Article 29: Participation in Political and Public Life
Inadequate protections for PWDs’ right to vote
The Central Election Commission has been slow in responding to demands by civil society for reform. As many PWDs face a range of obstacles in going to polling stations, they simply decide to forego voting--their most basic right of political participation. Many polling stations around the country have tables and chairs that are too high for PWDs and do not provide support for assistive devices. Moreover, as the polling day itself tends to be a non-working day when rehabilitation buses do not run, PWDs who are working or going to school outside their registered constituencies face difficulties in returning to vote. Even when a PWD has a family member accompany them to vote, this often violates the principle of voting secrecy and makes the PWD unable to freely cast a vote of their choice.
We recommend that the government should:
Public information relating to elections (including public election bulletins published by the Central Election Commission, news, press briefings, and presentation of political views by candidates) should be made accessible to persons with disabilities. This includes the provision of voice broadcasts, Braille publications, sign language translators, and live closed captioning etc.
Release the results of the “Polling and Counting Station Accessibility Inspection Table” before polling day, establish hotlines to handle reasonable accommodation requests pertaining to accessibility at each polling station, and remove obstacles that prevent PWDs from voting in secret and exercising their freedom of choice.
The government should introduce an absentee and out of constituency postal voting system to enable easier voting for PWDs who live long-term at nursing homes or other institutions and unable to easily return to their registered home constituencies.
PWDs who are subjected to declaration of guardianship automatically have their right to vote taken away
The CPRD emphasizes the ability of PWDs to participate in public affairs and political decisions “effectively” and without obstruction. This includes the right to freely exercise the right to vote and stand for elections either directly or through a freely chosen representative. According to Paragraph 48 of CRPD General Comment No 1, “a person’s decision-making ability cannot be a justification for any exclusion of persons with disabilities from exercising their political rights”, regardless of the seriousness of their disabilities.
Article 25 of the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” emphasizes that there should not be unreasonable restrictions on the right to political participation. However, Article 14 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act stipulates that: “Any citizen of the Republic of China reaching 20 years of age shall have the right of suffrage, unless the declaration of guardianship has yet been revoked.” The existing guardianship system presumes that PWDs and persons with psychiatric disabilities under civil protection have to no ability for “meaningful” political participation, and do not allow them to have the capacity to delegate representatives to exercise such rights on their behalf. We question whether subjecting persons under guardianship declarations to such narrowly defined restrictions will prevent the State from fulfilling its obligation to ensure the reasonableness, necessity and proportionality of electoral laws? (For other questions relating to the guardianship system, refer to Article 12, Paragraphs 99-100.)
The government should account for the total number of persons who have their right to vote taken away under guardianship declarations and their proportion within the total population. The government should refer to Paragraph 44 of the 2010 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Alajos Kiss vs Hungary, and consider the need to amend regulations in the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act that indiscriminately remove voting rights of persons solely based on their disabilities.