Accessibility, Voter ID Regulations, & the Upcoming Election

One important aspect of the electoral process and accessibility that will play a significant role in the upcoming federal election is how changes within the Fair Elections Act will impact disabled voters. Traditionally voter information cards have been used by a significant number of Canadians to identify themselves at the polls, specifically voters who lack other forms of identification. In the last election, 400,000 Canadians relied on voter information cards as a form of identification. 

While possessing ID may not seem to be a barrier to some, there are a number of individuals and groups that this creates real barriers for, including people who don’t drive, people who cannot afford fees associated with acquiring some forms of ID, and those who face barriers accessing government offices. In the US, voter ID legislation has already significantly impacted disabled and older voters, and research indicates turnout among these same groups will likely continue decrease under these measures. On the issue of voter turnout, it's worth noting that in Canada we have already seen significant changes to the electoral process since 1997 that have dramatically impacted turnout, and these new measures will likely exacerbate this trend. 

While these most recent changes in the Fair elections Act were packaged as a way to cut down on voter fraud, there is little to no evidence that voter fraud was an issue in previous elections. In fact, the government has based a large part of its case on what they claim were the findings of an expert hired by Elections Canada, Harry Neufeld. Yet, in his report Neufeld recommended that Elections Canada simplify their paperwork and more importantly, utilize the same Voter Information cards the Fair Elections Act will no longer allow. Of note, Neufeld has filed an affidavit in which he reaffirms that voter fraud is in fact extremely rare in Canada and that these new rules pose a significant barrier to many potential voters, including those who reside in long-term care facilities, students, and those living on reserve. 

For disabled voters these new measures pose a significant barrier as well as many lack the necessary ID. In fact, Elections Canada’s own research related to aging and electoral participation notes anecdotal evidence that suggests ID requirements present significant barriers, especially to those residing within long-term care facilities. With young disabled adults increasingly finding themselves in long-terms care facilities, these new regulations are troubling. In a time when we should be making the voting process more accessible to disabled people, regulations within the Fair Elections Act are in fact creating more barriers. 

Disability & the Federal Election

Canadians have been thrust into the longest elections campaign in Canadian history. As with other elections, some of the key issues where disability is concerned include inclusion of disability issues in party platforms and debates, as well as how accessible the political process is for disabled voters. Sadly on both fronts we have a long way to go.

For those interested in steps Elections Canada has taken to make voting more accessible, check out their resources and policies.  While accessibility on voting day is a part of the issue, making the political process more accessible is a larger and more complex process and there are  key barriers we must confront in order to do this.

First, we know that many disabled persons still face significant barriers that likely result in their exclusion from the electoral process. For example, those living in institutional settings, group homes, and with parents may not be actively supported in this aspect of their lives.  Antidotal evidence indicates many disabled adults are prevented form taking part in the political process because of a lack of control around decision making coupled with attitudinal barriers that falsely suggest some disabled persons are incapable of making an informed political decisions. Here it is important to note that in Canada voting is still a relatively new opportunity, for example citizens with intellectual disabilities were disqualified from voting in federal election until 1988. This means many voting-aged adults with intellectual disabilities were born at a time when their right to participate politically was not guaranteed. In addition to how this might impact how notions of citizenship and participation are internalized,  this may also influence the extent to which an individual's existing support system may value, promote, and facilitate this right.  

Second, with respect to representation, historically our major political parties have done a poor job where disability issues are concerned. In fact, accessibility and inclusion often seem more like token gestures rather than a core element within political platforms and policy design. We still lack disabled candidates on the ballot, and there are significant barriers that prevent disabled persons from volunteering in the campaign process. This means disability remains excluded from the larger political process itself. 

The barriers noted above are just the tip of the iceberg, but begin to illustrate how exclusion operates with respect to the political participation. In part though these may help explain why disabled persons are 20% less likely to vote, as well as why decreasing voter participation remains high among disabled persons. 

These issues do matter and making making the political process more accessible and inclusive requires work.  There is no excuse for these barriers to remain, and with ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2010, Canada has a duty to enable this political participation. The question remains, can we leverage the time granted to us under the longest election campaign in Canadian history to make sure disabled voters and their needs are fully included this time around? 

To learn more about disability and the electoral process check out the following links:  

Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD)Federal Elections Archives.

Electoral Participation of Electors with Disabilities: Canadian Practices in a Comparative Context. 

Facilitating an Equal Right to Vote for PErsons with Disabilities (Lord, Stein & Fiala-Butora, 2014) 

Independent Living Canada facts sheet on political rights of persons with disabilities.

More Than Voting Booths: Accessibility of Electoral Campaigns for People with Disabilities in Ontario (McColl, 2015).

Enabling the Voter Participation of Canadians with Disabilities: Reforming Canada’s Electoral System (Prince, 2014)

Persons with Disabilities and Canada's Electoral Systems: Gradually Advancing the Democratic Right to Vote (Prince. 2004) 

Exploitive Labour for Disabled is not Work

The federal government's announcement to shut down a wastepaper disposal plant sparked public outrage as it was reported 50 individuals with disabilities would lose their "jobs". While this sudden change would indeed impact the daily routine of 50 people with disabilities (and this is certainly something that must be addressed), the public outcry and government's quick extension of this program ignore the real problem at hand. 

This program isn't a form of employment for persons with disabilities. This program is part of a larger system that routinely promotes exploitive labour as a policy solution for persons with disabilities. This is not acceptable. 

The coverage of this specific case has ignored some very important points with respect to this labour. While some people did ask important questions about these "wages" ($1.15 an hour), much of the media coverage on this issue defers back to OCAPDD (the agency that runs this program) to clarify this issue. This is where a critical lens is lacking. 

There is a very good reason why OCAPDD classifies this pay as an "honorarium" rather than a "wage". This is a purposeful measure to get around existing employment standards. This is also why these types of programs do not classify recipients as "employees" but rather frame these experiences differently. In OCAPDD's case, these activities are framed as "enclave-type work experiences for adults with developmental disabilities." Yet, in terms of drumming up public support for this program, OCAPDD had no problem framing this issue as one in which 50 individuals with disabilities would callously lose their "jobs" because of a dispassionate government  decision. 

OCAPDD's executive director was quick to address the publics discomfort with these low wages, claiming in news reports their "ideal" aim was to get workers to a minimum wage and suggested the reason the agency is not there yet is because this program was establish "long before any concern about that kind of standard." This isn't true. In 1973 the Welch Green Paper noted concerns with scandalously low wages within community-based sheltered workshops and suggested the need for more "normalized" labour relations that took into consideration the needs of families, individuals, and industry. We have known for a long time that these kinds of programs are problematic - to frame this discomfort as a new issue or concern is disingenuous. 

In fact, there is ample research that illustrates the success of non-exploitive program alternatives. This includes research that compares these types of programs to supported employment models and finds persons with disabilities overwhelmingly prefer supported employment. Additionally, research on this issue also finds non-exploitive models are more successful in terms of transitioning into paid employment, facilitating stronger social networks, and indicate significantly higher levels of success in a number of indicators linked to inclusion. In short, research show us the many ways OCAPDD's model fails the employment and inclusion goals of persons with disabilities (if you want to learn more on this issue the National Disability Rights Network has a great piece). 

There are bigger questions we need to be asking including the role of various levels of government in supporting these programs, corporate incentives in contracting this labour out and parallel impacts this has on existing workforces, why people with disabilities are not being hired directly by these contractors, and greater transparency in terms of how agencies like OCAPDD operate both as a social services and a business. 

This is not to say that participants did not enjoy these activities, or that the federal government does not have a responsibility to these individuals. Rather, this case illustrates the need to critically evaluate supports and services that provide profit and cost-saving measures for organizations and contractors at the expense of persons with intellectual disabilities. There are solutions that support the training and social needs of participants without violating employment standards -  we need to demand these. 

Different but not Broken: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D & Disability

If you are interested in disability representation in pop culture, you might want to check out a guest post I wrote on disability in the television show Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. This post "Different but not Broken: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D & Disability" can be read over at The Nerds of Color or The Disability Visibility Project. 

A big thank you to Alice Wong for her continued support and encouragement on all things nerd, sociological, and academic! 

Mad Matters needs to be on your reading list

Mad Matters: A Critical Reader in Canadian Mad Studies is an impressive new edited volume that explores the evolution of Mad Studies in Canada. If you haven't already done so, you need to make sure this is first on your reading list! 

If you want to know more about this collection, and my thoughts on why it is so important, check out my review of this book for H-Net.