予本文使用研究和研究结果的许可。我们也感谢选举观察的成员。参与研究的欧盟网络。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1斯梅茨·卡特和c·范哈姆《财富的尴尬?》个人层面选民投票率研究的元分析,《选举研究》第32期。T.S. James和H.A. Garnett,“引言:包容性投票实践的案例”,《政策研究》第41期,第344 - 592期。2-3 (2020): 113.3 a。Blais, L. Massicotte和A. Yoshinaka,“决定谁有投票权:选举法的比较分析”,《选举研究》20(2001):41-62.4,对于美国,比较例如L. Schur, M. Adya和M. Ameri,“无障碍民主:为残疾人减少投票障碍”,《选举法杂志》14,第14期。1 (2015);A. Johnson和S. Powell,“美国的残疾和选举管理:障碍与改进”,《政策研究》第41期,第2期。2-3(2020): 249-70。对于非洲,比较B. Virendrakumar等人,“非洲的残疾人包容性选举:对已发表和未发表文献的系统回顾”,《残疾与社会》33期。4: 509-38.5詹姆斯和加内特,“介绍:包容性投票实践的案例”,115,继L. Schur等人,“实现民主:残疾和选民投票率”,政治研究季刊55(2002):167-90.6世界卫生组织,“残疾:关键事实”,https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health(访问于2023年8月23日,最后更新于2023年3月7日)在选举从业者中,IFES长期以来一直在促进残疾人权利:https://www.ifes.org/our-expertise/inclusion-human-rights/disability-rights。在国际选举观察员中,欧安组织/民主人权办“观察和促进残疾人选举参与手册”(2017年)可作为基准:https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/handbook-observing-people-with-disabilities.8 Cf.詹姆斯和加内特,“介绍:包容性投票实践的案例”EDF HRR 2022由Alejandro Moledo和Marine Uldry撰写。EDF HRR的比较研究由Armin Rabitsch和Michael Lidauer领导,涉及所有27个选举观察组织。欧盟联络点以及欧盟成员国层面的EDF合作伙伴组织。参见:Alejandro Moledo和Marine Uldry,《关于残疾人政治参与的人权报告》,《欧洲人权报告》第6号。6 (2022) 10April A. Johnson和Sierra Powell,《美国的残疾与选举管理:障碍与改进》,《政策研究》第41期,第2期。Emmanuel Sackey,“加纳的残疾和政治参与:另一种视角”,《斯堪的纳维亚残疾研究杂志》第17期,第7期。Lisa Schur和Meera Adya,“边缘化还是主流?”《美国残疾人的政治参与与态度》,《社会科学季刊》,第94期。James和A. Clark,“选举诚信、选民欺诈和选民身份:来自英国地方选举的经验教训”,《政策研究》第41期,2013。2-3(2020): 190-209。Lisa Schur、Mason Ameri和Meera Adya,《残疾、选民投票率和投票站无障碍》,《社会科学季刊》,第98期。Peter Miller和Sierra Powell,“克服投票障碍:残疾人投票的便利性”,《美国政治研究》第44期,2017。1(2016): 28-55。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信