University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Toward equity and inclusion for developmentally disabled persons: a study of electoral engagement

(USC Thesis Other)

Toward equity and inclusion for developmentally disabled persons: a study of electoral engagement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Toward Equity and Inclusion for Developmentally Disabled Persons:
A Study of Electoral Engagement

by
Richard M. DiNinni

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Richard M. DiNinni 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Richard M. DiNinni certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Cathy Krop
Richard E. Clark
Kimberly Ferrario, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
The problem of practice that informed this dissertation is the low levels of electoral participation
by citizens with developmental disabilities that results in a lack of government reforms and
services to improve their quality of life. The stakeholder organization is an alliance of service
provider agencies across southern California who focus their efforts on supporting the
developmentally disabled clients they serve so those individuals can enjoy a life based on their
own ideas and choices, while cultivating skills that produce tools for them to successfully
navigate all stages of their daily lives. The primary purpose of this study was to use direct input
from people with developmental disabilities to examine the factors that influence their voting
behavior and develop a set of best practices to support greater electoral awareness and civic
engagement for developmentally disabled adults. This qualitative study utilized semi-structured
interviews with a purposeful sample of eight developmentally disabled adults who were recruited
by leaders of the stakeholder organization. Those interviews resulted in a set of emergent themes
revolving around the critical role service provider agencies can play in activating and reinforcing
civic participation by their clients. The findings are the basis for suggested courses of action that
include an implementation model to set the conditions for greater collective impact by the
service provider agencies, while outlining strategies to develop knowledge, motivation, and
organizational support structures within those agencies to build the capacity for their
developmentally disabled clients to better understand and engage in the electoral process. These
recommendations are built from the words of the participants with the hope of giving greater
voice to this largely invisible population and beginning their push toward equity and inclusion.

v
Acknowledgements
This dissertation is dedicated to my daughter Lucia, the light of my life, whose boundless
curiosity and unending acts of kindness inspire me each and every day to be a better person and
show her that something like this is possible with dedication, effort, and persistence. And to my
parents, Michael and Nelida, who suffered so much but still led by example in showing me the
importance of hard work and compassion toward others. Their empathetic spirit still guides all
my decisions and actions, including this dissertation. Their absence leaves a huge hole in my
heart, but I hope they are proud of what I’ve done and can see that I tried my best at each step of
this academic journey.
I was honored to have such an outstanding dissertation committee. To Dr. Kimberly
Ferrario, for helping me find the right path early in the process and her always positive
encouragement; To Dr. Cathy Krop, for taking an early interest in my ideas and her ready
willingness to discuss them after class; To Dr. Richard Clark, who years ago instilled in me the
importance of evidence-based practice and who was the first to suggest that I should pursue a
doctorate. These scholars and practitioners helped me refine my approach and strengthen my
argument. I will forever be thankful for their thoughtful recommendations and expert advice.
When considering the evolution of this dissertation study, I am eternally grateful to
Rebecca, whose life’s work has been in service to the developmentally disabled. She generously
offered early thoughts about the possibility of combining my strong belief in equal voting rights
for all citizens with the need for developmentally disabled persons to express their electoral
voice. Yet those initial ideas and conversations were only the beginning, as she was instrumental
in helping me understand the true nature of the subject population and never wavered in
providing support as I formulated my research design and embarked on data collection.

vi
I hold such warm feelings and have only the deepest appreciation for Carmin, Jessica,
Leon, Mike, and Steven, who became trusted friends as we successfully fought through all the
challenging elements of our program while grappling with the deep emotional strains of a global
pandemic and social unrest that were impacting every aspect of our daily lives for the better part
of two years. We formed a lifetime bond that only we will understand. Memories of sharing
personal thoughts with the Ferrario 4, the Sunday Morning Team, and the Counselor during the
most difficult moments will stay with me forever. And a kind note of thanks is due to the
members of our cohort. We navigated the academic rigor of a doctoral program with mutual
respect and admiration.
My road here was filled with a circle of family and friends who throughout my life never
gave up on me and were always there for me regardless of the situation. Their love and support
meant everything to me. So often I was starting late and almost always feeling my way through
the dark.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 2
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 4
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 7
Voting Behavior .................................................................................................................. 7
Issues Related to Voting ................................................................................................... 15
The Electoral Participation of Developmentally Disabled Citizens ................................. 18
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis (2008) as the Conceptual Framework .............................. 23
Conceptual Framework and Stakeholder Voting Behavior .............................................. 27
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 30
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 32
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 32
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 33
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 33
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 34
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 35

viii
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 38
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 39
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 40
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 40
Findings............................................................................................................................. 42
Research Question 1: What Did Clients of the Southern California Coalition
Know and Need to Know About Voting in the 2020 Election? ....................................... 42
Research Question 2: What Motivated Clients of the Southern California
Coalition to Vote or Decide Not to Vote in the 2020 Election? ....................................... 47
Research Question 3: What Type of Support for Voting Did Clients of the
Southern California Coalition Receive or Not Receive to Assist Their
Participation in the 2020 Election? ................................................................................... 51
Research Question 4: What Types of Knowledge, Motivation, and Environmental
Support Do Clients of the Southern California Coalition Report Is Needed to
Increase Participation in Future Elections?....................................................................... 56
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 61
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion......................................................................... 63
Discussion of Findings and Results .................................................................................. 63
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 70
Integrated Recommendations............................................................................................ 78
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 84
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 85
Implications for Equity ..................................................................................................... 86
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 87
References ..................................................................................................................................... 89
Appendix A: State Laws Affecting the Voting Rights of People With Mental Disabilities....... 110
Appendix B: Protocols ................................................................................................................ 176

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Demographics………………………………………………………………41
Table 2: Source of Election and Candidate News or Information………………………………. 46
Table 3: What Do You Think About the Idea of Registering to Vote and Participating?............. 50
Table 4: Number of Days and Hours Spent at Service Provider Location in an Average Week.. 53
Table 5: Summary of KMO Factors, Emergent Themes, and Findings………………………… 62
Table 6: Conditions for SCC to Implement a Collective Impact Model………………………... 80
Table 7: Recommendations for Practice Using the Nudge Theory for Change………………… 82
Appendix A: State Laws Affecting the Voting Rights of People With Mental Disabilities……110

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Gap Analysis Process .................................................................................................... 24

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
It is reasonable to conclude that the low levels of electoral participation by citizens with
developmental disabilities results in a lack of responsiveness from elected officials to the needs
of those citizens. For it is voting that provides a path for individuals to engage in decision-
making that leads to direct influence on government officials and indirect influence on the
quality of their life and well-being (Agran et al., 2015). In the United States, about one in five of
all adults are disabled and 45% of those over 65 are disabled enough to be severely limited in
their daily activities (Theis et al., 2019). Over 20% of adults with a disability support a deeper
role by government agencies in the areas of housing, health care, and job opportunities that are
distinct to their situations, yet there is tension with the non-disabled population who tend to favor
less government involvement (Shur & Adya, 2013). The non-disabled will continue to control
policy outcomes, and the voices of the developmentally disabled will remain muted without
greater civic activism, as elected representatives respond to groups that vote in large numbers
and pay little attention to others (Martin, 2003). The evidence shows that the developmentally
disabled population remains marginalized and not equally represented by elected government
officials across the American political landscape (Shur & Adya, 2013).
Context and Background of the Problem
The Southern California Coalition is a diverse and dedicated alliance of organizations
that provide critical services to developmentally disabled members. This closely aligned
consortium of service providers has a common goal to empower people with disabilities to fulfill
their hopes and potential to become productive citizens who are accepted, included, and valued
for the contribution they make to the economic, civic, and cultural life of the community. The
Coalition members believe that a vibrant community is one in which all their clients contribute in

2
their own special way. This overarching theme aligns with findings by Alwell and Cobb (2009)
that the primary objective of service providers is supporting individuals with developmental
disabilities in their pursuit of knowledge and skills to enhance employment opportunities in the
local community.
The organizational issue that underpins this study is a desire to expand the portfolio of
services provided by the Southern California Coalition to include voter education and assistance.
In connecting this issue with the broader array of support groups, Agran and Hughes (2013)
found that instructional guidelines for improving the knowledge and ability of developmentally
disabled members to vote are missing from service provider programs. It is possible that service
providers find little reason to prioritize voter instruction due to limited requests from members
for voting information and support (Bell et al, 2001). Concurrently, service providers managed
by non-disabled leaders who never faced barriers to voting may have a lack of understanding
about how their disabled members think about electoral participation (Wappet, 2002).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The primary purpose of this study is to use direct input from people with developmental
disabilities to examine the factors that influence their voting behavior and develop a set of best
practices for the Southern California Coalition to support greater electoral awareness and
engagement by those same individuals. Schur et al. (2013) have argued there is an innate
requirement to elevate disabled citizens of the United States so that they achieve equal
participation to improve American democracy. Moreover, many disabled citizens express a wish
to participate in elections but find themselves marginalized due to the absence of knowledge and
the lack of necessary support (Bell & Horsler, 2003).
The research questions that guide this study are as follows:

3
1. What did clients of the Southern California Coalition know and need to know about
voting in the 2020 election?
2. What motivated clients of the Southern California Coalition to vote or decide not to vote
in the 2020 election?
3. What type of support for voting did clients of the Southern California Coalition receive or
not receive to assist their participation in the 2020 election?
4. What types of knowledge, motivation, and environmental support do clients of the
Southern California Coalition report is needed to increase their participation in future
elections?
For the purposes of this study, the term “environmental” in research question 4 refers to
service providers, family members, caregivers, government access or services, and other support
systems specific to the life of developmentally disabled persons. Also, this study uses “clients” to
refer to the study participants as that is the term used by members of the Southern California
Coalition to identify the individuals with developmental disabilities that they serve. While the
purpose of this study is understanding the factors that affect voting decisions by those clients, it
is important to maintain a focus on how the outcomes can benefit the community.
Importance of the Study
The primary channel for citizens to have a voice in how local, state, and federal
government operates is through elections. The electoral process allows for the translation of
voter opinion into public policy that influences the lives of all Americans. Dahl (1989) argued
that active participation in all elections is the most critical element to maintaining a healthy
democracy. Yet researchers show that participation in elections is unequal across segments of the
population, causing some voices to be louder than others (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). The

4
communities who suffer with the weakest voices are usually demographic groups who have been
historically disadvantaged, such as females, minorities, low-wage workers, and the disabled
(Bartels, 1998).
Griffin and Newman (2012) emphasized the importance of high participation numbers
within a respective group to elevate voting power when they suggested that turnout can uniquely
balance inequities in policy outcomes. Taking it a step further, voting power grows and desired
policy outcomes increase when groups do not face obstacles that keep them from consistently
turning out in high numbers. Towards that end, any effort that erects barriers to legal voting by
citizens violates what the U.S. Supreme Court found to be the most basic element of democracy:
the principle of one person, one vote (Ravel, 2019).
Narrowing the lens for this study, research shows that the rights of developmentally
disabled persons to participate in elections exposes issues with service and advocacy providers
offering limited information, opportunities, and education to these citizens (Agran et al., 2015;
Agran et al., 2020). These authors note that what is essentially a civil rights issue requires a
dedication within the community to expand knowledge and assistance for voting and develop a
model to evaluate progress. Moreover, Wappett (2002) has asserted that the lack of voting
participation by developmentally disabled citizens can be mitigated with support from service
provider leadership.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This qualitative research study will employ the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis as its
theoretical framework. Gap analysis is a problem-solving system that identifies the needs and
requirements to improve desired outcomes and meet or exceed organizational goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008). It provides a clear and precise method to assess the knowledge, motivation, and

5
organizational (KMO) factors driving current performance and helps define suggested solutions
for effectively targeting needs that sit at the core of identified problems.
The study will evaluate the KMO influences that serve as barriers or impediments for
voter engagement by developmentally disabled members of the Southern California Coalition.
Taking it a step further, the process helps understand the knowledge (do they believe they know
how, why, where, when), motivation (do they want to do it, think they can do it, and persist at it),
and organizational (is something preventing them or is there a lack of resources) factors that
leads to current voting behavior (Clark & Estes, 2008).
As this study looks to explore KMO influences more fully through the experiences of
members of the Southern California Coalition, it will utilize a qualitative research design. The
purpose of this approach is to explore the richness of the human stories through the words of the
participants. The study will employ semi-structured interviews to capture the beliefs, awareness,
and external factors affecting participant voting behavior.
Definition of Terms
Developmental disabilities is a term defined by Rubin and Crocker (1989) as a set of
conditions resulting from a deficiency in the areas of language, learning, behavior, or physical
capacity. The conditions manifest themselves during the developmental stage, often affect daily
functioning, and tend to continue throughout the lifespan of an individual.
Electoral participation will be defined, for the purposes of this study, as encompassing
the instrumental action of voting and the expressive, deliberate effort of discussing politics
within a social circle (Verba et al., 1978).

6
Organization of the Dissertation
The dissertation uses a five-chapter layout to organize the study. This chapter introduces
an outline of the study, along with a background and purpose for the research. It also presents an
outline of the stakeholder organization and theoretical framework for analyzing results of the
mixed methods research design. Chapter Two presents a review of literature relevant to
understanding purpose of the study, including voting behavior, issues related to voting, electoral
participation of developmentally disabled citizens, and describes the conceptual framework
underlying this dissertation. Chapter Three lays out the assumed KMO factors, along with the
methodology for data collection and analysis. Chapter Four details the findings in thematic
responses to the study’s research questions. Chapter Five offers recommendations for addressing
the verified gaps, along with a plan for implementing and evaluating those actions.

7
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter provides a review of literature that begins with a look at key topics related to
voting in U.S. elections, transitions to the current state of electoral participation by the
developmentally disabled community and ends with a description of the conceptual framework.
The initial section on voting behavior sets the stage for understanding the influence of the
following elements of electoral engagement: political participation, political efficacy, persuasion,
and mobilization. An examination of the role social capital can play on civic engagement,
including a detailed example of how evangelical Christians have used social capital to fuel their
rise to influential voting bloc, completes the review of voting behavior.
The chapter further uses a discussion of issues related to voting access to explore
important findings about voter suppression, voting power, and the Voting Rights Act. It then
focuses in on specific dynamics unique to the electoral participation of the developmentally
disabled, including voting rights, voting challenges, and critical service provider support. The
chapter concludes with an introduction of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis as the
conceptual framework for this dissertation, by describing the key theoretical principles of KMO
in relation to voting behavior. Unpacking the KMO influences is critical to modeling future
actions to fill identified gaps and support increased voter engagement for this disenfranchised
population.
Voting Behavior
Rule (2014) defines voting behavior as “the actions or inactions of citizens in respect of
participating in the elections that take place for members of their local, regional, or national
governments,” with that behavior culminating in the submission of a ballot for chosen candidates

8
or the decision to not participate. This section explores the underlying aspects of voting behavior
most relevant to the problems addressed in this dissertation.
Political Participation
The foundational work by Verba and Nie (1972), Participation in America: Political
Democracy and Social Equality, viewed the topic of political participation through a narrow
lens. They focus on efforts by individuals and groups to influence government actions by playing
a role in choosing government leaders and/or affecting their decisions. That frame limited
participation to activities such as voting, calling, or writing to elected officials, and involvement
with political campaigns. The authors excluded protest activity, civil disobedience, behaviors
directed at changing the structure of government, and expressing views or attitudes toward
political outcomes outside of government processes.
Barnes et al. (1979) broadened the frame established by Verba and Nie (1972) in defining
political participation as individual citizens engaging in voluntary activities to affect political
choices throughout the political system by direct or indirect means. Their argument centered on
the idea that a fully formed view of participation requires the inclusion of peaceful and violent
protest. The authors grounded this expanded conceptualization in findings from a series of
surveys across five industrialized, western democracies in 1974: The United States, Great
Britain, Austria, the Netherlands, and West Germany.
Nelson (2017) painted the picture more clearly with studies of the nature of urban poverty
on political life in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, offering a more expansive definition with the
overarching theme that political participation involves citizens acting with the intention to affect
the make-up or actions of governments at the local or national level. This view encompasses
several patterns of behavior, including deliberate efforts to gain benefits from non-political local

9
leaders or a city-based political structure, building engagement from inside ethnic groups,
collective actions through association membership, and advancing shared goals through reform
or populist movements. The author makes note of the reality that upper class groups and elites
often activate political engagement by the urban poor with the goal of advancing pressure
campaigns on the government. This acknowledgement underscores the reality that the urban poor
accept some form of manipulation as the price of influencing government decision-making.
Political Efficacy
Political efficacy took root as an area of study in the mid-twentieth century as researchers
looked to understand its influence on civic activism and voting behavior. Campbell et al. (1954)
defined political efficacy as the “feeling that political and social change is possible and that the
individual citizen can play a part in bringing about this change” (p. 187). Building on those
foundational principles, researchers consider political efficacy as a critical activating element of
participation in the political sphere (Abramson & Aldrich, 1982). Political efficacy also emerges
as the subsequent effect of participating in political activities (Finkel, 1985).
The development of political efficacy, and how it evolves, has been the subject of studies
for many years. The findings suggest socialization plays a critical role in building a sense of
political efficacy in individuals, with social standing, education, and personality type offering
cues to strength of efficacy (Condon & Holleque, 2013). Citizens with high political efficacy
have the sense their engagement makes a difference and are more likely to participate in the
political process (Finkel, 1985). Feelings of efficacy can diminish over time, however. Evidence
at both the state and federal level demonstrates that individuals gradually believe they have less
influence on political outcomes (Chamberlain, 2012).

10
Researchers tend to consider internal political efficacy the linchpin of participation, as
internal efficacy requires an individual to consider the outcome of engagement and carry forward
the belief in oneself to lead change through deliberate action (Moeller et al., 2014). Political
efficacy as an internal mechanism aligns with the more general construct of self-efficacy, defined
by Bandura (1986) as the judgements that individuals hold of their ability to orchestrate and
deliver actions necessary to produce a desired level of performance. Those judgements will
strongly influence an individual’s choice to engage, persist, and emotionally invest in a task.
Bandura (1997) further elaborated on the role of self-efficacy in political engagement by
describing it as the “belief that one can produce effects through political action” (p. 483).
Persuasion and Mobilization
With participation as the core component for maintaining a strong democracy,
understanding the influence of persuasion and mobilization on citizen engagement is a vital
ingredient to improving voter turnout and policy outcomes (Verba et al., 1995). Yet, the use of
persuasion to shift the opinion or choice of likely voters results in uneven effects. Arceneaux
(2007) found that direct contact with individuals such as phone calls and door knocking led to
increased support for candidates, while Nickerson (2005) determined that phone calls had no
impact on candidate support. Rogers and Middleton (2015) demonstrated increased candidate
support through direct mail, but Gerber et al. (2013) found that citizens feel their choice of
candidate or issue is private and closed to discussion. Adding to the confusion, Alberston and
Busby (2015) detailed a backlash against efforts to persuade voters who are low information
participants in the political process.
Mobilization, or get-out-the-vote (GOTV), campaigns have the potential to mitigate
imbalances in electoral participation and resulting inequities on policy outcomes (Gilens, 2005).

11
Targeted interventions can work toward building political equality without large-scale
movements in the electorate. Citrin et al. (2003) argued that GOTV efforts leading to marginal
increases in participation have the capacity to shift political outcomes and realign the balance of
power. Moreover, there can be noticeable policy benefits from mobilization campaigns
producing minor increases in voter turnout by underrepresented groups (Kovenock & Roberson,
2011).
Social Capital
Putnam (1995) defined social capital as the “features of social life - networks, norms and
trust - that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives”
(p.664). Coleman (1990) described social capital as any element of a social structure that
produces value when relationships within that structure facilitate meaningful actions. In viewing
social capital through a political lens, Livingston and Nassetta (2018) outlined the strength of
shared norms, a common understanding of the natural order of society, and finding voluntary
opportunities for cooperative action. Fukuyama (2018) pictured a smooth machine-like quality,
with social capital building on deep feelings of trust to serve as a lubricant for a group’s political
participation.
With a common faith as their bond, religious organizations and institutions allow for the
creation of high levels of social capital. Liu et al. (2009) provided an excellent summary of that
thinking: “members of religious groups and churches develop and enhance their social capital by
establishing trusting relationships and working collaboratively to achieve their objectives”
(p.578). Consequently, a review of the influence social capital played on the evolution of
Evangelical Christians from nonconsequential in electoral politics to prominent voting bloc

12
offers an excellent illustration of its importance and a possible path for the developmentally
disabled population.
Religion and Social Capital
Religion has long been a primary path for followers to become more active in civic
affairs. Verba et al. (1995) offered that religion is the central vehicle allowing individuals to
learn, understand, and build the skills for civic engagement. Claassen and Povtak (2010) argued
that citizens who closely identify and affiliate themselves with a religion are more likely to
participate in political activities. Jones-Correa and Leal (2001) found that a reservoir of social
capital grows as members coalesce around their church community, while Smidt (1999)
suggested that churches are the main intersection for the distribution and sharing of political
information and broadening of social networks with similar interests. Since the presidential
election of 1976, when Jimmy Carter called himself an Evangelical Christian and Newsweek
declared it the “Year of the Evangelical”. No religious group has built a more powerful political
social network focused on motivating members to advance a core set of issues than the
Evangelicals (Wong, 2018).
Evangelicals and Electoral Engagement
A thorough review by Wong (1994) found that Evangelicals were not active politically or
considered an influential voting bloc before the 1970s. By the end of the decade, however, the
Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision that ruled the Constitution protects a pregnant
woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion, along with a series of cultural events such as the
launch of the gay rights movement, led many Evangelicals to believe their values and beliefs
were under attack. Evangelicals began to find alignment between social and moral issues and the
need for political action. Evangelicals also viewed public policy and cultural shifts as a

13
fundamental assault on their way of life. Smith and Walker (2012) described it as a renewed
commitment to core beliefs that motivated Evangelicals to become more politically active as
they recognized the importance of expressing a unified voice via electoral participation.
By the turn of the century, Evangelicals would remake the political landscape and
broaden their influence with a hard shift toward conservatism and, thus, alignment with the
Republican Party (Monk-Turner, 2020). Monson and Oliphant (2007) found that Evangelicals
grew to be critical to the success of Republican campaigns in 2000 and 2004 as the party
emphasized the issues most important to them and aimed focused messaging at the group. Lewis
(2005) analyzed individual and state level data to determine that moral issues specific to
Evangelical interests, including gay marriage and school prayer, played a critical role in building
support for President Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004. Moreover, Evangelical voting
numbers fell significantly less than other participant groups in non-presidential midterm
elections during that same period (Claassen & Povtak, 2010), a sign of the growing bond with
the Republican Party. The evolving patterns in Evangelical voting behavior generates questions
about how the church community and its members come together to motivate electoral activism.
Social Capital, Motivation, and Evangelical Political Behavior
The use of social capital as a motivational construct to understand Evangelical voting
behavior allows for the examination of how social networks and personal relationships drive the
group’s electoral engagement. It also can be useful to see if Evangelicals have more of a shared
identity or higher level of trust than other groups, while exploring how those elements of social
capital influence the group’s civic activism.
While earlier work has noted the connection between churches, social networks, and
political engagement more generally, Campbell (2004) found that Evangelicals exhibit patterns

14
of deeper social ties than other religions. In analyzing the American Citizen Participation Study,
a survey of 15,000 randomly selected participants designed to examine political and nonpolitical
civic participation in the United States, Evangelicals reported spending over twice as much time
in service to their church than mainline Protestants and Catholics. At the same time, a much
higher percentage of Evangelicals reported a close bond to “many” people in their church
community, and a significantly greater number said they developed civic skills as part of their
involvement in church activities in comparison to mainline Protestants and Catholics. Driskell
(2008) also determined that a strong desire for involvement in church activities at multiple levels
leads Evangelicals to more active political participation. These findings highlight the strong
commitment held by Evangelicals toward their church and fellow group members.
The web of social networks inside Evangelical churches have laid the groundwork for
political mobilization and a push into public policy (Wald et al., 1990). Interpersonal
communications from trusted co-parishioners serve as cues that motivate the behavior of
Evangelicals (Kromphardt, 2019). Deeply held beliefs combined with cohesive networks of
fellow Evangelicals offers ready opportunities for political recruitment (Campbell, 2004). In fact,
Evangelicals express a responsibility to share information within the church community to
recruit and motivate others to give voice to well-defined goals and influence society (Greenberg,
2000). This aligns with previous work showing that political recruiters will first want to
approach individuals in their own social circle if interested in finding new participants (Brady et
al., 1999). Evangelicals use these methods to create deep pools of social capital that stimulate
and sustain civic activism, powering what Monk-Turner (2020) describes as a laser focused
desire to change local, state, and federal laws in the United States so that civil society and the
country’s legal system is in line with their religious beliefs.

15
In conclusion, there has been a notable rise in Evangelical influence across America’s
political landscape over the past four decades (Wong, 2018). Evangelical churches house
cohesive social networks that coalesce around a clearly defined set of cultural issues and fuel
political mobilization (Greenberg, 2000). Trust and shared objectives feed the supply lines of
social capital, thereby motivating what Gerber et al. (2003) found to be the common feeling
among Evangelicals that going to the polls on the day of an election is what they are supposed to
do. A valid question, as result of this review of Evangelicals leveraging social capital, is whether
the developmentally disabled community can identify and coalesce around shared objectives to
build and direct social capital to become a more powerful voice at the ballot box and achieve
policy outcomes that improve their quality of life. First, it is important to understand external
issues that affect voting patterns.
Issues Related to Voting
This section describes challenges some groups face when attempting to engage in the
electoral process, and the impact on policy outcomes that affect their daily life.
Voter Suppression
Historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups suffer disproportionally when states
enact restrictive voting measures. For example, the evidence indicates that underrepresented
groups have difficulty meeting voter ID requirements. Barreto et al. (2007) found that voter ID
laws adversely affected minority and immigrant communities in California, New Mexico, and
Washington. An analysis of data from over 50,000 voters in elections between 2006 and 2014
shows evidence of declining turnouts of Latinos by 9.3 percentage points, Asian Americans by
12.5 points, and African Americans by 8.6 points within states enacting strict voter identification
(ID) laws (Hajnal et al., 2017). The same dataset finds the participation gap between minority

16
and white populations widens when contrasting the numbers between states with and without
strict voter ID laws. A gap of 2.9 points between white and African American voter participation
in states with traditional ID requirements increases to 5.1 points in states with strict voter ID
laws, while Asian Americans experience a jump from 6.5 points to 11.5 points, and Latinos find
the gap more than doubling from 4.9 percentage points to 13.5 points (Hajnal et al., 2017). These
practices continue as 36 states have passed voter ID laws since Indiana and Georgia first enacted
them in 2000 (Parker et al., 2018). Moreover, restrictive voter ID laws are more likely in states
where African Americans constitute a large percentage of the population and turnout among
minorities is consistently high or growing (Bentele & O’Brien, 2013).
The costs of obtaining necessary documentation is a significant financial barrier for
certain groups as well. Ellis (2009) argued that legislation using economic affordability to
determine who is eligible to vote is simply a proxy for removing the voting rights of citizens in
low-income categories. Eliminating or reducing options for early voting also has a negative
impact on historically disadvantaged segments of the population, as they tend to have more
difficulty getting to a polling location on the day of an election. A U.S. census survey in 2010
shows that roughly 25% of Asian-Americans responded that a busy or conflicting schedule was
often the reason for not voting (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). At the same time, Florida lawmakers
reduced the number of days available for early voting and specifically targeted African
Americans with the elimination of voting on the Sunday immediately preceding an election, a
traditionally high turnout day fueled by Black churches (Kam & Lantigua, 2012).
Efforts by states to prevent voter fraud are often attempts at purging members of minority
and historically disenfranchised communities from voter rolls. An analysis of a Florida elections
division attempt to remove many noncitizens found that most names on the list were Hispanic

17
voters eligible to participate in elections (Caputo, 2012). Meanwhile, poll workers can have a
significant impact by applying racially biased standards for when and how they deliver
information about voting requirements. White et al. (2014) used fake Hispanic and non-Hispanic
names on emails sent to more than 7,000 election administrators across 48 states requesting basic
information about voting eligibility and received over 5,000 replies with the following results:
Hispanic names were significantly more likely to receive inaccurate or unhelpful information.
The evidence indicates that efforts to suppress the participation of minority and disadvantaged
voters is wide ranging and reduces the diversity of voices in elections and the inclusion of those
voices in policy making.
Voting Power
Utilizing the term “voting power” for demographic chunks of the electorate with
influence, Bartels (1998) finds that groups who suffer with lower voting power are usually
segments of the population that have been historically disadvantaged, such as females,
minorities, and low-wage workers. When less voting power groups have their numbers driven
even further down through voter suppression, the incentives for elected officials to represent
their interests can be reduced and result in members of that group receiving less of what they
need from government. Verba et al. (1995) highlighted the importance of high participation
numbers within a respective group to elevate voting power when suggesting that turnout
generates greater opportunities to balance inequities in policy outcomes. Taking it a step further,
voting power grows and policy outcomes increase when groups do not face obstacles that keep
them from consistently turning out in high numbers (Griffin & Newman, 2012).

18
Voting Rights Act
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder that ruled
Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional removed a substantial protection against
the forces of voter suppression (King & Smith, 2016). Under Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights
Act, jurisdictions that wanted to change voting rules were required to request permission and
receive preclearance for those changes from the District Court for the District of Columbia or
U.S. Department of Justice. The Shelby ruling shifted the burden to the parties challenging new
voting procedures and rules enacted by states and other jurisdictions (King & Smith, 2016). It
also subsequently unleashed a slew of restrictive voting measures that had previously been held
up at the district court level (Perez & Agraharkar, 2013). A review of voting data uncovers
patterns of restrictive voter laws strategically deployed to harm racial and ethnic minorities
(Bentele & O’Brien, 2013). Researchers have found that Hispanic and African American voters
were required to present approved identification cards at much higher rates than White voters
after states enacted voter ID law (Ansolabehere, 2009; Cobb et al., 2012). The developmentally
disabled population is a marginalized, disenfranchised community that also suffers under the
weight of restrictive practices and lack of understanding about how to become more active and
engaged in the electoral process.
The Electoral Participation of Developmentally Disabled Citizens
The low levels of electoral participation by citizens with developmental disabilities
results in a lack of responsiveness from elected officials (Martin, 2003). It is voting that provides
a path for individuals to engage in decision-making that leads to direct and indirect influence on
the quality of their life and well-being (Agran et al, 2015). This section explores the reality of
voting engagement by the developmentally disabled. It must be noted that the number of studies

19
examining electoral participation by the developmentally disabled pales in comparison to the
non-disabled population and other disenfranchised groups. Moreover, The Center for An
Accessible Society (n.d.) notes that their participation is not well quantified, as “people with
disabilities are invisible, not included or even identified in exit polling or post-election analyses.”
Voting Rights of the Developmentally Disabled
A critical element of healthy democracies is the fundamental right of citizens to vote for
local and national representatives. Though the 14
th
Amendment of the Constitution guarantees all
citizens the right to vote, states have the power to establish qualifications for voting and use
those policies to deny voting rights to the developmentally disabled in large numbers (Schriner et
al., 2000). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 stated that a voter needing help due to visual
impairment, disability, or reading-writing difficulties can receive assistance as long as it is not
related to employment, and the Voting Accessibility for Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984
stipulates that states must improve access to voting and provide voting aids (Lazar, 2019). Yet
neither law codifies a fundamental right to an anonymous and unrestricted vote (Waterstone,
2004).
While the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
focuses on disabled persons and their rights to equal access, they fall short of specifying the
detailed requirements for providing full access to voting (Weiss, 2004). The Help America Vote
Act of 2002 offers the clearest legal standard for providing disabled citizens the fundamental
right to vote and offers pathways to reimburse states for new disability-access voting booths and
retrofitting polling locations for greater accessibility, but government reports continue finding
that most states fail to meet the requirements (Lazar, 2019). A deeper issue is a lack of
consistency, as states develop separate status-based categories that classifies based on physical or

20
mental condition of the individual rather than that individual’s capacity to understand the
electoral process and vote (Beckman, 2014). Not only do state-by-state determinations easily
lead to arbitrary decisions and opinions, but this approach also violates the foundational
democratic principle that all citizens with the capacity to understand and consider current
political issues are granted equal rights to vote (Lanning, 2008). Moreover, the dispensation of
those state voting regulations is determined through judicial procedures rather than an
established government process, resulting in the significant risk of interpretation leading to
misclassification (Beckman, 2014).
States Laws
The Help America Vote Act and other legislation are flawed in not codifying a definition
of disabled voters at the federal level (Weis, 2005). Attempts by the Rehabilitation Act and
Americans with Disabilities Act to create a general definition of disability are only for the
purpose of discrimination and do not transfer over to offering guidelines within the context of
voting rights. Thus, state constitutions and statutes use different standards to deny
developmentally disabled adults the right to vote. Appendix A provides a table initially produced
by Schriner et al. (2000) and updated by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and the law
firm of Schulte Roth & Zabel (2016) that documents the many different forms of restrictions
across all 50 states affecting developmentally disabled voters. The lack of a strict definition that
covers the whole range of physical and mental disabilities, and how those conditions are not
barriers to competently voting, is a continuing challenge for any federal legislation attempting to
set legal standards for voting access by the disabled (Weis, 2005). While federal legislation and
state statutes fail to remove limitations on voting, or even increase them in some situations, the
developmentally disabled face a myriad of other barriers as well.

21
Voting Challenges
A report on the 2012 elections by the Presidential Commission on Election
Administration found that disabled citizens have a higher risk of encountering challenges with
voting than other groups (Schur et al., 2017). Among the difficulties that lead to lower levels of
voting are limited physical endurance and mobility, below median income and school graduation
rates, and higher daily costs related to medical expenses reduces available resources necessary to
participate (Kruse, 1998). The disabled living alone at higher percentages than non-disabled
individuals, combined with limited transportation options, restricts their ability to join in local
community events and build the social bonds that encourages participation in the electoral
process (Anderson, 2009). Living alone also increases isolation from the type of routine social
interactions that provide opportunities for recruitment into political activities (Taylor et al.,
2010).
The disabled face multiple hurdles between their initial desire to participate in the
electoral process and voting, such as accessibility issues, limited support at polling locations, and
lack of assistance in understanding how to cast their ballot (Schriner et al., 2000). Overcoming
barriers and successfully arriving at a polling location may not be enough, as poll workers often
lack the knowledge to aid the developmentally disabled if asked for help (Ward et al., 2009). A
significant challenge resides directly in the home if there are no active voters in the household to
build awareness about why and how to vote (Keeley et al., 2008).
Service Provider Support
A critical component of everyday life for the developmentally disabled rests with support
from service providers. The foundational services provided by these support personnel, working
collaboratively with families, when possible, are the necessary ingredients for the

22
developmentally disabled to have a chance of meaningful participation within their local
communities (Adair et al., 2015). A key motivation of service providers involves providing
disabled individuals regular and improved engagement in daily activities to increase learning and
health outcomes (Anaby et al., 2014). Moreover, participation in daily life provides the disabled
gateways for developing a sense of self and strong feeling of belonging (Petrenchik & King,
2011).
Broadly, the primary objective of adult-care service providers is supporting individuals
with developmental disabilities in their pursuit of knowledge and skills to enhance employment
opportunities, living arrangements, education, primary health care, and self-help in the local
community (Alwell & Cobb, 2009). Yet, instructional guidelines for improving the knowledge
and ability of developmentally disabled members to vote are missing from service provider
programs (Agran & Hughes, 2013; Schriner & Ochs, 2000). Service providers may hold the
belief that the developmentally disabled in their care are incapable of understanding key issues,
so they perceive little value in providing voting instruction (Bell et al., 2001). At the same time,
service providers run by non-disabled leaders who never faced barriers themselves to voting
have a lack of understanding about how their members think about roadblocks to electoral
participation and their desire for support (Wappet, 2002).
Agran and Hughes (2013) found that service providers rarely provided instruction about
voting to the developmentally disabled but expressed a willingness to offer encouragement and
voting-related support if asked. Follow-on studies (Agran et al., 2015; Agran et al., 2020) built
on those initial results as a wider range of service providers reported a belief that the
developmentally disabled in their care would benefit from a support system that helped them
understand policies and issues and offered instruction about voting. Willis et al. (2016)

23
concluded that the developmentally disabled have good awareness of what it means to vote and
the ability to understand the issues, but service providers should provide instruction and support
to facilitate participation in the electoral process. Bell et al. (2001) argued that environmental
factors are critical to breaking down voting barriers, so support facilities and staff should provide
opportunities for the developmentally disabled to learn about the political system. With an eye
toward the broader objective, Keeley et al. (2008) stressed that service provider support that
increases voter registration and activates greater interest in political activities can lead to
increased turnout at the polls. Investigating these types of knowledge and motivation gaps at the
individual, family, and service provider levels are critical to understanding the interventions
needed to improve electoral participation.
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis (2008) as the Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2009) provide an evidence-based performance improvement framework
that is well-suited for linking this dissertation study’s research questions and methodology to
identify and explore the issues affecting civic engagement by the developmentally disabled. Gap
analysis is a problem-solving process that identifies the needs and requirements to improve
desired outcomes and meet or exceed organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). It provides a
clear and specific method to assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) issues
driving current performance. It offers strategies to define and measure the gap between current
performance and the goals for future performance. The process helps identify key KMO factors
that are causing the gaps and that must be changed to insure goal achievement. Figure 1
illustrates the elements and flow of the process driving the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis.

24
Figure 1: Gap Analysis Process
Gap Analysis Process

The gap analysis system involves surveys, interviews, observation, comparative research
and reviews of records to understand the causes and required inputs needed to move successfully
toward goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008). Capturing the perceptions of individuals as they
consider all the internal and external factors necessary to meet requirements and achieve stated
goals, particularly descriptions of the potential barriers, can provide important insights about the
kind of gap being examined in this study. Clark and Estes (2008) stress that an individual’s
views, perceptions, and expectations are critical factors controlling performance.
Gap analysis examines three key factors impeding performance: an individual’s
knowledge and skills relevant to their goal, their motivation to use their knowledge to overcome

25
organizational barriers. Looking at only a subset of these critical factors leads to an incomplete
picture of the problems in place and culminates in limited, ineffective solutions. Clark and Estes
(2008) emphasize that all three must be present and in alignment with each other in order to
successfully navigate the organizational environment and achieve a stated goal.
Knowledge
A key component of gap analysis is uncovering whether individuals know how to reach
the target performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Though understanding the when, what, why,
where, and who sets the conditions, the key ingredient for achieving performance goals requires
knowing how to successfully complete the necessary requirements. There are challenges to
determining whether individuals know how to perform what is required, as they often do not
recognize their lack of knowledge or are reticent to divulge a weakness. Clark and Estes (2008)
offer strategies for determining whether the knowledge component is causing deficiencies and
subsequent solutions to support achievement of performance goals.
Motivation
Motivational issues are more complex to determine and address than knowledge gaps
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The principal indicators of motivated action are the choice to initiate a
task, persistence when encountering distractions or difficulties, and applying the necessary
mental effort to complete the task successfully (Mayer, 2011). Within the gap analysis
framework, active choice refers to a stakeholder embarking on the initial steps needed to achieve
performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Persistence involves the capacity and resilience to
overcome barriers, constraints, and other environmental challenges to maintain momentum
toward performance goals. The third aspect of motivation focuses on whether an individual
allocates and maintains the amount of deliberate mental effort required to solve problems,

26
implement solutions, and ultimately reach the stated performance goals. Critical across these
steps is the integration of positive feedback so that any challenges or difficulties an individual
encounters are attributed to controllable rather than uncontrollable factors, such as the ability to
self-regulate an increase in focused effort (Clark & Saxberg, 2018). For the purposes of applying
gap analysis to the potential motivational influencers of voting behavior by developmentally
disabled citizens, this dissertation will assess the activating components through the lens of
expectancy-value theory, self-efficacy theory, and social capital theory.
Expectancy-Value Theory
Wigfield and Eccles (2000) provide a model of motivation to help explain how an
individual’s internal expectation for success in coordination with an assessment of underlying
task values can influence his or her choices, persistence, and performance. Expectancy-value
theory suggests that expectancies and values interact to predict an individual’s persistence,
mental effort, and performance once he or she chooses a goal or task. Expectancies refers to an
individual’s belief in his or her ability to succeed. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) offer that task
values point to the four elements that motivate an individual’s choice behavior: Attainment
Value (tied to identity or self), Intrinsic Value (interest in the task, goal, or something related),
Utility Value (its usefulness or relevance), and Cost (the tradeoff or loss of time).
Self-Efficacy Theory
Bandura’s (2005) social cognitive theory suggests that modeling, social interactions, and
self-efficacy can support motivation and performance outcomes. Bandura’s (2005) description of
human agency indicates that people learn through observation, regulate and control their own
actions, and develop self-efficacy to motivate personal behavior. As a key component of that
broader construct, self-efficacy theory focuses on how empowering individuals with a sense of

27
human agency can serve to motivate attainment of performance goals (Bandura, 2000). Self-
efficacy manifests itself through an individual’s beliefs, expectations, and perceptions of his or
her capabilities for producing successful outcomes. Individuals have a higher tendency to persist
when encountering distractions and obstacles if they feel confident in their ability to succeed
(Bandura, 2000; Eccles, 2006). Of critical importance, self-efficacy theory holds that individuals
must have opportunities to build mastery experiences and observe or experience reinforcing
models to promote development of positive personal beliefs (Bandura, 2000).
Organizational Factors
When the gap analysis process results in a determination that adequate levels of
knowledge and motivation exist, it is a clear signal that organizational issues are adversely
affecting performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Interviews, surveys, and focus groups offer cues
when individuals or teams mention troublesome processes or procedures and point to a lack of
resources. Organizational barriers can directly influence the ability of individuals to achieve
performance goals. Gap analysis offers a powerful tool to gain an understanding of the personal
beliefs people hold about what types of information and support can reduce organizational
impediments and elevate performance. Meanwhile, in the solution phase, any inputs developed
to improve knowledge and/or motivation requires synchronization with changes to organizational
processes to maintain alignment (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Conceptual Framework and Stakeholder Voting Behavior
A conceptual framework provides the foundation and structural body of a research study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The foundational framework encompasses the theories and concepts
that inform a research study (Maxwell, 2013). A framework establishes a viewpoint and
orientation that directs the study of phenomena (Anfara & Mertz, 2015). The conceptual

28
framework guides development of the research questions, design of the study and data collection
procedures, and emerges from the concepts, models, and theories of the literature base (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). This dissertation employs the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis system to
investigate the KMO influences that serve as barriers or impediments for voter engagement by
developmentally disabled members of the Southern California Coalition. The intent of this study
is a greater understanding of the knowledge (do they know how, why, where, when), motivation
(do they want to do it, think they can do it, and persist at it), and organizational (is something
preventing them or is there a lack of resources) factors that leads to current voting behavior.
Knowledge
van Hees et al. (2019) suggest that relevant, easily accessible information can build
knowledge and produce the decision-making capability for the developmentally disabled to
overcome barriers to voting. Agran and Hughes (2013) argue that regardless of disability, every
citizen should receive information and appropriate instruction about electoral engagement,
allowing participation in the process that result in decisions about the community services they
receive. Schur et al. (2003) emphasize the central role education plays in developing the critical
skills to interpret political communication and participate in activities directed toward voting.
Moreover, knowledge sits at the heart of Article 29 of the 2007 Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities adopted by the United Nations. It declares that states must
ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and
public life on an equal basis with others, directly or through freely chosen
representatives, including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote
and be elected. (UN General Assembly, 2007, p. 17)

29
Motivation
Researchers consider political efficacy as a critical activating element of participation in
the political sphere (Abramson & Aldrich, 1982). Political efficacy also emerges as the
subsequent effect of participating in political activities (Finkel, 1985). Socialization also plays a
critical role in building a sense of political efficacy in individuals, with social standing,
education, and personality type offering cues to strength of efficacy (Condon & Holleque, 2013).
Citizens with high political efficacy, thus carrying the sense their engagement makes a
difference, have a higher likelihood to participate in the political process (Finkel, 1985).
Internal political efficacy requires reflection of personal identity and the belief in oneself
to lead change through deliberate action (Moeller et al., 2014). Political efficacy as an internal
mechanism aligns with the more general construct of self-efficacy, defined by Bandura (1986) as
the judgements that individuals hold of their ability to orchestrate and deliver actions necessary
to produce a desired level of performance. Those judgements will strongly influence an
individual’s choice to engage, persist, and emotionally invest in the task. Bandura (1997) further
elaborated on the role of self-efficacy in political engagement by describing it as the “belief that
one can produce effects through political action” (p. 483).
Organizational Factors
The principal purpose of support organizations that provide services to the
developmentally disabled is to facilitate and increase involvement in local activities. The
foundational services provided by these support personnel, working collaboratively with families
when possible, are the necessary ingredients for the developmentally disabled to have a chance
of meaningful participation within their communities (Adair et al., 2015). A key motivation of
service providers involves providing disabled individuals regular and improved engagement in

30
daily activities to increase learning and health outcomes (Anaby et al., 2014). Moreover,
participation in daily life provides disabled individuals the gateways for developing a sense of
self and strong feeling of belonging (Petrenchik & King, 2011). Yet, many service providers
describe uncertainty when asked if support plans include voting (Agran et al., 2020).
Summary
Voting is the primary mechanism for maintaining a healthy democracy. The expansion of
a republic’s electoral enterprise solidifies its foundation and strengthens representative
government. Casting a ballot offers citizens the pathway to influence decisions about public
policies that affect services they receive and key aspects of their daily lives. Voting is an
empowering process that allows individuals to express their voice and fully contribute their
opinion within the enduring American experiment built on democratic principles. Research,
however, shows that political participation is uneven and historically marginalized groups find
themselves disenfranchised from the political process. Moreover, attempts to mobilize these
underrepresented groups face growing resistance through voter suppression tactics by influential
segments of the population striving to maintain their voting power and control over public
policy.
The literature indicates that developmentally disabled citizens make up a disadvantaged
community that suffers from a lack of government responsiveness. Despite legislative action
intended to expand voting opportunities for this group, the developmentally disabled continue to
struggle with a multitude of voting challenges. Some of these difficulties flow from personal
health conditions and require action from local officials, such as improved access to polling
locations for the visually or physically impaired. Addressing KMO barriers may mitigate many
of the challenges encountered by developmentally disabled citizens, thus offering this

31
community its rightful place in the electoral enterprise and a voice to influence policies affecting
quality of life. The following chapter will lay out the methodology for determining these KMO
barriers by applying the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis system.

32
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter presents the research methods and design employed to collect and analyze
data identifying the KMO influences that impede electoral participation and civic activism by the
developmentally disabled. The study sought direct input from people with developmental
disabilities via a qualitative research protocol to examine the factors that influence their voting
behavior and then develop a set of best practices for the Southern California Coalition to support
greater electoral awareness and engagement by those same individuals. Schur et al. (2013) have
argued there is an innate requirement to elevate citizens of the United States with disabilities to
equal participation to improve American democracy. Moreover, many disabled citizens express a
wish to participate in elections but find themselves marginalized due to the absence of
knowledge and necessary support (Bell & Horsler, 2003). This chapter outlines the research
setting, researcher positionality, data sources, validity and reliability, and ethics.
Research Questions
The following research questions guide this study:
1. What did clients of the Southern California Coalition know and need to know about
voting in the 2020 election?
2. What motivated clients of the Southern California Coalition to vote or decide not to vote
in the 2020 election?
3. What type of support for voting did clients of the Southern California Coalition receive or
not receive to assist their participation in the 2020 election?
4. What types of knowledge, motivation, and environmental support do clients of the
Southern California Coalition report is needed to increase their participation in future
elections?

33
Overview of Design
The methodological framework to this study leveraged the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis system to explore and understand the KMO barriers possibly harming the ability of
developmentally disabled citizens to participate in elections. The study utilized a qualitative
research design. Creswell and Creswell (2018) defined a qualitative approach as “exploring and
understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (p. 4).
Qualitative research is an intellectual pursuit of greater understanding that utilizes systematic
inquiry with the goal of extending knowledge or rethinking a problem of practice (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2018). It uses inductive methods of data collection and analysis to capture individual
meaning and generate emerging themes to help interpret or report the complexity of situations
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A key aspect of this process is unpacking the insider’s perspective
of the world around them, and the way external factors interact with their lives, to explain the
social phenomena shaping their decisions and behavior (Gibbs, 2018). Thus, this study’s data
collection and analysis focused its effort directly on the experiences and views of
developmentally disabled adults themselves.
Research Setting
The Southern California Coalition (SCC), an alliance of organizations that deliver
services to individuals with developmental disabilities, provided the setting for this dissertation
study. The SCC is a group of service provider agencies with locations across Los Angeles,
Ventura, and San Diego counties. Serving roughly 2400 adult members annually, the SCC strives
to make profound and positive changes in member lives each day, champion inclusion and value
for all individuals with developmental disabilities, and provide individualized services to support
the unique needs of every client. Moreover, the SCC focuses on supporting individuals so they

34
can enjoy the life they select on their own terms, while cultivating skills that produce tools for
clients to successfully navigate all stages of their daily lives.
The participants for this study were individuals with developmental disabilities.
Individuals with developmental disabilities directly expressing their personal experiences and
understanding of voting in elections provided the richest data for assessing gaps in knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors, making them the most appropriate population for this
study.
The Researcher
The researcher’s view based on his positionality orients toward a belief in the potential
for equitable outcomes when all groups have equal opportunities to express their voice at the
ballot box. This effort required a research study developed through the lens of a transformative
worldview that discovers and identifies the problems and issues that most concern the
developmentally disabled and the KMO barriers that impede electoral participation and
opportunities to improve their quality of life. Creswell and Creswell (2018) refer to Mertens
(2010) in describing the transformative worldview as an inquiry approach that is weaved through
the dynamics of public affairs with a policy change agenda that addresses the systemic and
structural issues that harm disadvantaged groups.
Research within the scope of a transformative worldview centers on a change agenda that
focuses on social issues that require the attention of decision makers and serves to empower and
support members of marginalized communities (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This philosophical
worldview makes the inequities of traditionally disenfranchised groups the center of gravity. The
researcher’s positionality resides inside a lived experience and the perspective that disadvantaged
groups suffer from an unequal chance to influence public policy, which aligns with a

35
transformative paradigm that studies, examines, and seeks meaningful change for these diverse
and historically disenfranchised communities. As Creswell and Creswell (2018) note, this
paradigm provides a framework for linking the causes of social and political actions in
purposeful ways and strives to reorient society’s power relationships to bridge the divide and
achieve equity.
The researcher, as the sole principal of data collection, must address the potential
influence of positionality and bias toward the study’s credibility and integrity. For the purposes
of this study, the researcher’s positionality in relation to participants with developmental
disabilities required constant attention to avoid assumptions about the physical and mental
condition of the participants and any related situation that may have biased the interviews and
data analysis. To mitigate bias, the researcher employed a process of continual self-awareness
involving notation of thoughts that may affect data collection or analysis (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Moreover, a protocol that avoided leading questions and an interview process that
provided participants ample time to express complete answers helped to support researcher
objectivity and offered a more structured check on bias (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Sources
The study utilized semi-structured, face to face interviews with the participants. As
suggested by Creswell and Creswell (2018), a limited number of open-ended questions were
developed with the intent of initiating a recall of experiences from the participants and sparking
free expression of their thoughts and opinions. Patton (2015) described these expressions as
“direct quotations from people about their experiences, opinions, feelings, and knowledge” (p.
14). Interviews are required when the researcher is unable to observe participants in a natural
setting or view how they engage with others and elements of the environment around them

36
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A review of participants, instrumentation, and data collection
procedures follows here.
Participants
A purposeful sampling approach by SCC leadership produced a group of eight
participants considered typical within the developmentally disabled community they serve and
provided reflections of “the average person, situation, or instance” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.
97) related to voting in elections. Each interview was completed within 30 minutes. Due to the
COVID pandemic, utilizing the Zoom platform provided synchronous interaction between the
researcher and the participants. Face-to-face interviews helped establish a personal connection
with the interviewee. Johnson and Christensen (2014) argued that building rapport and trust
allows the interviewee to feel a level of comfort necessary to offer deeper information about a
personal world that others cannot see.
Instrumentation
The semi-structured interview protocol consisted of 19 questions for participants with a
history of voting and nine questions for participants with no voting history. Semi-structured
interviews provided a flexible guide with questions developed at varying levels of structure that
offered the researcher the tools to react to circumstances as they occurred and to adapt based on
respondent answers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This interview strategy was best suited for the
developmentally disabled participants who had varying levels of cognitive and physical abilities
not known in advance.
The protocol aligned with Patton’s (2002) six-question categorization to elicit participant
opinions, values, experiences, behaviors, knowledge, and feelings in relation to the research
questions focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. Moreover, the questions

37
sought to explore the key concepts of self-efficacy and expectancy value. Bandura’s (2005)
description of human agency suggests that people learn through modeling by observing others,
regulating and controlling their own actions, and developing self-efficacy to motivate personal
behavior. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) provide a model of motivation to help explain how an
individual’s internal expectation for success in coordination with an assessment of the value in
achieving the outcome can influence his or her choices, persistence, and performance.
Data Collection Procedures
The semi-structured interviews, which were conducted in summer 2021, utilized the
Zoom platform. Obtaining additional consent for recording the interview and other elements of
data collection, such as explaining the purpose of the study, following the interview protocol,
and protecting data, were ethical guideposts that the researcher followed (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). This study used the online platform Otter AI to transcribe the interviews in real time. An
introduction starting the interview offered a second opportunity for participants to express an
approval or denial prior to recording the interview.
Data Analysis
Morgan (2014) noted that research methods offer a set of tools with the potential to
deliver data that achieves an array of objectives. Salkind (2014) emphasized the requirement that
a study captures the data that measures what needs to be known. Flick (2014) defined data
analysis as “the classification and interpretation of linguistic (or visual) material to make
statements about implicit and explicit dimensions and structures of meaning-making in the
material and what is represented in it” (p. 5). The methods outlined here are meant to discover
linkages in the experiences and understanding of the participants, to describe and give meaning

38
to the findings, and to set the stage for integration of the data results with recommendations that
achieve the objectives of this study.
Qualitative Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argued that qualitative research requires the simultaneous
collection and analysis of data, as the design is necessarily emergent due to the dynamic nature
of an interview where the responses are unpredictable. Analysis during the interview requires the
researcher to remain disciplined to avoid the collection of an unfocused, unmanageable volume
of data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2011). The protocol and question types for this study were designed
to reflect an expectation of real-time analysis and adjustment. Upon the completion of all
participant interviews, a coding of the transcripts identified and categorized responses that
thematically fit with this study’s research questions. The application of a constant comparative
approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Charmaz, 2014) from the first to last transcript inductively
discovered patterns in the data that gave greater depth and meaning to the inter-relationships of
participant experiences and views.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
This study applied proven methods to ensure credibility and trustworthiness of the data.
Adequate engagement in data collection is the strategy of reaching deeply into the understanding
that participants hold about the phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Conducting interviews
for this study to the point of response redundancy provides an adequate level of engagement in
data collection.
Peer review is the strategy of asking one or more individuals familiar with the topic area
to evaluate plausibility of the findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, the researcher
has a cohort peer who leads a service provider organization for developmentally disabled persons

39
and agreed to review the data analysis. Triangulation is a common strategy that involves the
evaluation of other data sources to validate results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Two additional
sources offered triangulation along with interview data: review of prior research and secondary
data sources such as government reports and information provided by service provider
organizations.
Ethics
Axiology reflects the influence that personal values and beliefs have on a research study
(Saunders et al., 2019). Axiology speaks to how the researcher’s values guided the structure and
focus of this study. The purpose of this study was to add knowledge to the domain and, through
theory of change, to potentially provide some benefit to developmentally disabled citizens. If the
norms of the participants are respected, there should be no harm to any individuals or groups
resulting from this study. The researcher designed the questions and framed the scope for the
purposes of capturing the views of clients. Once all the interviews were completed, a data
security plan called for maintaining the data and codes that identify participants on separate
password-protected hard drives.

40
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this qualitative study was to use direct input from people with
developmental disabilities to examine the factors that influence their voting behavior and
develop suggested activities for the Southern California Coalition to support greater electoral
awareness and engagement by those same individuals. The study employed the Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis system to explore voter engagement by developmentally disabled members
of the Southern California Coalition. The process helped identify the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that influence current voting behavior. The following four research
questions guided this study:
1. What did clients of the Southern California Coalition know and need to know about
voting in the 2020 election?
2. What motivated clients of the Southern California Coalition to vote or decide not to vote
in the 2020 election?
3. What type of support for voting did clients of the Southern California Coalition receive or
not receive to assist their participation in the 2020 election?
4. What types of knowledge, motivation, and environmental support do clients of the
Southern California Coalition report is needed to increase their participation in future
elections?
Participants
A purposeful sample of clients recruited by the SCC service provider leadership from
different locations for this study resulted in eight developmentally disabled adults who agreed to
a semi-structured interview with the researcher. Four participants are eligible to register but have
never voted. Four participants have voted previously. To maintain confidentiality, the

41
participants are identified as P1 through P8. Table 1 provides basic demographic information
about the study participants.

Table 1: Participant Demographics
Participant Demographics
Participant Age Gender Previous
voter
Employment Living
arrangement
P1 66 Male Yes No With staff
P2 37 Female Yes Yes With family
P3 23 Male Yes Yes With family
P4 32 Female Yes Yes With family
P5 55 Female No No With family
P6 24 Male No Yes With family
P7

Male No No With family
P8 29 Female No Yes With family

Note. Blank fields indicate that questions were not answered by the participant.

42
Findings
The findings presented in this chapter represent the analysis and coding of participant
responses from the one-on-one interviews conducted over Zoom. For clarity, findings are
separated by experience with voting, i.e., whether the participant previously voted in the recent
election or past election.
Research Question 1: What Did Clients of the Southern California Coalition Know and
Need to Know About Voting in the 2020 Election?
During the interviews, the participants were prompted to describe what they knew about
the 2020 election. Of the eight participants, four are voters and four have never voted. The
findings for this research question are split by headings of “Participants Who Vote” and
“Participants Who Do Not Vote.”
Participants Who Vote
Among those who are previous voters, a theme that emerged from the responses was a
desire to learn about the candidates and issues. This theme was split by the level of confidence
participants expressed about their ability to make a knowledgeable selection. There were study
participants who felt they had sufficient information to make an informed choice. On the other
hand, the responses from an equal number of participants indicated a lack of necessary
information to make an informed choice.
Sufficient Information
Participant P2 is a 37-year-old female who works part time. She lives with family and is a
client of a service provider organization. P2 regularly votes in elections and invested time and
focused effort to learn about the candidates:

43
I did my research, I read background about each of them, and I made sure that it was my
decision. I made sure that I felt comfortable saying, or giving my opinion. So yeah, I'm
pretty much careful with my decision… I take time, when it starts, that's when I start,
like, even before it starts, I start researching on my own, because I feel that, I want to
have time to really know each of the candidates.
Participant P3 is a 23-year-old male who works part time. He lives with family and is a client of
a service provider organization. As an active voter since registering at 18 years old, P3 combined
a careful review of information included with the mail-in ballot with attention to what was
publicly available:
I watched the news a lot. Watching that. When we get the ballots in the booklets I look at
that, I look at the information that they've done also like with my family, they'll look,
we'll look it up online to see what candidates have done in the past, what have they done,
and we like that that kind of stuff, not only like the booklet, but look on like social media
or online on what they've been doing, or what they have done.
These participants had the ability to act on their interest in learning about the election and
qualities of the candidates, but responses from other study participants suggests they need
additional assistance.
Insufficient Information
The other two study participants with voting experience indicated a need for support to
achieve their desired level of understanding about the candidates. Participant P1 is a 66-year-old
male who lives with support staff due to a physical condition that significantly limits mobility.
Although he has a long history of voting, P1 responded to the knowledge prompt by noting
difficulty with the process of gathering information individually:

44
To be honest, no. Not, not this year. And that and that, for me, that’s where the help
comes in, that’s where the help comes in about issues and the candidates. I felt like this
year I wasn't able to have enough help.
Due to the physical impairment noted earlier, P1 requires assistance accessing and compiling
information from news sources.
Participant P4 is a 32-year-old female who works part time. She lives with family and is a
client of a service provider organization. The 2020 election was her first time voting and P4
described a less than complete picture of the candidates:
So, I would have definitely liked to know, to know more, because for the candidates, the
extent that I knew so far was that Biden was the VP for Obama and Trump, so if I feel
like if I knew more it would have definitely helped me make a, would have definitely
been interesting, an interesting factor into whoever I voted for President. So I definitely
feel like I think I would have liked to know more information.
In relation to the research question, the responses from these participants show a clear
understanding of elections and voting. They knew there was an election and saw information
about the candidates. The study participants also were familiar with the process of voting and the
option of voting by mail or in person. At the same time, however, the participants noted
challenges in gaining a better feel for candidate positions and expressed an openness to acquiring
additional information about what they promise to do if elected.
Participants Who Do Not Vote
The study participants who never voted were much less enthusiastic about the election
and who was running for office. Participant P7, who is a client of a service provider organization
and lives alone, offered a clipped response when asked about the 2020 election: “I’m not

45
interested.” That initially was the same response provided by Participant P8, a 29-year-old
female who works part time. She is a client of a service provider organization and lives with
family.
Participant P5, a 55-year-old female, did not see or look for information about the
election. She is a client of a service provider organization who works part time and lives with
family. Participant P6, however, described a feeling of satisfactory awareness about the election:
Sometimes, usually I would see it like pop up on the news every now and then. I don't
really watch, like, cable TV that often… nowadays with like streaming services and all of
that you know it's kind of, you know, as the atmosphere has kind of changed… I mean I
have heard, I mean I have, I turn on the news, and then I hear it mentioned, you know, the
big election is coming up and sometimes you know, different articles online, they pop up
and, you know, talking about those elections and, you know, the process of that, you
know, kind of thing, so that’s where I normally hear it from.
P6 is a 24-year-old male who works part time. He is a client of a service provider organization
and lives with family. Though presently a non-voter, his interest in the election as described in
this response indicates a more positive view of the electoral system.
The prompts exploring knowledge of the 2020 election concluded with a question about
where the study participants saw or looked for news stories about when to vote and the
candidates. Table 2 provides a list of the different media outlets where study participants found
information. The news sources are a blend of more traditional broadcast services and newer
digital platforms.

46
Table 2: Source of Election and Candidate News or Information
Source of Election and Candidate News or Information
Participant Source of election information

P1 TV news, newspapers
P2 Local TV, online news
P3 TV news, online news, ballot booklet
P4 TV news
P5 Does not see election news or information
P6 TV news, online news feed
P7 None
P8 iPhone news feed

Overall, the findings for Research Question 1 suggest a notable desire by those who have
participated in elections to be well-informed. Of the four participants who are voters, two (P1
and P4) need or welcome help to execute on their desire to know the candidates. The other two
voters (P2 and P3) use multiple sources to gather information and make decisions about the
candidates, yet also suggest that additional assistance would be beneficial. Of the four
participants who never voted, the responses show only a single participant (P7) with no interest
in learning more about future elections. One non-voter (P6) expressed enthusiasm with the idea
of learning more and received assistance with the process. The other two participants (P5 and P8,
a 29-year-old female who works part time) with no voting history knew little about the 2020

47
election and initially were tentative looking forward but did suggest they likely would accept
help learning more about elections in the future. Ultimately, what cannot be determined here is
the possibility that greater awareness of the potential policy outcomes from increased electoral
engagement by the developmentally disabled community might change the behavior of these
non-voters.
Research Question 2: What Motivated Clients of the Southern California Coalition to Vote
or Decide Not to Vote in the 2020 Election?
The study participants were prompted during individual interviews via Zoom to describe
what motivated them to participate in the 2020 election or why they did not feel motivated to
participate. Of the eight participants, four are voters and four have never voted. The findings for
this research question are split by headings of “Participants Who Vote” and “Participants Who
Do Not Vote.”
Participants Who Vote
The four participants who vote stressed a strong belief and deep commitment to exercise
their right to vote. Their views on what motivated them to cast a ballot landed within the
following three themes: Expressing Their Voice- the opportunity to have their opinion heard by
participating in the election; Citizen Involvement- assert their right to vote; Influence Policy
Outcomes- considering how voting may result in support for the developmentally disabled
community.
Expressing Their Voice
There was a clear message from the study participants that they were motivated by the
importance of having their voice counted. Participant P4 described the evolution of struggling
with the thought of voting to feeling it was time to voice an opinion:

48
I didn't register to vote before, was because I never really enjoyed the idea of having to
choose, but, but during the, during the recent election, I decided that it that it would be
good to try and start voicing my opinion, in the election.
Participant P4 further elaborated on a feeling of being more connected and finding an interest in
the process: “I decided that it would be interesting to be able to have a voice in the election, and I
was, and I was pretty much why I decided to vote.” In presenting a sense of identity and
belonging, Participant P2 offered that, “I'm able to vote and do it with pride and dignity, it's
amazing because one voice can go a long way but to have many voices on your side or not on
your side, it doesn't matter, but to be able to say, oh yes I'm part of this.”
Citizen Involvement
The findings further revealed a motivated effort by participants to affirm and accept the
responsibility they have as U.S. citizens. Participant P1 quickly zeroed in on that deep-seated
feeling by noting that, “I always thought that it was a privilege to be able to vote.” Participant P2
is more forceful in capturing the seriousness of the decision-making process when motivated to
make a statement:
I really enjoy it. Every time I get the opportunity to vote. It's a little bit hard at times just
because you really have to think of who you're voting for. You really have to think about
why you're voting. voting really takes time. The wisdom to really understand the laws,
understand what it takes to, what it takes for a president to be a president.
Participant P2 also considered the possibility of a vote not being counted yet stands by the need
to persist and apply the necessary effort: “I know, okay, if I voted and it didn’t go through, I
know my votes still valid, it doesn’t matter, but the priority is, you need to vote.”

49
Influence Policy Outcomes
The third finding that motivated the voting behavior of study participants was the
potential to positively affect policy decisions by elected officials. Participant P3 described a
motivated approach that assesses which candidate may prove helpful to a group or community:
I think it’s a good idea to vote because it’s really showing your opinion on who you think
fits best for your president, and also your area, your county, like who fits best, who, who
do you think can help do something that you need or think we'll do the best for your area
or your country.
Participant P4 took the stance that possible policy outcomes are a key element to making a
choice, by offering that “one of the factors that kind of, also, kind of went into the reason why I
voted, because I wanted to vote for a president that was going to really help us, help us have
more opportunities for jobs.”
These insights suggest that having a voice in the electoral process, leveraging the right as
citizens to vote, and directing thoughts toward possibly influencing decisions that affect
members of the community are key motivators among developmentally disabled voters.
Moreover, the findings offer a view into the deliberate process these voters undertake when
making ballot choices. The themes that emerged among study participants who vote are clear. A
review of responses from those that stayed on the sidelines and did not vote tell a different story.
Participants Who Do Not Vote
The findings resulting from interviews with study participants who never voted shows a
hesitancy or lack of interest in going through the process of voting. When viewed in relation to
Mayer’s (2011) work on the principal indicators of motivated action (initiate, persist, and apply
the necessary effort), the responses suggest they have not chosen to take the first step and initiate

50
the process of registering and voting. Table 3 provides responses to a question about how they
think about voting.

Table 3: What Do You Think About the Idea of Registering to Vote and Participating?
What Do You Think About the Idea of Registering to Vote and Participating?
Participant Response

P5 "Never talked to anyone about elections"
P6 "And like, I mean we, we have the right to vote, you know even
someone like me who, who has not yet registered but you know,
might do so."

P7 "I do not think, care about vot[ing]."
P8 "Not really right now"

51
The role motivation plays in whether developmentally disabled persons make the effort to
engage in the electoral process requires further exploration. In response to the research question
presented here, the responses from participants with voting experience highlights a deliberate
effort to review the candidate choices and develop an informed opinion. The question of whether
non-voters can be motivated to engage in the political process remains unanswered.
Research Question 3: What Type of Support for Voting Did Clients of the Southern
California Coalition Receive or Not Receive to Assist Their Participation in the 2020
Election?
The one-on-one Zoom interviews continued with a prompt for study participants to
describe the support mechanisms, structures, or messages that were present or not present before
the 2020 election. Of the eight participants, four are voters and four have never voted. The
findings for this research question are split by headings of “Participants Who Vote” and
“Participants Who Do Not Vote.”
Participants Who Vote
The analysis of responses to this research question asking about support for voting
resulted in two clear themes bubbling to the surface. The first theme to emerge was a heavy
reliance on voting by mail rather than attempting to vote in person at a polling location. A second
theme was the missed opportunity to receive support and information while participants were
involved with their service provider, either on location or through online activities.
Participant Use of Voting by Mail
The participants with a history of voting expressed a strong preference for leveraging
access to mail-in voting. One example on this view was emphasized by participant P1 in noting
the ease-of-use factor, “It is definitely easier for me to vote by mail.” P1 quickly elaborated on

52
that thinking: “I found when I decided to do it by mail that it was a hell of a lot easier for me
than going out in public and finding the polling place and doing it that way.”
Participant P2 noted that mail-in voting also provided the added benefit and security of
submitting a ballot before election day:
I voted by mail, I voted by mail and then voted early because I didn’t want to miss the
opportunity with the pandemic. We didn't really know if USPS would get it right away or
we were hearing things on the news that they were not receiving ballots, USPS boxes, the
blue ones really, when you drop it off and so my mom and I went in person to the post
office and dropped it off.
Participant P3 followed a similar type of thinking and turned it into a coordinated household
event, stating, “Well, I went with some of my family, just to take all of our ballots, that way we
just put them in all together.”
The ability to vote by mail offered participants an added level of independence as well.
For example, that message of self-reliance comes through in Participant P4’s initial response, “I
found it in the mail, and I decided to vote myself,” and then further reinforced: “So I basically
filled out the form at home and just mailed it in myself.” The participant responses related to
mail-in voting point toward a sense of empowerment and suggests a possible motivational
element reinforcing the decision to vote.
Service Provider Assistance
The study participants reported regular interaction with service provider organizations
when asked about experience and time spent on site at the agencies. Table 5 provides the number
of days and hours per day that the participants are at the service provider location. This
information is in response to a question requesting the amount of time that encompasses all

53
activities normally engaged in by the participants. Total days and hours may fluctuate from week
to week. Data displayed in table 4 is the amount of time during an average week.

Table 4: Number of Days and Hours Spent at Service Provider Location in an Average Week
Number of Days and Hours Spent at Service Provider Location in an Average Week
Participant Days Hours per day
P1 4 4
P2 4 6
P3 4 6
P4 5 7
P5 4 5
P6 5 4
P7 5 6
P8 5 5

54
Despite their consistent presence on site, the participants indicate there was little or no
engagement related to voting in advance of the 2020 election. This lack of active support from
service providers was evident across the interviews. Participant P1 noted the need to actively
reach out for assistance, offering that “I usually find that I have to ask someone to help me.” And
participant P3 describes a missing connection between what likely is available and what could be
offered: “I think sometimes like if they look at more information than I did, to really find out
about each candidate, they could like help me, help throughout that just really getting to know
the candidates more.”
Showing a broader perspective, Participant P4 went beyond a personal view and
suggested a missed opportunity to influence voting awareness across the agency:
I mean, I definitely think there could be things that we could do but, yeah, we definitely
could do things and just, yeah, actually there are things that we could definitely do to try
to get this, the students at the agency to vote or associates.
This lack of information sharing from service provider to client is a noteworthy result.
Considering the regular contact between service provider and client, either physically in the
building or via online meeting platform, the findings here point to a reality that the transfer of
information about voting, elections, and candidates is missing from the roster of available service
provider support or activities.
Participants Who Do Not Vote
Among study participants with no voting experience, P6 offered the most thorough
response to a prompt about receiving support:
Not really, I mean I'm not sure like I mean, I don't think anybody like, aside from, you
know, my, aside from my parents, I don't think anyone… like, if they, if I needed help

55
with any, with help registering, like, you know, even to this day I find the whole thing to
be new to me.
In a follow-on, participant P6 offered that the service provider could do more and “let our
associates know that they, that they have the right to vote, and they are eligible to do so.” In the
lives of the study participants, the most substantial contact outside of their home is at the service
provider location. A service provider offers support such as independent living skills and job
training. What P6 references is using some of the time clients are on site to offer support related
to voting and elections.
Participant P5’s experience was individually focused, stating, “I don’t see anything at the
center.” Using the opportunity to expand to an environmental factor other than service provider
interactions, Participant P8 volunteered that, “No, it’s just maybe my parents are not letting me
vote because maybe it’s going to be hard for me to do these things.” When probed with a follow-
on prompt about interest in learning from service providers about elections, Participant P8
allowed that, “Maybe I would say yes.”
The findings for research question 3 provide an initial sketch of the central role service
providers can play in supporting the electoral engagement of developmentally disabled clients.
Both study participants who vote and those with no voting experience indicated that activities
related to voting should be available. The following research question further explores their
views of what may prove helpful in encouraging greater political participation by the
developmentally disabled community.

56
Research Question 4: What Types of Knowledge, Motivation, and Environmental Support
Do Clients of the Southern California Coalition Report Is Needed to Increase Participation
in Future Elections?
The participants were prompted to consider what could be done by or within service
provider organization that could increase knowledge, motivate voting behavior, and set the
conditions for greater political engagement going forward. The findings for this research
question combine responses from study participants who vote and those who have not voted, as
the suggestions from both groups followed similar paths and no responses deviated from that
pattern. Study participants exhibited a ready willingness to discuss opportunities for future
support. They became more animated and shared more openly. The participants drew from
personal experience and an understanding of peers and the community to express their ideas. The
findings remained clustered within the categories of knowledge, motivation, and environmental
support, with a central theme of gathering with fellow clients in groups underlying all three
factors. Participants with a history of voting offered more expansive responses, thus those
responses appear more frequently in the knowledge, motivation, and environmental support
sections below as they are more illustrative of these findings.
Knowledge Support
The participants were encouraged by the idea of gathering at a service provider location
to learn more about voting, elections, and candidates. Participant P3 talked about the benefit of
service provider staff facilitating and providing information:
Yeah, I think it could help a lot, more people that don't really know a whole lot about
what people do and what the thing means on what, what happened if the person did this,
the person you voted for what the goals are. Yeah, I think that will help.

57
Participant P4 expressed similar thoughts: “Oh yeah, I mean, I've already learned so much with
[SCC], so I think having them give me more information about the Presidents, that's just, that
would, that would be just helping me learn even more.”
Participant P3 described the potential of a multiplying effect if fellow clients could
exchange information about candidates and issues with each other:
I think it would be a good one just totally know like opinions what they think about it
what they've heard about it that way or have a bigger view of everything, even though
like they might not agree on the thing, they have an idea of what they think about it and
then to another person who thinks about it, that would be a broader way of thinking about
each person.
Similarly, Participant P2 considered how this type of dialogue could help think about the purpose
of candidate messages: “To touch on the issues or touch on the topics, based on the candidate
running and why they do what they do and where they are, like, for instance, why one says
something versus the other candidate.” Participant P3 followed this line of thinking as well:
“Yeah, like a better understanding, yeah, because they might think of another, think of it
differently than it actually is, on what the wording is in the topics.”
Motivation Support
The study participants projected particular interest in how the process of group actions
can lead to greater civic engagement and possibly drive a shift in policy outcomes. Across the
board, from both study participants with a history of voting and those who never voted, there was
a strong sense of feeling motivated to join activities that make their voices louder and advocate
for the developmentally disabled community. Participant P6 was clear and to the point when

58
referring to a greater good, stating that, “Trying to make sure that people vote, people have the
right to vote, and all of that is really an amazing thing.”
Participant P1 felt that working with others would be an important step, saying, “Yes,
yes, I do, I also believe that not just for me, but for other people like me, that are disabled. Yeah,
I might, I might have to do that. Yes.” P1 followed on with additional thoughts in this direction,
stating, “And the issues, yes sir, I do. Just as long as there were enough people to help each
other, yes sir.” Meanwhile, Participant P8, who earlier had no interest in voting or learning about
registering, responded more favorably to the idea of joining a group effort: “Yes, I think so.”
These comments follow a general thought pattern from the participants that an opportunity to
engage with others can override individual hesitancy about the idea of voting.
Participant P4 shared a particular outcome that would benefit the community and how it
influenced the path toward voting:
Yeah, I mean, that was one of the factors that kind of, also, kind of went into the reason
why I voted, because I wanted to vote for a president that was going to really help us,
help us have more opportunities for jobs.
Without noting a specific policy or benefit, Participant P6 expressed the importance of using
group processes to fight for a cause, saying, “We want our voices to be heard, and that is
something that we can totally do we can definitely, we can definitely do that, you know that that
is a good, good way to let spread the word if you will.”
Participant P3 stressed a general theme of group dynamics leading to engagement and
influence:
I think it would, like really telling them what people do, like if it's something that they
like. Or if like if like they might be like helping some people with disabilities, it might be

59
someone that works on that to maybe they want to vote for them because of those, those
reasons, it can really help them feel motivated to go vote.
Along the same lines, Participant P6 also projected a deep belief in clients coming together and
making a difference:
I mean it's definitely a wonderful it's definitely a great opportunity, you know, definitely
if you, I mean if you need to learn more about you know the process of, you know, voting
the candidates who are running, and all that and everything else that he that you need to
know about the general election, I think that's a good idea.
Environmental Support
The participants were prompted to consider how a service provider could coordinate
group activities related to electoral engagement and policy issues. Follow-up questions asked for
their views, as clients of service providers, of a year-round schedule and publicizing
opportunities within the agency to become involved. Participant P2 quickly offered thoughts on
leveraging existing systems:
Oh yes, oh yes, we have a Calendar, Google calendar was set up for meetings, was setup
for things for them to look into. Sometimes we also have for our new students we’ll have
like a real agenda for them to really follow, and we'll go through how Regional Center
works with us, and we work with them to help the students to achieve their goals and get
what they want.
Participant P1 stressed the importance of advance or fixed scheduling, noting, “If it was
something that was planned already, oh yeah, I would be involved, I believe, yes… yes, I believe
that would be very helpful.”

60
With an eye toward group dynamics, Participant P4 wanted to be sure that agreements are
in place so there is an equal exchange of ideas and individual thought can be maintained:
If I was in a group with people that have the same thoughts that I did about the election, I
think that, I think I would be fine with that, if we all have like the same thoughts, because
I don't think that because if we had different thoughts, then I would want to still like,
hang on to my hang on to what I feel about how I feel about the election, but if we're all
like on the same page about it, then yeah.
Participant P8, with no previous history or interest in voting, when asked if this approach
sounded acceptable, responded, “Yeah, I will, if there is one, one day, I think yes.”
Participant P3 went deeper into the specifics of provider support and suggested a
supplement to the mail-in ballot booklet:
I also think like on the ballots, like I can, like I know what, like I can read the words like
sometimes it's good I think to have like easy words for people to understand, especially
like with developmental disabilities, like small simple words about what people do and
what the stuff means like if they work like with healthcare, like having explanations on
the ballots on what that means for the healthcare that way the person knows. This is what
the person was actually talking about even though the wordings on there, it's more of an
explanation and easier explanations for people understand I think that's a great way to
help.
The participant responses highlight the unique role service provider organizations play in their
lives. They expressed a ready willingness to join in activities that offer learning and social
engagement opportunities. Thus, the existing gap in structured support for clients to become

61
more aware of how voting and civic activism can influence policy outcomes and government
services is a finding that cannot be overlooked.
Summary
Semi-structured interviews with the eight participants explored KMO influences to
answer this study’s four research questions. Active voters wanted to learn as much as possible
about the candidates and issues prior to the 2020 election, while also expressing a strong belief in
exercising their right to vote and desire to influence election outcomes. The responses from non-
voters on the other hand, showed either a lack of interest or support. Interestingly, the response
to prompts about how to support and encourage increased electoral participation going forward
were more similar across voters and non-voters. There were increased expressions of a shared
community that has the potential to act collectively and drive actions that affect outcomes. And
the participants described their experiences with service providers and saw opportunities to
transfer knowledge and achieve common goals going forward. Participant P6 summed up that
group perspective:
I'm like, again, my voices and our voices and opinions matter we all strive for excellence,
and we all end up, and that we are all able to get employed, you know, definitely things
that, you know, I've learned things that everyone else can learn as well.
Overall, seven themes emerged from the interviews with participants. Table 5 provides a
summary of the results.

62
Table 5: Summary of KMO Factors, Emergent Themes, and Findings
Summary of KMO Factors, Emergent Themes, and Findings
KMO factor Emergent theme Summary of finding
Knowledge A desire to learn about
the candidates and
issues
The participants with voting experience
reported that they would like to know more
about the candidates and issues leading up to
an election.
Motivation Expressing their voice The participants with voting experience looked
at the opportunity to voice their opinion as a
key element in motivating their decision to
vote.
Motivation Citizen involvement The participants with experience voting
considered the right to vote granted to them
as U.S. citizens was an important motivator
when making the decision to vote.
Motivation Influence policy
outcomes
The participants with voting experience
expressed the view that having their vote
count toward the possibility of improved
services and opportunities for the
community motivated them to participate in
the election.

Organization Access and use of
mail-in voting
The participants who voted in the 2020
election relied entirely on vote by mail to
cast their ballots and suggested service
providers should offer assistance to those
without other help.
Organization A lack of structured
service provider
support
All the participants reported a lack of service
provider-led programs offering information
about registering to vote and encouraging
participation in elections.
Future
organizational
support
Service provider-
based voter
engagement and
civic activism
programs
All the participants stated that service
providers are well positioned to offer
information, guidance, and activities to
improve knowledge about elections, increase
interest in voting, and foster greater political
engagement or civic activism.

63
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
Building on Chapter Four’s data analysis, this chapter discusses the interplay between the
study’s emergent themes, literature review, and conceptual framework. What flows out of this
examination is a set of qualitatively based recommendations for practice and for hypotheses
supporting further quantitatively based research on this issue. After noting the study’s limitations
and delimitations, the chapter concludes with suggestions for future research.
Discussion of Findings and Results
This dissertation study sought to understand the factors that influence the voting behavior
of developmentally disabled persons by generating topical and meaningful data directly from
members of the subject population. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argued that “research focused on
discovery, insight, and understanding from the perspectives of those being studied offers the
greatest promise of making a difference in people’s lives” (p. 1). A set of four research questions
guided semi-structured interviews with eight participants and resulted in the emergence of seven
themes. The findings correspond in some areas with previous work exploring the voting behavior
and political knowledge of developmentally disabled persons. A review of the themes, how they
connect with earlier research, and how they align with evidence-based models or principles
relevant to political activism follow here. The themes are organized by the study’s guiding
conceptual framework, the KMO factors influencing participation in the 2020 election as
identified through the application of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis system.
Knowledge Theme: A Desire to Learn About the Candidates and Issues
Clark and Estes (2008) emphasize that the gap analysis system needs to identify whether
people have achieved their target goal, or one like it, and if they know how and where to find
what is necessary to reach that goal. For the purposes of this study, knowledge about voting and

64
elections was a stated goal. In response, all the study participants with experience voting noted a
desire to know more before voting in the 2020 election. Two of the participants felt they had
gathered sufficient information from available news sources to complete their ballots with
confidence. The other two participants who voted also found information by encountering news
sources, but they were not as confident in their understanding of the issues. Regardless of
confidence level, there was a ready willingness among the participants, including one of the
participants who has never voted, to accept help in gaining additional information about the
candidates and the issues.
The participants reported that service providers did not offer support in locating
information or learning about the candidates and issues. This finding aligns with existing
research. For example, Agran and Hughes (2013) found that service providers rarely provided
instruction or made information available about voting to the developmentally disabled but
expressed a willingness to offer encouragement and voting-related support if asked. A follow-on
study by Agran and Hughes (2013) built on those initial results as a wider range of service
providers reported a belief that the developmentally disabled in their care would benefit from a
support system that helped them understand policies and issues and offered instruction about
voting. Willis et al. (2016) concluded that the developmentally disabled have good awareness of
what it means to vote and the ability to understand the issues, but service providers should
provide instruction and support to facilitate participation in the electoral process.
Motivation Theme: Expressing Their Voice
Clark and Estes (2008) describe a critical need to use gap analysis to determine if people
are motivated to achieve the objective or successfully complete the task. They note that
motivation is the most complex of the KMO factors and includes three key elements: making the

65
decision to start, continuing through distractions or competing activities, and applying the
necessary effort to successfully complete the task or achieve the objective. This theme
(Expressing Their Voice) and the following two themes (Citizen Involvement and Influence
Policy Outcomes) are motivational factors as described by the study participants.
All the study participants with experience voting hold the view that the opportunity to
voice an opinion was a key element in motivating their decision to vote. In one case, deciding
that her voice mattered led a study participant to overcome personal challenges that kept her
from voting when first eligible; for example, she described difficulties with having to make a
choice when faced with multiple options. Other participants offered that having a voice in the
election provided a connection to the process and an avenue to project their identity. The
participants’ description of the importance of expressing their voice at the ballot box aligns with
internal political efficacy, a reflection of personal identity and the belief in oneself to lead change
through deliberate action (Moeller et al., 2014). Further, researchers consider political efficacy as
a critical activating element of participation in the political sphere (Abramson & Aldrich, 1982).
Motivation Theme: Citizen Involvement
The participants with experience voting considered their rights as U.S. citizens to vote to
be a key motivating element when making the decision to vote. The use of terms such as
privilege speaks to the strength of conviction that participating in the election requires in order to
exert the necessary investment in effort. In speaking to the seriousness of the process, one
participant opened up about the challenges of taking the time to work through the decision and
assume the responsibility that comes with the right to vote. The thoughts presented by the
participants fall in line with the Wigfield and Eccles (2000) expectancy-value theory of
motivation. Expectancies refers to an individual’s belief in his or her ability to succeed. Those

66
expectancies interact with task values to spur an individual’s behavior. The descriptions of
citizen involvement suggests that intrinsic value (interest in the task, goal, or something related)
combined with their expectation to successfully participate in the election drove their initial
choice to vote and then to persist through the decision-making process.
Motivation Theme: Influence Policy Outcomes
The third motivating factor that emerged from interviews with the study participants was
the possibility of having a say in policies enacted by elected officials. There was a clear
sentiment expressed that improving policies and government services is a factor in voting.
Thoughts of affecting change for the local area or country, along with additional support for the
community such as job opportunities, encouraged participants to engage in the election. The
participants’ belief that voting can affect change can be seen as a manifestation of Bandura’s
(2000) self-efficacy theory, where an individual’s beliefs, expectations, and perceptions of his or
her capabilities for producing successful outcomes motivates personal behavior. Within the
Wigfield and Eccles (2000) expectancy-value model, the thought of influencing policy outcomes
is a utility value (its usefulness or relevance offsets the difficulty posed by voting) that interacts
with expectancies to influence the choice of study participants to vote.
Organization Support Theme: Access and Use of Mail-In Voting
All the study participants who are voters leaned heavily on vote by mail to cast their
ballots during the 2020 election. The ease of use and schedule flexibility were emphasized, along
with the security of knowing their ballot was received prior to election day. Interestingly, on the
one hand, a participant described vote by mail as a coordinated group activity with family, while
another participant highlighted a feeling of independence and self-reliance by individually
controlling all the steps of receiving, completing, and mailing the ballot. Yet, regardless of how

67
or when the mail-in ballot was sent or dropped off, vote by mail clearly was the preferred
method.
Mail-in voting by the study participants proved to be a valuable offset to the challenges
of in-person voting noted in prior research. For example, Schriner et al. (2000) showed that the
disabled face multiple hurdles between their initial desire to participate in the electoral process
and voting, such as accessibility issues, limited support at polling locations, and lack of
assistance in understanding how to cast their ballot. Also, overcoming barriers and successfully
arriving at a polling location may not be enough, as poll workers often lack the knowledge to aid
the developmentally disabled if asked for help (Ward et al., 2009). And a report on the 2012
elections by the Presidential Commission on Election Administration found that disabled citizens
have a higher risk of encountering challenges with voting in person than other groups (Schur et
al., 2017).
Organization Support Theme: A Lack of Structured Service Provider Support
As noted earlier in Table 5, the study participants spend considerable time engaging with
their service provider, averaging roughly four hours per day, four days a week at the agency
location. The participants offer thoughts of missed opportunities by service providers to support
political participation by clients. One participant, with a physical disability that substantially
limits mobility, noted the need to ask directly for help as no support is voluntarily offered.
A critical component of everyday life for the developmentally disabled rests with support
from service providers; consequently, the lack of service provider-led programs offering
information about registering to vote or encouraging participation in elections is noteworthy.
This finding matches the results of prior research and suggests that not much has changed (Agran
& Hughes, 2013; Agran et al., 2015; Agran et al., 2016; Bell et al., 2001; Jordan & Dunlap,

68
2001). Earlier work also found that instructional guidelines for improving the knowledge and
ability of developmentally disabled members to vote are missing from service provider programs
(Agran & Hughes, 2013; Schriner & Ochs, 2000). An underlying cause of that service provider
gap could be the belief that the developmentally disabled in their care are incapable of
understanding key issues, so service providers perceive little value in providing voting
instruction (Bell et al., 2001). At the same time, service providers run by non-disabled leaders
who have never faced barriers to voting themselves may have a lack of understanding about how
their members think about roadblocks to electoral participation and their desire for support
(Wappet, 2002).
Future Support Theme: Service Provider-Based Voter Engagement and Civic Activism
Programs
Study participants openly shared their thoughts about what could be made available by
service providers to increase knowledge about the election process, motivate voting behavior,
and establish the conditions for greater political engagement by clients and associates moving
forward. Drawing on personal experience and time spent with peers in the community, the
participants freely expressed ideas about future support for voting and civic activism. The
descriptions from participants who voted were more robust, and this finding combines the views
of both those with voting experience and those who have never voted.
With an eye toward learning opportunities, the participants confirmed the viability of
group sessions facilitated by service provider staff with added elements of information exchange
among clients and shared views about the candidates and issues. Of particular interest to the
study participants was the thought of building on the group information sessions to motivate
coordinated voting and civic actions to multiply their voices and advocate for the

69
developmentally disabled community. To initiate and sustain momentum, the participants
suggested that clients would be receptive to a year-round schedule of activities that includes
leveraging existing communication and schedule functions to deliver the necessary
environmental support.
This theme of service provider facilitated voter engagement and civic activism programs
replicates the results of past research in this area. Agran and Hughes (2013) found that service
providers rarely provided instruction about voting to the developmentally disabled but expressed
a willingness to offer encouragement and voting-related support if asked. A follow-on study by
Agran and Hughes (2013) built on those initial results as a wider range of service providers
reported a belief that the developmentally disabled in their care would benefit from a support
system that helped them understand policies and issues and offered instruction about voting.
Willis et al. (2016) concluded that the developmentally disabled have good awareness of what it
means to vote and the ability to understand the issues, but service providers should provide
instruction and support to facilitate participation in the electoral process. Bell et al. (2001) argued
that environmental factors are critical to breaking down voting barriers, so support facilities and
staff should provide opportunities for the developmentally disabled to learn about the political
system. With an eye toward the broader objective, Keeley et al. (2008) stressed that service
provider support that increases voter registration and activates greater interest in political
activities can lead to increased turnout at the polls. Investigating these types of knowledge and
motivation gaps at the individual, family, and service provider levels are critical to understanding
the interventions needed to improve electoral participation.

70
Recommendations for Practice
The problem of practice that informed this dissertation is the low levels of electoral
participation by citizens with developmental disabilities, resulting in a lack of government
reforms and services that can improve their quality of life. Reforms and services most often
mentioned within the developmentally disabled community are improved healthcare, better
independent living options, and broader job opportunities. While the problem of practice and
literature review guided and shaped this dissertation through the lens of the broader
developmentally disabled population, the recommendations are framed within the context of the
Southern California Coalition (SCC) as the organizational stakeholder, an alliance of service
providers who support developmentally disabled adults. Outlined below are three suggested
recommendations for practice that the SCC can implement to offset the identified KMO gaps.
Recommendation 1: Provide Developmentally Disabled Clients the Information Necessary
to Build and Increase Knowledge About Voting and Elections
This dissertation study found that seven of the eight developmentally disabled adults who
were interviewed noted that they would like to know more about elections and voting. They also
indicated a willingness to accept help in gaining more knowledge about elections and voting.
This finding reflects similar recommendations reported in research by van Hees et al. (2019) who
suggested that relevant, easily accessible information can build knowledge and produce the
decision-making capability for the developmentally disabled to overcome barriers to voting.
Similarly, Agran and Hughes (2013) argued that, regardless of disability, every citizen should
receive information and appropriate instruction about electoral engagement, allowing
participation in the process that results in decisions about the community services they receive.

71
The suggested recommendation is to provide SCC clients with voting and election-related
information in narrative form across videos, posters, electronic messages, and handouts to
activate interest in learning more about the voter registration process, upcoming elections, and
candidates or referendums. This approach looks to build greater awareness about electoral
participation for those who have never voted and to offer details about when and how to register
so they can participate in future elections. Mattila (2000) found that narrative allows individuals
to more easily process new information and to imagine themselves in the situation being
presented when the story-based message is structured similarly to life experience.
Chong and Kruckman (2007) introduced the concept of narrative presented as story frames to
help individuals make sense of and understand political information. Gerrig and Egidi (2003)
determined that narrative can influence and shape information processing, while Berinsky and
Kinder (2006) showed that stories help individuals organize and recall information. The research
noted here indicates the use of narrative or story frames presented to SCC clients through various
mediums should be included in the effort to increase awareness about voting and expand
electoral participation.
At the same time, handouts such as information cards or checklists that translate
candidate positions or ballot referendums into smaller pieces with supporting graphics can
encourage those already registered or those yet to register that they know enough to make well-
informed decisions. Clark and Estes (2008) point towards using information and job aids when
the topic is familiar and the task can be considered routine. They further note that providing
information and a how-to guide are the least costly approach to developing the necessary
knowledge in order to complete the desired outcome. Moreover, they suggest that this approach
is most useful when the process to complete the task is like something familiar or the content can

72
be easily understood if the information is communicated clearly. Thus, the recommendation
outlined here for building and improving the voting and election knowledge of service provider
clients follows the evidence-based guidance developed by Clark and Estes (2008). It also aligns
well with prior research in the developmentally disabled population and responses from this
study’s participants that they are familiar with the concept of voting and elections but would like
support to gain additional knowledge.
Recommendation 2: Deliver Positive Messages and Experiences to Developmentally
Disabled Clients
This study found that all participants with a history of voting were motivated by the
following factors: the opportunity to express their opinion at the ballot box, acting on the right to
vote granted to them as citizens, and a chance to influence public policies that affect the
government services they receive. Half of the study participants who have never voted offered
the view that these same factors may influence their future decision to register and vote. Further,
most participants believed that they possessed the capacity and capability to understand what is
required to make an informed decision and to take the necessary steps to express their voice and
vote. Participant P6 provided an excellent summary of that belief:
We can do whatever we want to do, no matter, no matter if anyone sees us differently or
if anyone thinks differently. It is in our duty to make sure that we, we hear ourselves and
we provide a voice, you know, and it's essentially just us, making sure that we are the
voice of reason and also making sure that we bring that optimism and, you know pretty
much do whatever we can.

73
That internal faith and optimism land squarely within the frame of internal political efficacy that
Bandura (1997) described as the “belief that one can produce effects through political action” (p.
483).
The recommendation to motivate service provider clients is a focus on positive messages
and experiences that build the self-confidence of those developmentally disabled associates and
reinforce what they value. Clark and Estes (2008) state that an individual’s belief that they
possess the skills to succeed is likely the key consideration in deciding how much effort they will
devote to achieving a desirable outcome. Further, positively nurturing self-confidence with a
view toward implementing the specific steps in the process that need to be started and completed
is more important than encouraging general self-confidence. This view matches research
showing that high levels of task-based self-efficacy can increase motivation (Pajares, 2006).
It is suggested that service providers setting up and running simulated elections will
provide an excellent opportunity for clients to successfully practice the registration and voting
process, thereby developing self-confidence (Clark & Estes, 2008), task-based self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006), positive emotions (Clark & Estes, 2008), and finding value in the experience
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Service providers are uniquely positioned to offer this event, as
clients are on-site for the necessary amount of time (see Table 4) and accustomed to involvement
in agency-led activities, per responses from this study’s participants. A related suggestion is
awarding achievement certificates to those clients who completed all the steps required during
the simulated election process, which connects with research showing that messages of
encouragement fuel positive emotions that lead individuals to make a stronger commitment
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Positive feedback allows participants to attribute successful completion of

74
tasks or exercises to factors that are within their control, thus building greater confidence and
self-efficacy (Clark & Saxberg, 2018).
Meanwhile, messages that align with an internal expectation for success and the potential
value individuals assign to a process or task will positively influence their motivation and choice
to pursue a goal, persist through challenges, and apply the necessary effort. Wigfield and Eccles
(2000) describe four values that can influence the decision to pursue a goal: Attainment Value,
which is linked to identity or a sense of self; Intrinsic Value, which is tied to a personal interest
in the task or goal; Utility Value, which is an assessment of usefulness of the task or benefit
when it is achieved; and Cost, which is an evaluation of the tradeoff against other options. In
relation to the findings of this study, the importance participants placed on expressing their
voice, participating in citizen engagement, and influencing policy outcomes may offer a starting
point for identifying messages that fall in line with task values and motivate action.
This suggested recommendation also aligns with positive results from classroom
simulations. Dorn (1989) described simulated political exercises as “a more or less accurate
representation or model of some external reality with which players interact by playing roles in
much the same way as they would interact with reality itself” (p. 3). Jones (1998) pointed to
simulated political events as interactive environments that require real life behaviors, and
Caruson (2005) noted that the “outcome may not be as important as the process” (p. 306) to
achieve positive results from the experience. Bernstein (2008) determined that students emerged
from politically related simulations with greater confidence in their ability to apply those
experiences and to successfully navigate civic engagement and political action. Borge (2017)
found a strong relationship between voting in a mock election and a willingness or intention of
first-time voters to participate in a real election. The analysis of a randomized trial across 80

75
mock elections by Syvertsen et al., (2009) revealed a significant increase in participants’ belief
that their vote matters, their understanding about how to register, and their confidence to make
an informed decision. Deitz and Boeckelman (2012) reported higher levels of political efficacy
and interest in civic engagement between participants and non-participants in a mock election. A
follow-up survey conducted by the authors one year after the exercise showed that the significant
effects endured, signaling the motivating outcomes of simulated political activities can last
beyond the boost in confidence and interest immediately after the activity.
Recommendation 3: Develop Internal Organizational Processes and A Culture of Collective
Efficacy and Social Capital
All the developmentally disabled adults in this study who have a history of voting
described their use of mail-in ballots as the preferred method of voting. Most participants noted
that they experienced a lack of election-related support from their service provider agencies.
Most participants would also welcome organizational assistance from service providers in the
form of group activities that would allow for coordinated actions toward common goals. Clark
and Estes (2008) would classify the lack of election-related support and the lack of group
activities as organizational barriers that adversely influence the ability of individuals and teams
to achieve their goals.
The suggested recommendation is the development of a set of internal processes and a
culture of collective efficacy and social capital that provides the environmental infrastructure
within service provider agencies to support and encourage increased electoral engagement and
coordinated civic activism. An example of this support would be to build organization-wide
awareness of the simplicity of mail-in voting on the one hand, while setting the cultural
conditions for support in other areas of voting and civic activism on the other. The scheduling of

76
monthly events that revolve around “issues of the day” and are purely voluntary can bring
individuals together to work on group activities that offer the opportunity to share thoughts and
to develop positive emotions. This approach ties back to participant responses indicating a ready
willingness to join group events centered on voting and elections, and the Chapter Two section
of this dissertation titled Social Capital, Motivation, and Evangelical Political Behavior (p. 20).
For example, Campbell (2004) reported that Evangelicals exhibit deeper social ties and that they
developed civic skills as part of their involvement in church activities. And Driskell (2008)
found that participating in church activities leads Evangelicals to more active political
engagement. These methods create deep pools of social capital that fuel civic activism and
encourage the sharing of information to motivate each other to express his or her voice
(Greenberg, 2000). Even fun activities, such as politically themed team art projects within
service provider agencies at monthly intervals, can lead to the development of social capital,
which Coleman (1990) described as any element of a social structure that produces value when
relationships within that structure facilitate meaningful actions. Thus, the recommendation
outline here requires the development of a social circle based on trust and shared objectives to
achieve the organizational goal of building social capital to propel coordinated civic activism.
Clark and Estes (2008) note that achieving these types of organizational goals are the
result of a system of connected, interrelated processes that requires a specialized set of
knowledge and skills. They also stress that these processes must be aligned with the overall goals
of the agency or there is a high risk of failure. Moreover, the agency must have specific written
policies that detail support for the internal processes or it will become a disjointed and
ineffective effort. Consequently, the SCC must be prepared to devote necessary human resources
with appropriate skills to organize and manage what need to be regularly scheduled activities.

77
The other element of this suggested recommendation is seeding the growth of a culture of
collective efficacy. Bandura (1982) noted that “collective efficacy will influence what people
choose to do as a group, how much effort they put into it, and their staying power when group
efforts fail to produce results” (p. 143). Many desired results are only possible through
interdependent endeavors which extend individual human agency to the conception of collective
agency (Bandura, 2000). Further, collective efficacy lives in the minds of each group member
and controls the coordinated actions of the group when driven by a shared belief. Aligning with
the purposes of the recommendation outlined here, collective political efficacy combined with a
faith in government institutions offers an indicator of the force and shape of a group’s political
activity (Bandura, 1997). Thus, “people who believe they can achieve desired changes through
their collective voice, and who view their governmental systems as trustworthy, are active
participants in conventional political activities” (Bandura, 2000, p. 78). A focus on creating a
culture of collective efficacy throughout the planning and execution of SCC service provider
activities is critical, as research shows that cultural models and profiles often determine the
success of change efforts.
Cultural models are the often unseen and unconscious beliefs, values, processes, and
shared identities that are deeply rooted throughout an organization (Schein, 2004).
Understanding an organization’s culture provides critical insight into the factors and influences
that drive the everyday routines that affect identified goals or objectives (Rueda, 2011).
Organizational culture is a key factor when undertaking a change effort and often a leading
indicator of whether the initiative will be effective (Schein, 2004). A vital element of achieving
desired outcomes within an agency requires the use of identified culture profiles to synchronize
organizational culture with the necessary procedures and information (Clark & Estes, 2008).

78
Further, Clark and Estes (2008) note that it is possible for a culture profile infused with core
beliefs about the selection of goals to steer decisions toward the processes and procedures needed
to achieve those goals. For the purposes of guiding the recommendation to develop a culture of
collective efficacy, it is suggested that service providers utilize a culture profile built on “the
value of group process and collaboration” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 111).
Integrated Recommendations
As noted in Chapter One, The Southern California Coalition (SCC) is a diverse and
dedicated alliance of organizations that provide critical services to developmentally disabled
members. This closely aligned consortium of service providers has a common goal of
empowering people with disabilities to fulfill their hopes and potential to become productive
citizens who are accepted, included, and valued for the contribution they make to the economic,
civic, and cultural life of the community. The Coalition members believe that a vibrant
community is one in which all their clients contribute in their own special way. In recognizing
that public policy is shaped by groups that consistently express their voice at the ballot box, the
SCC looks to initiate a change effort that supports increased electoral participation by the
developmentally disabled adults that it serves. The recommendations of this dissertation study
are presented as initial guideposts to support the planning of a future client-focused electoral
engagement initiative. A collaboration framework utilized successfully in education and the non-
profit sector provides a system to support actions between the SCC service provider agencies to
produce an implementation and evaluation plan.
Collective Impact Model for SCC Cross-Agency Coordination
An effort such as the electoral engagement initiative described here requires well-
coordinated action by the service provider agencies that constitute the SCC. The foundational

79
elements of successful multi-agency coordination are found in a collective impact model for the
non-profit sector defined by Kania and Kramer (2011) as “a systemic approach to social impact
that focuses on the relationships between organizations and the progress toward shared
objectives” (p. 39). As an example of collective impact, they document a four-year effort where a
key segment of educators across three large school districts dropped their individual efforts and
combined forces around a shared framework to successfully improve student outcomes. Rather
than focus on a single issue or set of problems, the leaders steered the broader community to
adopt a set of goals and a uniform system for aligning cross-district support and measuring
progress (Kania & Kramer, 2011).
Similar to local school districts that have a mission to educate students, SCC service
provider agencies have a mission to support developmentally disabled clients. An SSC Director
reported to the author that agencies have traditionally maintained their own internal ad-hoc
programs if they decide to support client participation in elections. To build a powerful collective
impact, however, Kania and Kramer (2011) found that five conditions are required to produce
desired results: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities,
continuous communication, and backbone support organizations. This model sets the conditions
for how the SCC service provider agencies will work together. Table 6 provides an outline of
proposed guidance to SCC to establish the necessary conditions for collective impact:

80
Table 6: Conditions for SCC to Implement a Collective Impact Model
Conditions for SCC to Implement a Collective Impact Model
Condition Recommendation Evidence
Common agenda Develop a well-defined process of
structured activities to achieve a
set of mutually accepted goals
Effective change is possible when
the views of all stakeholders are
included in the design, planning,
and decision-making process
(Clark & Estes, 2008)

Shared
measurement
systems
Establish common metrics to
continuously assess the progress
of the political engagement
initiative and feed information
about alignment with
requirements across the
enterprise
Evaluation is a vital ingredient
when developing a change
process to address gaps and
improve outcomes (Clark &
Estes, 2008)

Mutually
reinforcing
activities
Though each agency has its own
personality, and there will be
subtle differences, they must
adhere to the umbrella plan and
commit to coordinated actions
Successful change initiatives use
evidence-based solutions and
adjust as necessary to the
organization’s culture (Clark &
Estes, 2008)

Continuous
communication
Share knowledge and experiences
through dedicated
communication channels; for
example, message boards for
staff and interim progress reports
for leadership
Aligning shared goals and
continually communicating and
reinforcing the methods and
objectives can support
organizational change initiatives
(Lencioni, 2004)

Backbone support
organization
Personnel changes are a reality;
consequently, appoint an
external steering committee that
focuses on continuity and the
overall mission
Effective change efforts ensure that
adequate resources are deployed
and that if there are shortages,
then resources are aligned with
organizational priorities (Clark
& Estes, 2008)

81
Nudge Theory for Internal SCC Service Provider Implementation
While the collective impact model offers a system for coordinated action among the SCC
service providers, a framework for activating the internal knowledge and motivation components
inside the agencies is the other step of an integrated implementation plan. It is suggested that the
SCC utilize Nudge Theory to model and deploy the study recommendations. Nudge Theory
(Thaler & Sunstein, 2009) provides a framework to establish a choice architecture within an
organizational environment that can influence the decisions made by individuals. A “Nudge”
points to an option within the choice architecture that is easily available but can significantly
affect individual and group behavior. Nudge Theory is most effective when individuals in the
environment know they are in control of their decisions and have freedom of choice (Thaler &
Sunstein, 2009). Nudges usually take the form of positive reinforcement and indirect guidance.
Notable as an indicator of potential outcomes for this effort, Kumler and Whittaker (2020) found
success with the application of nudges to reinforce electoral participation by those already
interested in voting or to change the behavior of those not likely to vote.
The suggested SCC change strategy takes the KMO factors that influence voter
engagement by developmentally disabled clients and delivers messages in a nudge context to
achieve desired outcomes. In support of the subject population, the implementation plan will rely
on two key elements of Nudge Theory throughout the process: simplification and reminders.
Table 7 uses the Nudge model to address the KMO factors and implement the proposed
recommendations inside the SCC service provider agencies in support of their clients.

82
Table 7: Recommendations for Practice Using the Nudge Theory for Change
Recommendations for Practice Using the Nudge Theory for Change
KMO factor Nudge Evidence
Knowledge: Delivery
of information and
checklists to
increase voting and
election knowledge
Produce story-based
materials in the form of
posters, pamphlets, and
pocket checklists
Using narrative to connect policy issues
to the lives of participants can shift
political behaviors and the probability
of voting (Shenhav et al., 2021;
Shenhav et al., 2014; Sheafer et al.,
2011).

Motivation: Positive
messages that build
self-confidence and
reinforce value
systems
Use simulated election days
to provide a practice
environment for
registering and voting;
distribute achievement
certificates to participants
Internal political efficacy is the “belief
that one can produce effects through
political action” (Bandura, 1997, p.
483).

Organization:
Develop an
infrastructure and
culture of
collective action
that encourages
coordinated civic
activism
Make it agency policy to
deliver monthly group
policy events that offer
fun team activities
around "the issue of the
day" to build social
bonds and a culture of
collective efficacy
Building social capital to facilitate
meaningful action through the
“features of social life - networks,
norms and trust - that enable
participants to act together more
effectively to pursue shared
objectives” (Putnam, 1995, p. 664).

“People who believe they can achieve
desired changes through their
collective voice, and who view their
governmental systems as trustworthy,
are active participants in conventional
political activities” (Bandura, 2000, p.
78).

Thaler and Sunstein (2009) define a nudge as “any aspect of the choice architecture that
alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options… the intervention
must be cheap and easy to avoid. Nudges are not mandates. Putting fruit at eye level (hoping that

83
people then choose fruit over unhealthy alternatives) counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does
not” (p. 6). Essentially, a nudge is applied inside the frame of choice architecture that appear
throughout an individual’s environment. Nudges can change behavior by presenting relevant
information that supports selecting from options presented as available choices. Thaler and
Sunstein (2009) view nudges as interventions within choice architectures that help individuals
select an option that is in his or her best interest or guide their behavior toward a desired
collective outcome. The nudge approach described here appears well suited as a strategy to
implement the KMO factors outlined in Table 7. Story-based posters, pamphlets, and checklists
should be displayed and available inside SCC agencies but not forced upon clients. Simulated
elections should have a prominent position on agency schedules and notifications but remain
voluntary activities. Monthly group activities should be offered as fun opportunities to socially
interact with other clients but not a required event.
Summary of Implementation Models
The models described here offer supporting systems for the external and internal
components of the integrated recommendations. Externally, the collective impact model delivers
the necessary elements to ignite powerful coordinated action among the SCC service provider
agencies to achieve greater results than if each agency attempted to create its own voter
engagement effort. Table 6 provides the conditions for SCC agencies to implement a collective
impact model. Internally, nudge theory enables SCC clients inside the agencies to self-determine
within a choice architecture which of the KMO based voter engagement programs they will
select. The messages produced in a nudge context are for the benefit of the clients within the
agencies. Table 7 provides recommendations for practice using the nudge theory for change.
These evidence-based models are potent frameworks well-suited to deliver successful outcomes.

84
Limitations and Delimitations
A study’s limitations are issues related to the study that are beyond a researcher’s control
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Conversely, the authors describe delimitations as issues within the
researcher’s control that are controlled with a well-designed study protocol. Accepting and
documenting the presence of a study’s limitations demonstrates to the reader that a critical
internal assessment of the design exposed and identified any assumptions that could have
affected the results (Price & Murnan, 2004).
The review of literature for this dissertation found that prior research relied almost
exclusively on the interpretation of care givers, family, and service providers to generate data
about the experiences of developmentally disabled persons with voting and elections. Shifting
the lens in pursuit of deeper insights, this study sought to capture personal thoughts on current
voting behavior and future electoral engagement directly from developmentally disabled adults.
This decision was steered by the conceptual framework, as Clark and Estes (2008) stressed that
an individual’s views, perceptions, and expectations are critical factors controlling performance.
Moreover, capturing the perceptions of individuals as they consider all the internal and external
factors necessary to meet requirements and achieve stated goals, particularly descriptions of the
potential barriers, is an essential piece of the puzzle. However, the lack of foundational work and
protocols with proven reliability were a notable limitation on this dissertation study. The
researcher needed to develop interview questions without the benefit of a validated instrument.
An outline of questions created by Agran et al. (2016) to guide semi-structured interviews used
to study the views toward voting of a group of intellectually disabled adults partially informed
this dissertation. To address the limitation described here, the questions developed specifically

85
for this study were provided in advance to leaders of the SCC service provider agencies in order
to assess feasibility and appropriateness.
Ultimately, this approach resulted in a set of meaningful responses about the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors that influenced the behavior and decision-making of the
study participants during an election cycle that occurred less than 12 months earlier. Another
limitation of this study design, however, was the need to keep the interview to 30 minutes or less
and the lack of consistent probes to elicit additional details (clarification was the primary purpose
of probes during these interviews) in consideration of the developmentally disabled participants.
These limits resulted in a smaller dataset. The researcher believes that the direct one-on-one
interviews with the subject population resulted in a quality of quotes and viewpoints that
outweigh the limitations, but the leaner supply of data available for analysis and discussion of
findings needs to be acknowledged.
Recommendations for Future Research
The motivation for this dissertation study was the limited amount of previous research
capturing the opinions and experiences related to electoral engagement directly from
developmentally disabled adults. Hopefully, the findings presented here will generate interest in,
and suggest hypotheses for, additional studies seeking to understand how members of the
developmentally disabled population think and feel about expressing their voice at the ballot box
or through civic activism. Also, this study was constrained by a small number of participants
clustered within a single geographic area. With an eye toward results that are generalizable to
populations outside a single group of service providers, research designs that recruit larger
sample sizes from different areas of the United States and utilize a mixed methods approach have

86
the potential to produce a richer dataset and more meaningful insights of how developmentally
disabled persons view voting and elections.
Implications for Equity
The developmentally disabled live with many of the same concerns as the rest of the U.S.
population. They dream of better job opportunities, improved healthcare, and safer living
conditions. These individuals carry a belief that independence and self-determination should be
within their reach. Members of this community wish to be judged by their capacity to participate
in all aspects of society, not categorized by a condition that others assign as forced limitations on
their choices. Though this dissertation focused on voting rights and studied the voting behavior
of a group of developmentally disabled citizens, at its core, what is described here is a long-
running civil rights issue.
Through all of our nation’s history, those with disabilities suffered from negative
attitudes toward their conditions which caused them to face many social barriers. According to
the Anti-Defamation League (2018), it is a group often marginalized due to damaging
stereotypes and biases that resulted in segregation and forced isolation, while being subjected to
harmful classifications for generations. The disabled were not included in protections against
discrimination that other disadvantaged groups received through The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Though the disabled gained certain rights from legislation beginning with The Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 and leading up to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the focus on public
accommodations related to physical access such as staircase ramps and curb cutouts did not lead
to equal treatment in their daily lives. The reality is quite the opposite. According to a report by
the National Council on Disability (2017), people with disabilities make up roughly 12% of the
working age population but they total more than half of the entire population living in poverty;

87
students within this group graduate from high school at rates 20% lower than the rest of the U.S.
population; only 32% of working age people in this group are employed, compared with 73% of
all other Americans; and individuals with disabilities live in poverty at more than twice the rate
of the rest of the U.S. population.
These realities formed the basis of this dissertation. The disabled continue to face
prejudice and impediments to equity and inclusion. In fact, they are largely invisible and rarely,
if ever, mentioned as a disenfranchised segment of the population. The principles of equity and
inclusion in their fullest sense require equal rights in relation to education, employment, and
social programs that provide a path to fulfilling the dreams of all individuals and their families.
Equity and inclusion for the developmentally disabled is a fight for human rights, human dignity,
and self-advocacy. Electoral engagement offers this group an opportunity for a more powerful
voice and a pathway to participate in public affairs.
Conclusion
There is a thin body of research in the area of voting participation by the developmentally
disabled, and a literature review found only a handful of studies that captured data solely from
one-on-one interviews directly with members of this population. This study overcame several
challenges, which prior studies likely faced as well. For example, families and support providers
are often hesitant to provide access to developmentally disabled persons for data collection due
to a belief that it is not in the individual’s best interest (Bigby et al., 2019), while institutional
review boards have strict requirements when working with this type of vulnerable population.
Interview questions must be carefully crafted to achieve accurate self-report of experiences from
interview participants and follow-up prompts must remain short and contain only simple wording
(Stancliffe et al., 2014). Once granted access, there can be issues with scheduling and the

88
maximum length of each session must be strictly followed. Yet this study managed to produce
findings that furthers the exploration of electoral participation by developmentally disabled
adults, unpacking their human stories and describing their personal views on voting, civic
engagement, and inclusion.
It is estimated there are over 35 million people of voting age with disabilities in the
United States. Surveys administered over a 12-year period found that citizens with disabilities
were up to 21 percentage points less likely than non-disabled citizens to vote (Schur & Adya,
2013). Using several methods to calculate the voting gap, Schur (2013) suggested an additional 3
million voters with disabilities would add their voice on election day if they voted at a similar
rate as voters without disabilities. Those numbers result from an array of factors, including
physical, legal, and resource issues, but the personal choice to learn and participate should face
no impediments. Despite the limitations discussed here, this dissertation study contributes to the
existing literature through the investigation of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors that influence the participants’ voting behavior. Further work is needed to expand our
understanding of all issues that affect the choices made by the developmentally disabled in
relation to voting and to inform the design of support structures that have the potential to break
down existing barriers, increase participation, and give greater voice to this largely invisible
community so they can make the push toward equity and inclusion.

89
References
Abramson, P., & Aldrich, J. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. The
American Political Science Review, 76(3), 5025–21.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400188379
Adair, B., Ullenhag, A., Keen, D., Granlund, M., & Imms, C. (2015). The effect of interventions
aimed at improving participation outcomes for children with disabilities: a systematic
review. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology; Dev Med Child Neurol, 57(12).
https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12809
Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2013). “You can’t vote—you’re mentally incompetent”: Denying
democracy to people with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 38(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807047006
Agran, M., MacLean, W., & Andren, K. (2015). “I never thought about it”: Teaching people with
intellectual disability to vote. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 50(4), 388–396.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_proquest_jour
nals_1736799924
Agran, M., MacLean, J., & Kitchen, K. (2016). “My voice counts, too”: Voting participation
among individuals with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 54(4), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-54.4.285
Agran, M., Root-Elledge, S. Moody, E., Ginn, H., & Estrada-Reynolds, V. (2020). Perceptions
of service providers regarding the agency and capacity of people with intellectual
disability to vote. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 55(1), 3–16.

90
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_proquest_jour
nals_2367743314
Albertson, B., & Busby, J. W. (2015). Hearts or minds? Identifying persuasive messages on
climate change. Research & Politics, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015577712
Alwell, M., & Cobb, B. (2009). Functional life skills curricular interventions for youth with
disabilities: A systematic review. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(2),
82–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809336656
Anaby, D., Law, M., Coster, W., Bedell, G., Khetani, M., Avery, L., & Teplicky, R. (2014). The
mediating role of the environment in explaining participation of children and youth with
and without disabilities across home, school, and community. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation; Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 95(5), 908–917.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.01.005
Anfara Jr, V., & Mertz, N. (2014). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. SAGE
Publishing.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99101759579
9703731
Ansolabehere, S. (2009). Effects of identification requirements on voting: Evidence from the
experiences of voters on election day. PS, Political Science & Politics, 42(1), 127–130.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096509090313
Anti-Defamation League. (2018). A brief history of the disability rights movement. ADL.
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/disability-rights-movement

91
Arceneaux, K. (2007). I’m asking for your support: The effects of personally delivered campaign
messages on voting decisions and opinion formation. Quarterly Journal of Political
Science, 2(1), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00006003
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99100274135
9703731
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99102212800
9703731
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_askewsholts_v
lebooks_9780191515378
Barreto, M., Nuno, S., & Sanchez, G. (2007). Voter ID requirements and the
disenfranchisements of Latino, Black and Asian voters [Conference session]. American

92
Political Science Association Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.175.23&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Barnes, S., & Kaase, M. (1979). Political action: mass participation in five Western
democracies. Sage Publications.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99100162465
9703731
Bartels, L. (1998). Bartels, L. (1998). Where the ducks are: Voting power in a party system. In J.
Geer (Ed.), Politicians and party politics (pp. 43–79). Johns Hopkins University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Hm5TjJJ7qNsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA43&dq
=%22Where+the+Ducks+Are:+Voting+Power+in+a+Party+System%22+bartels&ots=Z
B2j1fWH8I&sig=oXB6dR8miunOQRES82wq7PSuGos#v=onepage&q=%22Where%20t
he%20Ducks%20Are%3A%20Voting%20Power%20in%20a%20Party%20System%22%
20bartels&f=false
Beckman, L. (2014). The accuracy of electoral regulations: The case of the right to vote by
people with cognitive impairments. Social Policy and Society, 13(2), 221–233.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746413000407
Bell, D., & Horsler, K. (2003). The right to vote. Learning Disability Practice, 6(6), 30–38.
https://doi.org/10.7748/ldp.6.6.30.s22
Bell, D., McKay, C., & Phillips, K. (2001). Overcoming the barriers to voting experienced by
people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 122–
127. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-3156.2001.00127.x

93
Bentele, K., & O’Brien, E. (2013). New Jim Crow 2.0: Why states adopt restrictive voter access
policies. Perspectives on Politics, 11(4): 1088–116.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592713002843
Berinsky, A. & Kinder, D. (2006). Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding
the Kosovo crisis. The Journal of Politics, 68(3), 640–656.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00451.x
Bernstein, J. (2008). Cultivating civic competence: Simulations and skill-building in an
introductory government class. Journal of Political Science Education, 4(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160701815996
Bigby, C., Whiteside, M., & Douglas, J. (2019). Providing support for decision making to adults
with intellectual disability: Perspectives of family members and workers in disability
support services. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 44(4), 396-409.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2017.1378873
Brady, H., Schlozman, K., & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational
expectations and the recruitment of political activists. The American Political Science
Review, 93(1), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585767
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2011). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories
and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99101809341
9703731
Borge, J. (2017). Tuning in to formal politics: Mock elections at school and the intention of
electoral participation among first time voters in Norway. Politics (Manchester,
England), 37(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395716674730

94
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. (1954). The voter decides. Row, Peterson, and Company.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015005319135&view=1up&seq=205
Campbell, D. (2004). Acts of faith: Churches and political engagement. Political Behavior,
26(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:POBE.0000035961.78836.5f
Caputo, M. (2012, May 31). Feds to Florida: Halt non-citizen voter purge - the Justice
Department told Florida election officials that they must stop their non-citizen voters
purge. Florida argues it is not violating any law. The Miami Herald.
https://miamiherald.newspapers.com/search/#query=election&ymd=2012-05-31
Carpenter, J., Green, M., & Fitzgerald, K. (2018). Mind-reading motivation: Individual
differences in desire to perspective-take influence narrative processing. Scientific Study of
Literature, 8(2), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.18011.car
Caruson, K. (2005). So, you want to run for elected office? How to engage students in the
campaign process without leaving the classroom. PS, Political Science & Politics, 38(2),
305–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096505056532
Chamberlain, A. (2012). A time-series analysis of external efficacy. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 76(1), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr064
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
https://books.google.com/books?id=v_GGAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=YXVrK8CAd0
&dq=constructing%20grounded%20theory%20charmaz&lr&pg=PA129#v=onepage&q=
constructing%20grounded%20theory%20charmaz&f=false
Chong, D. & Druckman, J. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1),
103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

95
Citrin, J., Schickler, E., & Sides, J. (2003). “What if everyone voted? Simulating the impact of
increased turnout in Senate elections.” American Journal of Political Science 47(1), 75–
90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00006
Claassen, R., & Povtak, A. (2010). The Christian right thesis: Explaining longitudinal change in
participation among Evangelical Christians. The Journal of Politics, 72(1), 2–15.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990430
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99102126091
9703731
Clark, R., & Saxberg, B. (2018). Engineering motivation using the belief-expectancy-control
framework. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 2(1),4–32.
http://riverapublications.com/assets/files/pdf_files/engineering-motivation-using-the-
belief-expectancy-control-framework.pdf
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99101093649
9703731
Condon, H. & Holleque, M. (2013). Entering politics: General self-efficacy and voting behavior
among young people. Political Psychology, 34(2), 167–181.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12019
Creswell, J. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publishing.
Creswell, J., & Creswell, J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE Publishing.

96
Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99100324840
9703731
Deitz, J. & Boeckelman, K. (2012). Simulating 2008: A mock presidential election’s impact on
civic engagement. PS, Political Science & Politics, 45(4), 743–747.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512000716
Dorn, D. (1989). Simulation games: One more tool on the pedagogical shelf. Teaching
Sociology, 17(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1317920
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Education.com.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Ellis, A. (2009). The cost of the vote: poll taxes, voter identification laws, and the price of
democracy. Denver University Law Review, 86(3), 1023–1068.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_gale_infotraca
cademiconefile_A203993826
Finkel, S. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis.
American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 891–913. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111186
Finley, A. (2011). Civic learning and democratic engagements: A review of the literature on
civic engagement in postsecondary education. Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.423.1935&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data
analysis. SAGE Publishing.

97
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99104255091
4803731
Fukuyama, F. (2018). Why national identity matters. Journal of Democracy, 29(4), 5–15.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2018.0058
Gerber, A., Green, D., & Shachar, R. (2003). Voting may be habit‐forming: Evidence from a
randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 540–550.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00038
Gerber, A., Huber, G., Doherty, D., Dowling, C., & Hill, S. (2013). Who wants to discuss vote
choices with others? Polarization in preferences for deliberation. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 77(2), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs057
Gerrig, R. and Egidi, G. (2003). Cognitive psychological foundations of narrative experiences. In
D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences (pp. 33–55). CSLI
Publications.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99101481231
9703731
Gibbs. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd edition.). SAGE Publishing.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99104343101
4103731
Gilens, M. (2005). Inequality and democratic responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 69(5),
778–796. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi058
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine.

98
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99104339090
8403731
Griffin, J., & Newman, B. (2012). One person, one vote? Why citizens’ votes carry unequal
weight despite Baker and how it matters. (Law Review Symposium 2011: Baker v. Carr
After 50 Years: Appraising the Reapportionment Revolution). Case Western Reserve
Law Review, 62(4).
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_gale_infotraca
cademiconefile_A307917667
Hajnal, Z., Lajevardi, N., & Nielson, L. (2017). Voter identification laws and the suppression of
minority votes. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1086/688343
Hartman, E. (2013). No values, no democracy: The essential partisanship of a civic engagement
movement. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 19(2), 58–71.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_gale_infotraca
cademiconefile_A327813720
Johnson, R., & Christensen, L. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. SAGE Publishing.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99104261307
0503731
Jones, K. (1998). What are we talking about? Simulation & Gaming, 29(3), 314–320.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878198293006
Jones-Correa, M., & Leal, D. (2001). Political participation: Does religion matter? Political
Research Quarterly, 54(4), 751–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400404

99
Kam, D., & Lantigua, J. (2012, November 25). Former Florida GOP leaders say voter
suppression was reason they pushed new election law. Palm Beach Post.
https://palmbeachpost.newsbank.com/search?text=former%20florida%20GOP&content_
added=&date_from=11/25/12&date_to=11/25/12&pub%5B0%5D=PBPB
Keeley, H., Redley, M., Holland, A., & Clare, I. (2008). Participation in the 2005 general
election by adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 52(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2007.00991.x
Kovenock, R., & Roberson, B. (2011). Non-partisan “get-out-the-vote” efforts and policy
outcomes. European Journal of Political Economy, 27(4), 728–739.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268011000309?casa_token=84I7
byC1zYEAAAAA:7VMHUYY2pZonjffgudPOfDq3-
hkip_jcDJwdnDk4Ka08wZ87iMP1qN4BMiVJeWMLHdQRco5OyQ
Kromphardt, C., Smith, J., & Starling, A. (2019). Group identification and support for the
Supreme Court: Evidence from Evangelical Protestants. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, 58(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12635
Lanning, K. (2008). Democracy, voting, and disenfranchisement in the United States: A social
psychological perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 64(3), 431–446.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00571.x
Lazar, J. (2019). Segregated ballots for voters with disabilities? An analysis of policies and use
of the express vote ballot marking device. Election Law Journal, 18(4), 39–322.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://usc.illiad.oclc.org/illiad/pdf/910972.pdf__;!!LIr3w8kk
_Xxm!4FVy7pGoqnKyN3tnz3ahA_cgUQajkk_DKjAEZpyxm0SPIGZi2Cf3Jxhqe6dH5g
$

100
Lewis, G. (2005). Same-sex marriage and the 2004 presidential election. Political Science and
Politics, 38(2), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096505056295
Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma presidential
address, American political science association, 1996. The American Political Science
Review, 91(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952255
Liu, B., Austin, S., & Orey, B. (2009). Church attendance, social capital, and black voting
participation. Social Science Quarterly, 90(3), 576–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6237.2009.00632.x
Livingston, S., & Nassetta, J. (2018). Framing and strategic narratives: Synthesis and analytical
framework. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 38(2), 101–110.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2018.0020
Margolis, M. (2020). Who wants to make America great again? Understanding Evangelical
support for Donald Trump. Politics and Religion, 13(1), 89–118.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048319000208
Martin, P. (2003). Voting’s rewards: Voter turnout, attentive publics, and Congressional
allocation of federal money. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 110–127.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00008
Mason, L. (2017). The significance of Dewey's Democracy and education for 21st-century
education. Education and Culture, 33(1), 41–57.
https://doi.org/10.5703/educationculture.33.1.0041
Mattila, A. (2000). The Role of narratives in the advertising of experiential services. Journal of
Service Research: JSR, 3(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050031003

101
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publishing.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99100040742
9703731
Mayer, R. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99102214731
9703731
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99104244290
2003731
Mertens, D. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity
with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. SAGE Publishing.
Miller, D. (2019). The mystery of evangelical Trump support? Constellations, 26(1), 43–58.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12351
Moeller, J., de Vreese, C., Esser, F., & Kunz, R. (2014). Pathway to political participation: The
influence of online and offline news media on internal efficacy and turnout of first-time
voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 689–700.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213515220
Monk-Turner, E. (2020). White Evangelical activism and the gender divide in the 2016
presidential election. Society, 57(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-019-00438-6

102
Monson, J., & Oliphant, J. (2007). Microtargeting and the instrumental mobilization of religious
conservatives. In A matter of faith: religion in the 2004 presidential election (pp. 95–
119). Brookings Institution Press.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_askewsholts_v
lebooks_9780815713296
Morgan, D. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for mixed methods research. Integrating
qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. SAGE Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544304533
National Council on Disability. (2017). Highlighting disability/poverty connection, NCD urges
Congress to alter federal policies that disadvantage people with disabilities.
https://ncd.gov/newsroom/2017/disability-poverty-connection-2017-progress-report-
release
National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A crucible
moment: College learning & democracy’s future, a national call to action. Association of
American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/crucible
Nelson, J. (2017). Access to power: Politics and the urban poor in developing nations.. Princeton
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400885978
Nickerson, D. (2005). Partisan mobilization using volunteer phone banks and door hangers. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 601(1), 10–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205278200
Parker, K., Murty, K., Lakshminath, A., & Tilles, D. (2018). Using microaggression theory to
examine U.S. voter suppression tactics. Negro Educational Review, 69(1-4), 101–143.

103
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_proquest_jour
nals_2207835636
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). SAGE Publishing.
Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4
th
ed.). SAGE Publishing.
Pazzaglia, A., Stafford, E., & Rodriguez, M. (2016). Survey methods for educators: Selecting
samples and administering surveys REL 2016-160. Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567752
Petrenchik, T., & King, G. (2011). Pathways to positive development: Childhood participation in
everyday places and activities. In S. Bazyk (Ed.), Mental health promotion, prevention,
and intervention with children and youth: A guiding framework for occupational therapy
(pp. 71-94). AOTA Press.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99100073571
9603731
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Harvard
Business School Press.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99101596880
9703731
Price, J. & Murnan, J. (2004). Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them.
American Journal of Health Education, 35(2), 66–67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2004.10603611
Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in
America. PS: Political Science and Politics, (28), 664–83.
https://doi.org/10.2307/420517

104
Rogers, T., & Middleton, J. (2015). Are ballot initiative outcomes influenced by the campaigns
of independent groups? A precinct-randomized field experiment showing that they are.
Political Behavior, 37, 567–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9282-4
Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America.
Longman.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99100417449
9703731
Rubin, I., & Crocker, A. (1989). Developmental disabilities: delivery of medical care for
children and adults. Lea & Febiger.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99100239931
9703731
Rule S. (2014). Voting behavior. In A.C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and
well-being research (pp. 6985–6987). Springer, Dordrecht.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_3181
Salkind, N. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (5th edition). SAGE
Publishing.
Saunders, M., Bristow, A., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2019). Understanding research
philosophy and approaches to theory development. In M. Saunders, P. Lewis, & A.
Thornhill, (Eds.), Research methods for business students, 8th edition (pp. 128–171).
Pearson Education.
Schriner, K., Ochs, L., & Shields, T. (2000). Democratic dilemmas: Notes on the ADA and
voting rights of people with cognitive and emotional impairments. Berkeley Journal of
Employment and Labor Law, 21(1), 437–472.

105
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_proquest_jour
nals_231181560
Schur, L., Shields, T., & Schriner, K. (2003). Can I make a difference? Efficacy, employment,
and disability. Political Psychology, 24(1), 119–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-
895X.00319
Schur, L. (2013). Reducing obstacles to voting for people with disabilities [White paper].
Presidential Commission on Election Administration.
https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files/2013/08/DisabiIity-and-Voting-WhitePaper-for-
Presidential-Commission- Schur.docx_.pdf.
Schur, L., & Adya, M. (2013). Sidelined or mainstreamed? Political participation and attitudes of
people with disabilities in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 94(3), 811–839.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00885.x
Schur, L., Kruse, D., & Blanck, P. (2013). People with disabilities: Sidelined or mainstreamed?
In People with Disabilities. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511843693
Smidt, C. (1999). Religion and civic engagement: A comparative analysis. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 565(1), 176–192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000271629956500112
Smith, L., & Walker, L. (2013). Belonging, believing, and group behavior: Religiosity and
voting in American presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 399–413.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912443873
Stancliffe, R., Wilson, N., Bigby, C., Balandin, S., & Craig, D. (2014). Responsiveness to self‐
report questions about loneliness: a comparison of mainstream and intellectual disability‐

106
specific instruments. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 58(5), 399-405.
https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1111/jir.12024
Syvertsen, A., Stout, M., Flanagan, C., Mitra, D., Oliver, M., & Sundar, S. (2009). Using
elections as teachable Moments: A randomized evaluation of the student voices civic
education program. American Journal of Education, 116(1), 33–67.
https://doi.org/10.1086/605100
Taylor, H., Krane, D., & Orkis, K. (2010). The ADA, 20 years later. New York: Harris
Interactive (conducted for the Kessler Foundation and National Organization on
Disability).
Thaler, R. & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and
happiness (revised and expanded edition.). EBSCOhost. Penguin Books.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99102228446
9703731
The Center for An Accessible Society (n.d.). People with disabilities and voting.
http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/voting/.
UN General Assembly. (2007, January 24). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities:
Resolution/adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/61/106.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/45f973632.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Current population survey, population characteristics reports and
detailed tables.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/

107
van Hees, S., Boeije, H., & de Putter, I. (2019). Voting barriers and solutions: the experiences of
people with disabilities during the Dutch national election in 2017. Disability &
Society, 34(5), 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1566052
Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality.
Harper & Row.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99100014851
9703731
Verba, S., Nie, N., & Kim, J. (1978). Participation and political equality: A seven-nation
comparison. Cambridge University Press.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99100136604
9703731
Verba, S., Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in
American politics. Harvard University Press.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99100479352
9703731
Wald, K., Owen, D., & Hill, S. (1990). Political cohesion in churches. The Journal of Politics,
52(1), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131425
Wappett, M. (2002). Self-determination and disability rights: Lessons from the women’s
movement. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 13(2), 120–125.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_proquest_jour
nals_211181329

108
Ward, A., Baker, P. M. A., & Moon, N. W. (2009). Ensuring the enfranchisement of people with
disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(2), 79–92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207308325996
Waterstone, M. (2004). Disability and voting—The (as of yet) unfulfilled potential of the ADA
and Rehabilitation Act. Information Technology and Disabilities, 10(2).
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_gale_infotraca
cademiconefile_A207705607
Weis, C. (2005). Why the Help America Vote Act fails to help disabled Americans vote. New
York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 8(1-2), 421–456.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_gale_infotraca
cademiconefile_A171864665
White, A., Nathan, N., Faller, J., & White, A. (2015). What do I need to vote? Bureaucratic
discretion and discrimination by local election officials. American Political Science
Review, 109(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000562
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Willis, D., McGlade, I., Gallagher, M., & Menabney, C. (2016). Voting and the Scottish
referendum: perspectives of people with intellectual disabilities and their family and paid
carers. Disability & Society, 31(7), 914–928.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1211002
Wong, J. (2018). Immigrants, Evangelicals, and politics in an era of demographic change.
Russell Sage Foundation.

109
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99104299062
0003731

Appendix A: State Laws Affecting the Voting Rights of People With Mental Disabilities
State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Alabama No person who is mentally
incompetent shall be qualified to
vote, unless the disability has
been removed. ALA. CONST. art.
8, § 177(b).
Persons disqualified under the
Constitution are not entitled to
vote. ALA. CODE § 17-3- 30.
In a limited guardianship,
the partially
incapacitated person
retains all legal rights
which the court has not
seen fit to delegate to the
limited guardian.
Comment to ALA.
CODE § 26-2A-105.
Consumers of
mental health
services have the
same general
rights as other
citizens of
Alabama,
including the right
to vote and
participate in the
political process.
ALA. CODE §
22-56-4(a)(5).
Persons with
developmental
disabilities and
traumatic brain
injury have the right
to vote and
participate in the
political process,
subject to
applicable laws.
ALA. CODE § 38-
9C-4(7).
Persons with
developmental
disabilities and
traumatic brain
injury are presumed
competent until a
court determines
otherwise. ALA.
CODE § 38-9C-
4(5).

110

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Alaska No person may vote who has been
judicially determined to be of
"unsound mind" unless the
disability has been removed.
ALASKA CONST. art. 5, § 2.
The judicial determination of
unsoundness of mind necessary to
disqualify a mentally impaired
individual from voting must be
specifically raised in a
guardianship hearing or raised in
a separate proceeding. Alaska
Att'y Gen. Op. (Inf.) No. 123
(Aug. 28, 1992).
Guardian may not prohibit
a ward from registering
or voting. ALASKA
STAT. §
13.26.150(e)(6).
An incapacitated person for
whom a guardian has
been appointed is not
presumed to be
incompetent and retains
all legal and civil rights
except those that have
been expressly limited
by court order or have
been specifically granted
to the guardian by the
court. ALASKA STAT.
§ 13.26.090.

Persons undergoing
mental health
evaluation or
treatment may not
be denied the
right to vote.
Undergoing court-
ordered mental
health treatment is
not a
determination of
legal incapacity.
ALASKA STAT.
§ 47.30.835(a)(b).

111

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Arizona No person who is adjudicated an
incapacitated person shall be
qualified to vote. ARIZ. CONST.
art. 7, § 2(C).
The County Recorder shall cancel a
voter's registration if they are
adjudicated an incapacitated
person under ARIZ. REV. STAT.
§ 14-5101. ARIZ. REV. STAT. §
16- 165.
Not qualified to register to vote if
adjudicated an incapacitated
person. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 16-
101(A)(6).
Voter registration
cancelled if a person
under guardianship is
committed as an "insane
person" in a court
proceeding. ARIZ. REV.
STAT. § 16- 165(C).
Incapacitated person
defined as any person
who is impaired by
reason of mental illness,
mental deficiency,
mental disorder,
physical illness or
disability, chronic use of
drugs, chronic
intoxication or other
cause, except minority,
to the extent that he
lacks sufficient
understanding or
capacity to make or
communicate
responsible decisions
regarding his person.
Persons undergoing
court-ordered
mental health
evaluation or
treatment are not
determined to be
legally
incompetent.
Persons undergoing
mental health
evaluation or
treatment may not
be denied the
right to vote.
ARIZ. REV.
STAT. § 36-
506(A).

112

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Arizona
(cont.)
In cases of limited
guardianship only, a
person is not deemed an
incapacitated person for
purposes of voting if the
person files a petition,
has a hearing and the
judge determines by
clear and convincing
evidence that the person
retains sufficient
understanding to
exercise the right to
vote. ARIZ. REV.
STAT. § 14-5101(1).

113

Arkansas Registration to vote cancelled if a
person is adjudged mentally
incompetent by a court of
competent jurisdiction. ARK.
CONST. AMEND. 51, § 11(a)(6).
If guardian appointed prior
to Oct. 1, 2001, guardian
must obtain express
court approval to
prohibit voting. ARK.
CODE ANN. § 28-65-
302(a)(1)(E).
No guardian appointed on
or after Oct. 1, 2001
shall authorize an
incapacitated person to
vote without filing a
petition and receiving
express court approval.
ARK. CODE ANN.
§28-65-302(a)(2)(E).
An incapacitated person for
whom a guardian has
been appointed is not
presumed to be
incompetent and retains
all legal and civil rights
except those which have
been expressly limited
by court order or have
been specifically granted
by order to the guardian
by the court. ARK.
CODE ANN. § 28-65-
106.

No person shall be
deemed
incompetent to
vote solely by
reason of that
person's
admission to a
mental health
services system.
ARK. CODE
ANN. § 20-47-
220(b).

114

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
California The Legislature shall provide for the
disqualification of electors while
mentally incompetent CAL.
CONST. art. 2, § 4.
A person shall be deemed mentally
incompetent, and therefore
disqualified from voting, if (i) the
court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that the
person cannot communicate, with
or without reasonable
accommodations, a desire to
participate in the voting process
and (ii) a conservator is appointed
or the person has pled or been
found not guilty by reason of
insanity. CAL. ELEC. CODE §
2208(a).

Person under
conservatorship is
disqualified from voting
if court finds by clear
and convincing evidence
that he or she cannot
communicate, with or
without reasonable
accommodations, a
desire to participate in
the voting process; must
review their capability
of communicating, with
or without reasonable
accommodations, a
desire to vote in the
voting process during
the yearly or biennial
review of
conservatorship. CAL.
PROB. CODE § 1910;
CAL. ELEC. CODE §
2208 and § 2209(a).
Conservatorship
report shall
include
recommendation
for or against the
disqualification of
the person from
voting. CAL.
WEL. & INST.
CODE § 5357(c).

115

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
California
(cont.)
If the proceeding under the Welfare
and Institutions Code is heard by
a jury, the jury shall unanimously
find that the person cannot
communicate, with or without
reasonable accommodations, a
desire to participate in the voting
process before the person shall be
disqualified from voting. CAL.
ELEC. CODE § 2208(b).
Conservatee's capability of
communicating, with or without
reasonable accommodations, a
desire to vote in the voting
process shall be reviewed yearly
or biennially. CAL. ELEC. CODE
§ 2209(a).

116

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Colorado No constitutional disqualification
provision.
Right to vote is not lost because of
confinement in a state institution
for persons with mental illness.
COLO. REV. STAT. § 1-2-
103(5).
People receiving
evaluation, care,
or treatment for
mental illness
shall be given the
opportunity to
exercise his right
to register and to
vote in primary
and general
elections. The
agency or facility
providing
evaluation, care,
or treatment shall
assist such
persons, upon
their request, to
obtain voter
registration forms
and mail ballots
and to comply
with any other
prerequisite for
voting. COLO.
REV. STAT. §
27-65-120.

Each person with
intellectual and
developmental
disabilities
receiving services
who is eligible to
vote under the law
has the right to vote
and all service
agencies should
assist those
receiving services
with registration,
obtaining mail
ballots, complying
with other
requirements that
are prerequisite to
voting, and voting.
COLO. REV.
STAT. § 25.5- 10-
225.
117

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Connecticut No constitutional disqualification
provision.
No mentally incompetent person
shall be admitted as an elector.
CONN. GEN. STAT. § 9-12(a).
The guardian or
conservator of an
individual may file a
petition in probate court
to determine such
individual's competency
to vote in a primary,
referendum or election.
CONN. GEN. STAT. §
45a- 703.
Persons under
hospitalization or
treatment for
psychiatric
disabilities may
vote unless such
patient has been
declared
specifically
incapable of
voting and
appointed a
conservator.
CONN. GEN.
STAT. § 17a-541.

118

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Delaware No person adjudged mentally
incompetent… or incapacitated
under the provisions of this
Constitution from voting, shall
enjoy the right of an elector. DEL.
CONST. art. 5, § 2.
No person adjudged mentally
incompetent... shall be a qualified
voter. For purposes of this
chapter, the term "adjudged
mentally incompetent" refers to a
specific finding in a judicial
guardianship or equivalent
proceeding, based on clear and
convincing evidence that the
individual has a severe cognitive
impairment which precludes
exercise of basic voting judgment.
15 DEL. CODE ANN. § 1701.

119

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
District of
Columbia
Not a qualified elector if legally
incompetent as adjudged by a
court of law. D.C. CODE §1-
1001.02(E).
Any finding that a person
is incapacitated is not
considered a finding of
legal incompetence.
Such person retains all
legal rights and abilities
other than those
expressly limited or
curtailed in the order of
appointment of a
guardian or in a
protective proceeding, or
subsequent order of the
court. D.C. CODE § 21-
2004.
A person admitted or
committed for
treatment
pursuant to this
chapter may not,
by reason of the
admission or
treatment, be
denied the right to
vote unless the
person has been
adjudicated
incompetent and
has not been
restored to legal
capacity. D.C.
CODE § 21-
564(a).

The board of elections
shall take
reasonable steps to
facilitate voting by
blind persons and
persons with
physical and
developmental
disabilities qualified
to vote and to
authorize such
persons to cast a
ballot with the
assistance of a
person of their own
choosing. D.C.
CODE § 1-1001.05.
120

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Florida Not qualified to vote if adjudicated,
in this or any other state, to be
mentally incompetent, until the
disability has been removed.
FLA. CONST. art. 6, § 4(a).
A resident of a residential facility
who has reached his eighteenth
birthday and is otherwise
qualified to vote is eligible to
vote, provided such person has
not been adjudicated mentally
incompetent. Att'y Gen. Op. No.
074-15 (Jan. 9, 1974).
Not entitled to vote if adjudicated
mentally incapacitated with
regard to voting in this or any
other state and right not restored.
FLA. STAT. § 97.041(2)(a).

Right to vote can be
removed if a person is
determined to be
incapacitated, but right
may not be delegated to
a guardian. FLA. STAT.
§ 744.3215(2)(b).
Persons must be evaluated
for voting
disqualification at
guardianship
proceedings. FLA.
STAT. §
744.331(3)(g)(2).
Any patient who is
eligible to vote
has the right to
vote and the
department shall
establish rules to
enable patients to
obtain voter
registration forms,
applications for
vote-by- mail
ballots, and vote-
by- mail ballots.
FLA. STAT. §
394.459(7). [To
take effect 7/1/16]
No otherwise qualified
person shall, by
reason of having a
developmental
disability, be denied
the right to vote in
public elections.
FLA. STAT. §
393.13(3)(j).
121

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Georgia A person adjudicated mentally
incompetent cannot register,
remain registered, or vote unless
the disability has been removed.
GA. CONST. art. 2, § 1, ¶ III(b);
GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-216(b).
A person must be adjudicated
mentally incompetent before the
right to vote is removed. Ga. Att'y
Gen. Op. No. 95-27 (1995).
The appointment of a
guardian is not a
determination regarding
the right of the ward to
vote. GA. CODE ANN.
§ 29-4-20(b).
Patients may vote if
otherwise eligible
under state law.
The
superintendent or
regional state
hospital
administrator of
each facility shall
permit and
reasonably assist
patients 1) to
obtain voter
registration forms,
applications for
absentee ballots,
and absentee
ballots; 2) to
comply with other
requirements
which are
prerequisite for
voting; and 3) to
vote by absentee
ballot if
necessary. GA.
CODE ANN. §
37-3-144.

Clients may vote if
otherwise eligible.
The superintendent
or regional state
hospital
administrator of
each facility shall
permit and
reasonably assist
clients: 1) to obtain
voter registration
forms, applications
for absentee ballots,
and absentee
ballots; 2) to
comply with other
requirements which
are prerequisite for
voting; and 3) to
vote by absentee
ballot if necessary.
GA. CODE ANN. §
37-4-104.
122

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Hawaii No person who is "non compos
mentis" shall be qualified to vote.
HAW. CONST. art. 2, § 2.
Whenever the clerk receives from
the department of health or any
informing agency, information
of… adjudication as an
incapacitated person under the
provisions of chapter 560… the
clerk shall thereupon make such
investigation as may be necessary
to prove or disprove the
information, giving the person
concerned, if available, notice and
an opportunity to be heard.
If after the investigation the clerk
finds that the person is…
incapacitated to the extent that the
person lacks sufficient
understanding or capacity to make
or communicate responsible
decisions concerning voting… the
clerk shall remove the name of
the person from the register.
HAW. REV. STAT. § 11-23(a).

Definition of mental
incapacity as referenced
in electoral statutes:
"Incapacitated person"
means an individual
who, for reasons other
than being a minor, is
unable to receive and
evaluate information or
make or communicate
decisions to such an
extent that the individual
lacks the ability to meet
essential requirements
for physical health,
safety, or self-care, even
with appropriate and
reasonably available
technological assistance.
HAW. REV. STAT. §
560:5-102.
Admission to
psychiatric
facility itself does
not modify or
vary the right to
vote. HAW. REV.
STAT. § 334-61.

123

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Idaho No disqualification statute. Mental health
facility cannot
deny right to vote
unless right
limited by prior
court order. This
right shall not be
denied by the
director of the
facility under any
circumstances.
IDAHO CODE §
66-346(a)(6) &
(c).

Developmentally
disabled persons
have the right to
vote unless limited
by prior court order.
IDAHO CODE §
66- 412(3)(j).
124

Illinois No disqualification statute.
Every patient of any hospital or
mental institution in this State
shall be deemed a resident of the
town, city, village or election
district or precinct in which he
resided next prior to becoming a
patient of such hospital or mental
institution.
However, the term "hospital" does
not include skilled nursing
facilities. 10 ILL. COMP. STAT.
5/3-4.
Any person who is a resident of
certain certified and licensed
facilities or "community-
integrated living arrangements"
for 30 days or longer, and who is
a U.S. citizen and has resided in
this State and election district 30
days preceding any election shall
be entitled to vote in the election
district in which any such home
or community-integrated living
arrangement in which he is
located, provided that he shall
declare upon oath that it was his
bona fide intention at the time he
entered said home or community-
integrated living arrangement to
become a resident thereof. 10
ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3- 3.

125

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Illinois (cont). “Community-integrated living
arrangement” means a living
arrangement certified by a
community mental health or
developmental services agency
under [the] Act where 8 or fewer
recipients with mental illness or
recipients with a developmental
disability who reside under the
supervision of the agency. 210
ILL. COMP. STAT. 135/3(d).

Indiana No disqualification provision or
statute.

126

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Iowa A person adjudged mentally
incompetent to vote or a person
convicted of any infamous crime
shall not be entitled to the
privilege of an elector. IOWA
CONST. art. 2, § 5.
A person who is incompetent to vote
is disqualified from registering
and voting. Certification by the
clerk of the district court that has
found the person no longer
incompetent shall qualify such
person to vote again if otherwise
eligible. IOWA CODE ANN. §
48A.6(2).
"Person who is incompetent to vote"
means a person with an
intellectual disability who has
been found to lack the mental
capacity to vote in a proceeding to
appoint a guardian. IOWA CODE
ANN. § 48A.2(3).
When a guardian is
appointed for a person
based upon mental
incapacity of the
proposed ward because
the proposed ward is a
person with an
"intellectual disability",
the court shall make a
separate determination
as to the ward's
competency to vote. The
court shall find a ward
incompetent to vote only
upon determining that
the person lacks
sufficient mental
capacity to comprehend
and exercise the right to
vote.
IOWA CODE ANN. §
633.556.

127

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Iowa (cont). A person under an order
appointing a guardian
which order found the
person incompetent to
vote may include a
request for reinstatement
of voting rights as part of
the termination
procedure or in a
separate determination.
IOWA CODE ANN. §
633.679.
The vote of a legal
incompetent shall be
cast by the guardian, or
other legal
representative along
with a written sworn
statement. IOWA CODE
ANN. § 468.513.

128

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Kansas No disqualification statute. Any voter unable to
mark such person's
ballot by reason of
a disability
(physical or mental
impairment that
substantially limits
one or more of the
major life activities
of such individual)
may request
assistance in voting.
KAN. STAT. ANN.
§ 25-2909.

129

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Kentucky "Idiots" and "insane" persons shall
not have the right to vote. KY.
CONST. § 145(3).
Anyone disqualified under the
Constitution may not vote. KY.
REV. STAT. ANN. § 116.025(1).
Individuals declared incompetent
solely for the purpose of
appointing committee to manage
their welfare checks would not be
disqualified from voting and are
prima facie qualified to vote. Ky.
Att'y Gen. Op. No. 73-700 (1973).
Person declared incompetent but not
declared "insane" would be
entitled to register to vote if
otherwise qualified. Ky. Att'y
Gen. Op. No. 76-549 (1976).

If a court finds that a
person is in need of a
guardianship or
conservatorship, the
court must specifically
determine whether the
person retains the right
to vote. KY. REV STAT.
ANN. § 387.580(3)(c).
Ward shall only be
deprived of right to vote
if the court separately
and specifically makes a
finding on the record.
KY. REV. STAT. ANN.
§ 387.590(10)

130

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Louisiana Right to vote may be suspended
while interdicted and judicially
declared mentally incompetent.
LA. CONST. art. 1, § 10(A).
An individual who has been fully
interdicted after being judicially
declared to be mentally
incompetent may not vote. An
individual who is only partially
interdicted is allowed to vote
unless there has been a specific
suspension of the right to vote.
LA. STAT. ANN. §
18:102(A)(2).
Patients in treatment
facilities shall not
be deprived of the
right to vote
because of status
as a patient in a
treatment facility.
The determination
of incompetence
shall be separate
from the judicial
determination of
whether the
person is a proper
subject for
involuntary
commitment. LA.
STAT. ANN. §
28:171(A) & (B).
Department of Health
and Hospitals shall
establish rules and
regulations to
ensure that persons
with intellectual or
cognitive
disabilities who
have not been
interdicted or
partially interdicted
with a specific
suspension of the
right to vote are
permitted to vote.
LA. STAT. ANN.
§ 18:102.1(B).

131

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Louisiana
(cont).
Voters who provide a
statement setting
forth the necessity
and reasons for
assistance on
election day and a
copy of current
documentation
showing eligibility
for benefits from the
office for citizens
with developmental
disabilities are
entitled to receive
assistance in voting
on election day,
provided that a
voter shall not
receive assistance in
voting unless he is
unable to read, or is
unable to vote
without assistance
because of a
physical disability,
including being
visually impaired.
LA. STAT. ANN. §
18:564(A) & (D).
132

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Louisiana
(cont.)
Any qualified voter
who submits a copy
of current
documentation
showing eligibility
for benefits from
the office for
citizens with
developmental
disabilities may
vote absentee by
mail. LA. STAT.
ANN. § 18:1303(I).

133

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Maine Persons under guardianship for
reason of mental illness shall not
be electors. ME. CONST. art. 2, §
1.
Held unconstitutional by Doe v.
Rowe, 156 F. Supp.2d 35 (D. Me.
2001): Found that procedures in
probate courts did not give
adequate due process to Plaintiffs
(were not told they would be
disenfranchised as a result of the
guardianship process). Also found
that the provision did not pass
strict scrutiny because there was
not factually valid correlation
between the ends and the means—
therefore art. 2, §1 violates the
Equal Protection Clause.
Individuals under guardianship may
vote. Department of the Secretary
of State Bureau of Corporations,
Elections and Commissions,
citing Doe v. Rowe
(http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/el
ec/voter- info/right.html).
Patients in
psychiatric
hospitals or
residential care
facilities have the
right to vote
unless the chief
administrative
officer determines
a need to restrict
due to medical
welfare, patient is
adjudicated
incompetent and
finding not
reversed, or other
statute or rule
restricts the right,
but not solely on
admission to a
psychiatric
hospital or
residential care
facility. ME.
REV. STAT.
ANN. tit. 34-B, §
3803(1)(A-C).

Persons with an
intellectual
disability or autism
may not be denied
the right to vote.
ME. REV. STAT.
ANN. tit. 34- B, §
5605(5).
134

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Maryland State may regulate or prohibit the
right to vote of a person under
care or guardianship for mental
disability. MD. CONST. art 1, § 4.
Individual not qualified to be a
registered voter if under
guardianship for mental disability
and a court of competent
jurisdiction has specifically found
by clear and convincing evidence
that the individual cannot
communicate, with or without
accommodations, a desire to
participate in the voting process.
MD. CODE ANN. ELEC. LAW §
3-102(b)(2).

A person may not
lose the right to
vote solely
because of
residency in a
facility or a
Veterans'
Administration
hospital for a
mental disorder.
MD. CODE
ANN. HEALTH-
GEN. § 10-704.
A person may not lose
the right to vote
because he or she
has or is receiving
services for a
developmental
disability. MD.
CODE ANN.
HEALTH-GEN. §
7-1004.
135

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Massachusetts Every citizen...excepting persons
under guardianship... shall have a
right to vote in such election.
MASS. CONST. art. 3.
Sec of State opinion interpreting
above provision to require a
specific finding of incompetence
to vote before disenfranchising
someone. Sec. of the Cmmw. of
Mass., Elections Div., See Persons
Subject to Guardianships That Do
Not Specifically Forbid Voting
Are Eligible Voters, 41 Pub. Rec.
5 (Jan. 1991).
Every citizen...not being a person
under guardianship...may have his
name entered on the list of voters
in such city or town, and may
vote therein in any such election.
MASS. ANN. LAWS ch. 51, § 1.

No person shall be
deprived of the
right to vote
solely on the basis
of admission or
commitment to a
mental health
facility. 104
CODE MASS.
REG. 27.13; Boyd
v. Board of
Registrars of
Voters, 334
N.E.2d 629
(Mass. 1975).

Michigan Legislature may exclude persons
based on mental incompetence.
MICH. CONST. art. 2, § 2.
No disqualification electoral statute.

136

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Minnesota Persons under guardianship,
"insane," or not mentally
competent are not entitled or
permitted to vote. MINN.
CONST. art. 7, § 1.
Read narrowly to avoid
unconstitutional burden on right to
vote by Minnesota Voters Alliance
v. Ritchie, 890 F. Supp.2d 1106,
1117 (D. Minn. 2012), aff’d, 720
F.3d 1029 (8
th
Cir. 2013).
Not eligible to vote if under
guardianship in which the court
order revokes the right to vote or
adjudicated legally incompetent.
MINN. STAT. § 201.014(2)(b) &
(c).

Unless otherwise ordered
by the court, the ward
under guardianship
retains the right to vote.
MINN. STAT. § 524.5-
313(c)(8).
Each year, within 30 days
after the anniversary
date of an appointment,
a guardian shall send or
deliver to the ward a
notice ... of the status of
the ward's right to vote.
MINN. STAT. § 524.5-
310(g).
Persons may not be
deprived of the
right to vote
because of
commitment or
treatment.
Commitment or
treatment of any
patient is not a
judicial
determination of
legal
incompetency.
MINN. STAT. §
253B.23(2)(a).
Appointment of the
commissioner as
conservator shall
not constitute a
judicial finding that
the developmentally
disabled person is
legally incompetent
except for the
restrictions which
the conservatorship
places on the
conservatee. The
appointment of a
conservator shall
not deprive the
conservatee of the
right to vote.
MINN. STAT. §
252A.12.
137

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Mississippi "Idiots" and "insane" persons are not
qualified electors. MISS. CONST.
art. 12, § 241.
Persons adjudicated to be "non
compos mentis" shall not be
entitled or permitted to vote.
MISS. CODE ANN. § 23-15-11.
Admission or
commitment to a
treatment facility
is not an
adjudication of
legal
incompetency and
does not deprive
the right to vote.
MISS. CODE
ANN. § 41-21-
101.

Admission or
commitment to a
treatment facility is
not an adjudication
of legal
incompetency and
does not deprive the
right to vote. MISS.
CODE ANN. § 41-
21-101.

138

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Missouri No person under guardianship of
estate or person because of mental
incapacity, where said guardian
was appointed by a court of
competent jurisdiction, nor person
involuntarily confined in a mental
institution pursuant to an
adjudication of a court of
competent jurisdiction can vote.
MO. CONST. art. VIII, § 2.
No person adjudicated incapacitated
is entitled to vote. MO. REV.
STAT. § 115.133(2).
Person who had been committed to
mental hospital many years earlier
but did not have a guardian was
not disqualified under the
constitutional provision. New v.
Corrough, 370 S.W.2d 323 (Mo.
1963).

139

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Montana Not a qualified elector if of
"unsound mind," as determined by
a court. MONT. CONST. art 4, §
2.
No person adjudicated to be of
unsound mind has the right to
vote, unless he has been restored
to capacity as provided by law.
MONT. CODE ANN. § 13-1-
111(3).

Nebraska Not qualified to vote if "non compos
mentis," unless restored to civil
rights. NE. CONST. art. 6, § 2.
No person is qualified to vote if
"non compos mentis," unless
restored to civil rights. NEB.
REV. STAT. § 32-313(1). "Non
compos mentis” defined as
“mentally incompetent” in voter
registration materials. NEB. REV.
STAT. § 32-312. (“Mentally
incompetent” is not synonymous
with being under guardianship;
the latter is imposed in Nebraska
based on “mental incapacity”).

140

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Nevada No person who has been adjudicated
incompetent, unless restored to
legal capacity, shall be entitled to
the privilege of elector. NV.
CONST. art. 2, § 1.
The county clerk shall cancel the
voter registration if the county
clerk is provided a certified copy
of a court order stating that the
court specifically finds by clear
and convincing evidence that the
person registered lacks the mental
capacity to vote because he or she
cannot communicate, with or
without accommodations, a
specific desire to participate in the
voting process. NV. REV. STAT.
ANN § 293.540(2).
No person admitted
to a public or
private mental
health facility or
to a program of
community- based
or outpatient
services pursuant
to this chapter
shall, by reason of
such admission,
be denied the right
to vote, unless
specifically
adjudicated
incompetent (and
not restored to
legal capacity).
NV. REV. STAT.
ANN. §
433A.460.

141

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Nevada
(cont).
The medical director
of a division
mental health
facility shall
evaluate each
consumer of
services of that
facility who has
been adjudicated
as a person with
mental
incompetence no
less than once
every six months
to determine if
there is sufficient
cause to believe
that such
consumer remains
unable to vote.
NV. REV. STAT.
ANN. §
433A.480(1).

142

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
New
Hampshire
No Constitutional disqualification
provision. No disqualification
electoral statute.
No person shall be
deemed
incompetent to
vote or to exercise
any other civil
right solely by
reason of that
person's
admission to the
mental health
services system.
N.H. REV. STAT.
ANN. § 135-
C:56(II).

No person shall be
deemed
incompetent to vote
solely by reason of
his or her
developmental
disability or of his
or her participation
in the service
delivery system, nor
shall department
rules restrict such
rights. N.H. REV.
STAT. ANN. §
171-A:14(I).
143

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
New Jersey On Nov. 6, 2007, NJ voters
approved constitutional
amendment. New language states:
No person who has been
adjudicated by a court of
competent jurisdiction to lack the
capacity to understand the act of
voting shall enjoy the right of
suffrage. Previous language
stated: No person shall have the
right of suffrage who is an "idiot"
or "insane" person. N.J. CONST.
art 2, § 1, ¶ 6.
No person shall have the right of
suffrage who has been
adjudicated by a court of
competent jurisdiction to lack the
capacity to understand the act of
voting. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 19:4-
1(1).
Subject to any other
provisions of law
and the
Constitution of
New Jersey and
the United States,
no patient shall be
deprived of the
right to vote solely
by reason of
receiving
treatment nor shall
the treatment
modify or vary
any legal or civil
right of any
patient, including,
but not limited to,
the right to
register for and to
vote at elections.
N.J. STAT. ANN.
§ 30:4-24.2(a).

No admission or
residency at a
facility or receipt
any service for
persons with
developmental
disabilities shall
deprive persons of
their right to register
and vote. N.J.
STAT. ANN. §
30:6D- 4(a).
Determination of
eligibility for MR
services does not
create presumption
of incompetency;
cannot revoke right
to vote based solely
on placement at
residential
facility. Carroll v.
Cobb, 354 A.2d 355
(N.J. Super. Ct.
1976).
144

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
New Jersey
(cont).
Cannot be presumed
incompetent
because has been
examined or
treated for mental
illness. §30:4-
24.2(c)
Persons receiving in-
patient assessment
or treatment may
register and vote
subject to laws
and Constitution,
nor shall the
treatment modify
or vary any legal
or civil right of
any patient,
including, but not
limited to, the
right to register
for and to vote at
elections. N.J.
STAT. ANN. §
30:4-27.11c(a).

145

New Mexico Individuals who are unable to mark
a ballot and concurrently also
unable to communicate their
voting preference cannot vote.
N.M. CONST. art. 7, § 1.
As used in the Election Code,
“qualified elector” means any
resident of the state who is
qualified to vote under the
provisions of the constitution of
New Mexico and the constitution
of the United States. N.M. STAT.
ANN. § 1-1-4.
For purposes of cancellation of
registration, the legal insanity of a
voter shall be ascertained by
comparison of registration records
with the certification of legal
insanity filed by the court with the
county clerk. N.M. STAT. ANN.
§ 1-4-26(A). When in proceedings
held pursuant to law, the district
court determines that a mentally
ill individual is insane as that term
is used in the constitution of New
Mexico, it shall file a certification
of such fact with the county clerk
of the county wherein the
individual is registered. N.M.
STAT. ANN. § 1-4-26(B).

An incapacitated person for
whom a guardian has
been appointed retains
all legal and civil rights
except those which have
been expressly limited
by court order or have
been specifically granted
to the guardian by the
court. N.M. STAT.
ANN. § 45-5- 301.1.
The same reservation of
rights is specified for
limited guardianships.
N.M. STAT. ANN. §
45-5-312(A).

146

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
New Mexico
(cont.)
[NOTE: This statutory provision
references a former state
constitutional provision barring
voting by “idiots” and “insane
people.” That provision was
removed by a constitutional
amendment providing that
individuals are not competent to
vote if they cannot mark a ballot
and cannot communicate their
voting preference. On Sept. 14,
2016, the New Mexico Supreme
Court made that amendment
effective.]
Individuals with mental retardation
"who can understand the nature of
their actions should be allowed to
register and vote." 1974 Op. An,
Gen. No. 74 35.

147

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
New York Right of suffrage and registration of
voters laws shall be established by
law. N.Y. CONST. ART. 2, § 5.
No person who has been adjudged
incompetent has the right to vote,
unless later adjudged competent.
N.Y. ELEC. LAW § 5-106(6).
Receipt of services
for mental
disability shall not
deprive persons of
the right to
register and vote
if otherwise
qualified, or
otherwise modify
or vary such right.
N.Y. MENT.
HYG. LAW §
33.01.
The commissioner
shall include in
rules and
regulations
promulgated for
community
residence a
statement of the
rights of persons
living in such
residences which
shall include, but
not be limited to…
the right to vote'
and the right to
participate in
activities that
educate persons
with developmental
disabilities in their
civic
responsibilities.
N.Y. MENT. HYG.
LAW § 41.41.

148

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
North
Carolina
No Constitutional disqualification
provision.
However, the Constitution does
provide that every person
presenting himself for registration
shall be able to read and write any
section of the Constitution in the
English language. N.C. Const. art
VI, § 4
No disqualification election statute.
Persons who are
adult clients at a
facility have the
right to register
and vote unless
that right has been
precluded by an
unrevoked
adjudication of
incompetency.
N.C. GEN. STAT.
§ 122C-58.

Persons who are adult
clients at a facility
have the right to
register and vote
unless that right has
been precluded by
an unrevoked
adjudication of
incompetency. N.C.
GEN. STAT. §
122C-58.
149

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
North Dakota No person who has been declared
mentally incompetent by order of
a court or other authority having
jurisdiction, which order has not
been rescinded, shall be qualified
to vote. N.D. CONST. art. 2, § 2.
Except upon specific
findings of the court, no
ward may be deprived of
the right to vote. N.D.
CENT. CODE § 30.1-
28- 04(3).
Unless specifically
restricted in
writing every 14
days by a
patient’s treating
physician,
physician
assistant,
psychiatrist,
advanced practice
registered nurse,
or psychologist,
all patients in
treatment
facilities retain
their “civil
rights.” N.D.
CENT. CODE §§
25-03.1-40(11)-
25.03.1-41.

Developmentally
disabled persons
may not be
presumed to be
incompetent and
may not be
deprived of the
right to vote solely
because of
admission to or
residency at an
institution or
facility, or solely
because of receipt
of services. N.D.
CENT. CODE §
25-01. 2-03(1).
150

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Ohio No "idiot" or "insane person" shall
be entitled to the privileges of an
elector. OHIO CONST. art 5, § 6.
Voter registration is cancelled if the
person is adjudicated incompetent
for the purpose of voting, OHIO
REV. CODE ANN. § 3503.18(B).
Persons admitted to
a hospital or
otherwise taken
into custody,
voluntarily or
involuntarily, may
vote unless
adjudicated
incompetent, or
unless the Revised
Code specifically
denies the right to
vote. OHIO REV.
CODE ANN. §
5122.301.

Persons with mental
retardation or
developmental
disabilities have the
right to participate
in the political
process. OHIO
REV. CODE ANN.
§ 5123.62(W).
151

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Oklahoma Legislature may prescribe
exceptions for qualification.
OKLA. CONST. art. 3, § 1.
Ineligible to vote if adjudicated an
incapacitated person under
Guardianship and Conservatorship
Act, unless adjudicated no longer
incapacitated; or adjudicated
partially incapacitated person and
right to vote restricted. OKLA.
STAT. TIT. 26, § 4-101(2).
The registration of any registered
voter may be cancelled upon
judicial determination of mental
incapacitation under Title 30 of
the Oklahoma Statutes. OKLA.
STAT. ANN. TIT. 26 § 4-120.

Court shall make a specific
determination of the
voting capacity of a
person under
guardianship. OKLA.
STAT. ANN. TIT. 30 §
3-113(B)(1).

152

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Oregon A person "suffering from a mental
handicap" is entitled to the full
rights of an elector, if otherwise
qualified, unless the person has
been adjudicated incompetent to
vote as provided by law. OR.
CONST. art. 2, § 3. No
disqualification statute.
Every person with
mental illness
committed to the
Oregon Health
Authority shall
have the right to
vote unless the
person has been
adjudicated
incompetent and
has not been
restored to legal
capacity. OR.
Rev. STAT. §
426.385(1)(o).

While receiving
mental health
services or
developmental
disability services,
every person shall
have the right to be
encouraged and
assisted in
exercising all legal
rights. The rights
described in this
section are in
addition to, and do
not limit, all other
statutory and
constitutional rights
that are afforded all
citizens including
the right to vote.
OR. Rev. STAT. §
430.210(2).
153

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Oregon
(cont.)
While receiving
mental health
services or
developmental
disability services,
every person shall
have the right to
be encouraged
and assisted in
exercising all
legal rights. The
rights described in
this section are in
addition to, and
do not limit, all
other statutory
and constitutional
rights that are
afforded all
citizens including
the right to vote.
OR. Rev. STAT.
§ 430.210(2).

154

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Pennsylvania No Constitutional disqualification
provision.
Subject to state law, anyone who is
over twenty one, has been a
citizen of the United States for at
least one month, and has resided
in the state and election district for
the specified time may vote. PA.
CONST. Art. 7, § 1.
No disqualification election statute.
A person who resides at an
institution for the mentally ill or
the mentally retarded can choose
to vote either in the district in
which the institution is located or
where they were registered to vote
or resided before they were
institutionalized. PENN.
CONSOL. STAT. ANN. TIT. 25
§ 1302(a)(4).
A mentally retarded or mentally ill
person cannot be disenfranchised
solely because he or she is
undergoing treatment for a mental
disability or is known to reside in
an institution for the treatment of
the mentally disabled. 1973
Op.Atty.Gen. Pa. No. 48.

155

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Puerto Rico Every person over 18 can vote if he
or she fulfills the other conditions
determined by law. No person
shall be deprived of the right to
vote because he does not know
how to read or write or does not
own property. PR Const. Art. 6, §
4.
Any citizen who has not been
declared mentally incompetent by
a Court of Law shall be a voter in
Puerto Rico. 16 LPRA §4063.
Any person who is declared
mentally incompetent by a Court
of Law shall not be entitled to
exercise his/her right to vote, even
if he/she is a qualified voter. 16
LPRA § 4065.
The Courts Administrator shall send
to the Commission, on a monthly
basis during an election year and
on a quarterly basis during years
in which elections are not held, a
list of those persons who have
been legally declared as mentally
incompetent. 16 LPRA § 4081.

Any adult who
receives mental
health services
shall continue to
enjoy his/her
rights, benefits
and privileges
pursuant to the
Constitution of
the United States
of America and
the Constitution
of Puerto Rico, as
well as state and
federal laws,
while receiving
evaluation or
treatment and
rehabilitation, and
during the process
of admission,
transfer or release
in any providing
institution. 24
LPRA § 6154a

156

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Rhode Island No person who has been adjudicated
"non compos mentis" shall be
allowed to vote. R.I. CONST. art.
2, § 1.
Qualified voter defined as someone
who is not otherwise disqualified
by law. R.I. GEN. LAWS § 17-1-
2(13).
Patients admitted to
a facility shall not
be deprived of the
right to vote and
participate in
political activity
solely by reason
of such
admission. R.I.
GEN. LAWS §
40.1-5- 5(f)(10).
Community residence
resident will not be
deprived of right to
vote solely by
reason of
admission. Each
resident has right to
vote and participate
in political activity,
including
reasonable
assistance when
desired in
registration and
voting. RI. GEN.
LAWS § 40.1 24.5-
5.

157

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
South
Carolina
General Assembly shall establish
disqualifications for voting by
reason of mental incompetence
and may provide for the removal
of such disqualifications. S.C.
CONST. art. 2, § 7. A person is
disqualified from registering or
voting if mentally incompetent as
adjudicated by a court of
competent jurisdiction. S.C.
CODE ANN. § 7-5- 120(B)(1).
Unless a patient has
been adjudicated
incompetent, no
patient may be
denied the right to
be a qualified
elector if
otherwise
qualified. The
county board of
voter registration
in counties with
department
facilities
reasonably shall
assist patients
who express a
desire to vote to:
Clients of department
facilities with
intellectual
disabilities have the
right to be a
qualified elector if
otherwise qualified.
The county board of
voter registration in
counties with
department
facilities reasonably
shall assist clients
who express a
desire to vote to: (a)
obtain voter
registration forms,
applications for
absentee ballots,
and absentee
ballots; (b) comply
with other
requirements which
are prerequisite for
voting; (c) vote by
absentee ballot if
necessary. S.C.
CODE ANN. § 44-
26-90(7).
158

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
South
Carolina
(cont.)

(a) obtain voter
registration forms,
applications for
absentee ballots,
and absentee
ballots; (b)
comply with other
requirements
which are
prerequisite for
voting; (c) vote by
absentee ballot if
necessary. S.C.
CODE. ANN. §
44-22-80(7).

159

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
South Dakota Not entitled to vote if disqualified by
law for mental incompetence. S.D.
CONST. art. 7, § 2.
Names of persons declared mentally
incompetent shall be removed
from the voter rolls each month.
S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 12-4-
18.
The appointment of a
guardian or conservator
of a protected person
does not constitute a
general finding of legal
incompetence unless the
court so orders, and the
protected person shall
otherwise retain all rights
which have not been
granted to the guardian
or conservator. S.D.
CODIFIED LAWS §
29A-5-118. [Note:
Effective until July 1,
2016; beginning July 1,
2016, this section has
been amended to read as
follows:
Notwithstanding any
other provision of
law, no person
may be deemed
incompetent to
register and vote
solely by reason
of his detention,
admission, or
commitment
under this title.
S.D. CODIFIED
LAWS § 27A-12-
1.2.
No person is
incompetent to
register and vote
solely by reason of
a diagnosis of a
developmental
disability, or by
reason of a
commitment by a
county review
board. S.D.
CODIFIED LAWS
§ 27B-7-44
(replaced old
language in 2000
under SL 2000, ch
131, § 76).
160

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
South Dakota
(cont.)
The appointment of a
guardian or conservator
of a protected person
does not constitute a
general finding of legal
incompetence unless the
court so orders, and the
protected person shall
otherwise retain all
rights which have not
been granted to the
guardian or conservator,
with the exception of the
ability to create an
agency and confer
authority on another
person to do any act that
the protected person
might do, pursuant to
Section 59-2-1.]

161

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Tennessee No Constitutional disqualification
provision. No disqualification
election statute.
May remove the right to
vote if placed under a
conservatorship. Petition
for appointment of a
conservator should
include the rights that
will be removed. Tenn.
Code Ann. § 34-3-
104(8).
No person with
mental illness,
serious emotional
disturbance, or
developmental
disability
hospitalized or
admitted, whether
voluntarily or
involuntarily, or
ordered to
participate in non-
residential
treatment or
service under this
title shall, solely
by reason of such
hospitalization
admission, or
order be denied
the right to vote,
unless

162

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Tennessee
(cont.)
(1) the service
recipient has
been
adjudicated
incompetent
by a court of
competent
jurisdiction
and has not
been restored
to legal
capacity; or
(2) the denial is
authorized by
state or
federal
statute.
TENN.
CODE ANN.
§ 33-3-
102(a).

163

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Texas Persons determined mentally
incompetent by a court shall not
be allowed to vote, subject to such
exceptions as the Legislature may
make. TEX. CONST. art. 6, § 1.
A person who has been determined
totally mentally incapacitated or
partially mentally incapacitated
without the right to vote by a final
judgment of a court exercising
probate jurisdiction is not a
qualified voter. TEX. ELEC.
CODE ANN. Tit. 2, §
11.002(a)(3).
To be eligible to register as a voter,
must not have been determined
totally mentally incapacitated or
partially mentally incapacitated
without the right to vote by a final
judgment of a court exercising
probate jurisdiction. TEX. ELEC.
CODE ANN. Tit. 2, §
13.001(a)(3).

Patients have the
right to register
and vote unless
specific law limits
rights under a
special procedure.
TEX. HEALTH
& SAFETY
CODE ANN. Tit.
7, §
576.001(b)(1).
Persons with an
intellectual
disability have the
rights, benefits, and
privileges
guaranteed by the
constitution and
laws of the United
States and this state.
TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE
ANN. Tit. 7, §
592.011.
Persons with an
intellectual
disability have the
right to a
presumption of
competency. TEX
HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE
ANN. Tit. 7, §
592.021.
164

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Utah A person who is mentally
incompetent may not be permitted
to vote, unless right to vote
restored as provided by statute.
UTAH CONST. art. 4, § 6.
No disqualification election statute.
Subject to the
general rules of
the division, and
except to the
extent that the
director or his
designee
determines that it
is necessary for
the welfare of the
patient to impose
restrictions, every
patient is entitled
to: exercise…the
right to…vote,
unless the patient
has been
adjudicated to be
incompetent and
has not been
restored to legal
capacity. UTAH
CODE ANN. §
62A-15-641(1)(c).
Subject to the general
rules of the
division, and except
to the extent that
the director or his
designee determines
that it is necessary
for the welfare of
the patient to
impose restrictions,
every patient is
entitled to:
exercise…the right
to…vote, unless the
patient has been
adjudicated to be
Incompetent and
has not been
restored to legal
capacity. UTAH
CODE ANN. §
62A-15-641(1)(c).
165

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Utah (cont.) When any right of a
patient is limited
or denied, the
nature, extent, and
reason for that
limitation or
denial shall be
entered in the
patient's treatment
record. Any
continuing denial
or limitation shall
be reviewed every
30 days. UTAH
CODE ANN. §
62A-15-641 (2).

166

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Vermont To be entitled to the privilege of
voting, persons must be of "a quiet
and peaceable behavior." VT.
CONST. ch. II, § 42.
No disqualifying election statute.
Any person over 18 who is a
citizen of the United States and a
resident of the state of Vermont
and has taken the voter's oath may
vote. VT. STAT. ANN. TIT. 17 §
2121
A person under
guardianship retains the
same legal and civil
rights guaranteed to all
Vermont residents under
the Vermont and United
States Constitutions and
all the laws and
regulations of Vermont
and the United States.
VT. STAT. ANN. TIT.
14 § 3068a
Subject to the
general rules and
regulations of the
hospital and
except to the
extent that the
head of the
hospital
determines that it
is necessary for
the medical
welfare or needs
of the patient or
the hospital to
impose
restrictions, every
patient has the
right to vote on
his own initiative,
unless he has been
adjudicated
incompetent and
has not been
restored to legal
capacity. VT.
STAT. ANN.
TIT. 18 §
7705(a)(3)

167

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Virginia As prescribed by law, no person
adjudicated to be mentally
incompetent shall be qualified to
vote until his competency has
been reestablished. VA. CONST.
art. 2, § 1.
No person adjudicated incapacitated
shall be a qualified voter unless
his capacity has been reestablished
as provided by law. VA. CODE
ANN. §24.2-101.
Election laws referring to "mentally
incompetent" and "incapacitated"
as standards for disqualifying
person from voting are not in
conflict. Op. Att'y Gen. of Va, 01-
102, Dec. 10, 2001.

168

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Washington All persons while they are judicially
declared mentally incompetent are
excluded from the elective
franchise. WA. CONST. art. 6, §
3.
Upon receiving official notice that a
court has imposed a guardianship
for an incapacitated person and
has determined that the person is
incompetent for the purpose of
rationally exercising the right to
vote, under chapter 11.88 RCW,
if the person is a registered voter
in the county, the county auditor
shall cancel the person's voter
registration. WASH. REV. CODE
ANN. § 29A.08.515.
Imposition of a
guardianship for an
incapacitated person
shall not result in the loss
of the right to vote unless
the court determines that
the person is
incompetent for purposes
of rationally exercising
the franchise in that the
individual lacks the
capacity to understand
the nature and effect of
voting such that she or
he cannot make an
individual choice. The
court order establishing
guardianship shall
specify whether or not
the individual retains
voting rights.
No person shall be
presumed
incompetent as a
consequence of
receiving an
evaluation or
voluntary or
involuntary
treatment for a
mental disorder,
under this chapter
or any prior laws
of this state
dealing with
mental illness.
Competency shall
not be determined
or withdrawn
except under the
provisions of
chapter 10.77 or
11.88 RCW. WASH.
REV. CODE
ANN.
§71.05.360(1)(b).
The existence of
developmental
disabilities does not
affect the civil
rights of the person
with the
developmental
disability except as
otherwise provided
by law. WASH.
REV. CODE ANN.
§71A.10.030(1).
The secretary's
determination under
RCW 71A.16.040
that a person is
eligible for services
under this title shall
not deprive the
person of any civil
rights or privileges.
169

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Washington
(cont.)
When a court determines
that the person is
incompetent for the
purpose of rationally
exercising the right to
vote, the court shall
notify the appropriate
county auditor. RCWA
11.88.010 (5).

The secretary's
determination alone
shall not constitute
cause to declare the
person to be legally
incompetent.
WASH. REV.
CODE ANN
§71A.10.030(2).
170

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
West Virginia No person who has been declared
mentally incompetent by a court
of competent jurisdiction shall be
permitted to vote while such
disability continues. W. VA.
CONST. art. 4, § 1.
No person who has been declared
mentally incompetent by a court
of competent jurisdiction shall be
permitted to vote while such
disability continues, unless
otherwise specifically provided by
federal or state code. W. VA.
CODE § 3- 1-3.
Any person who has been declared
mentally incompetent by a court
of competent jurisdiction is
disqualified and shall not be
eligible to register or to continue
to be registered to vote for as long
as that disability continues. W.
VA. CODE § 3-2-2(b).
If adjudicated incompetent, a person
is automatically denied the right
to vote. No specific decision
regarding capacity for voting is
required. 58 Op. Atty. Gen. W.
Va. 220, Mar. 28, 1980.
No person may be
deprived of any
civil right solely
by reason of his or
her receipt of
services for
mental illness,
intellectual
disability or
addiction, nor
does the receipt of
the services
modify or vary
any civil right of
the person,
including, but not
limited to, the
right to register
and vote, but a
person who has
been adjudged
incompetent
pursuant to article
eleven (§§ 27- 11-
1 et seq.)
No person may be
deprived of any
civil right solely by
reason of his or her
receipt of services
for mental illness,
intellectual
disability or
addiction, nor does
the receipt of the
services modify or
vary any civil right
of the person,
including, but not
limited to, the right
to register and vote,
but a person who
has been adjudged
incompetent
pursuant to article
eleven (§§ 27-11-1
et seq.)
171

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
West Virginia
(cont.)
[Note: Art. 11
repealed] of this
chapter and who
has not been
restored to legal
competency may
be deprived of
such rights.
Involuntary
commitment
pursuant to this
article does not of
itself relieve the
patient of legal
capacity. W. VA.
CODE §27- 5-
9(a).
W. VA. CODE § 27-
5-9(a) does not
conflict with the
constitutional
provision in art. 4,
§ 1. 58 Op. Atty.
Gen. W. Va. 220,
Mar. 28, 1980.

[Note: Art. 11
repealed] of this
chapter and who has
not been restored to
legal competency
may be deprived of
such rights.
Involuntary
commitment
pursuant to this
article does not of
itself relieve the
patient of legal
capacity. W. VA.
CODE § 27- 5-9(a).
172

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Wisconsin Laws may be enacted excluding
from the right of suffrage persons
adjudged by a court to be
incompetent or partially
incompetent, unless the judgment
specifies that the person is capable
of understanding the objective of
the elective process or the
judgment is set aside. WIS.
CONST. art. 3, §2(4)(b).
Any person who is incapable of
understanding the objective of the
elective process or who is under
guardianship may not vote, unless
the court has determined that the
person is competent to exercise
the right to vote. WIS. STAT. §
6.03(1)(a).
The court may, as part of a
proceeding under WIS.
STAT. ANN. § 54.44 in
which an individual is
found incompetent and a
guardian is appointed,
declare that the
individual has incapacity
to exercise the right to
register to vote or to
vote in an election, if the
court finds that the
individual is incapable
of understanding the
objective of the elective
process.
A person is not
deemed
incompetent to
vote solely based
on admission to a
facility under the
developmental
disabilities and
mental health
chapter. WIS.
STAT. ANN. §
51.59(1).
A person is not
deemed
incompetent to vote
solely based on
admission to a
facility under the
developmental
disabilities and
mental health
chapter. WIS.
STAT. ANN. §
51.59(1).
173

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Wisconsin
(cont.)
No person may be denied the right
to register to vote or the right to
vote by reason that the person is
alleged to be incapable of
understanding the objective of the
elective process unless the person
has been adjudicated incompetent
in this state. If a determination of
incompetency of the person has
already been made, or if a
determination of limited
incompetency has been made that
does not include a specific finding
that the subject is competent to
exercise the right to vote, and a
guardian has been appointed as a
result of any such determination,
then no determination of
incapacity of understanding the
objective of the elective process is
required unless the guardianship
is terminated or modified under
section 54.64. WIS. STAT. §
6.03(3).
Also, in accordance with
section 6.03(3), any
elector of a municipality
may petition the circuit
court for a determination
that an individual
residing in the
municipality is incapable
of understanding the
objective of the elective
process and thereby
ineligible to register to
vote or to vote in an
election. This
determination shall be
made by the court in
accordance with the
procedures specified in
this paragraph. If a
petition is filed under
this subd. 1. g., the
finding of the court shall
be limited to a
determination as to
voting eligibility. WIS.
STAT. ANN. §
54.25(2)(c)(1)(g).

174

State State constitution/electoral status:
Persons disqualified
Guardianship/
conservatorship status
Mental health status Developmental
disabilities/mental
retardation status
Wyoming All persons adjudicated to be
mentally incompetent, unless
restored to civil rights, are
excluded from the elective
franchise. WYO. CONST. art. 6 §
6.
No person is a qualified elector who
is a currently adjudicated
mentally incompetent person and
his civil or voting rights have not
been restored. WYO. STAT.
ANN. § 22-1-102(a)(xxvi).

Note. From State Laws Affecting the Voting Rights of People with Mental Disabilities, by Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and
Schulte Roth & Zabel, 2016, (http://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2016_State-Laws-Affecting-Voting-Rights-of-
PWD.pdf). In the public domain.
175
176

Appendix B: Protocols
Semi-Structured Interview Guide

Demographic Information:
How old are you?
Who do you live with?
What is your association with your service provider?
How many days and hours do you spend at your service provider in an average week?
_________________________________________________________________________
Questions

Have you ever voted in an election for President or Congress?

IF YES (Has Voted)

Did you vote in last year’s election?

Why do you think it was important to vote?

How do you feel about voting and doing something that being a citizen allows you to do?

How much did you know about the candidates? Do you feel that you knew enough to decide?

177

Where do you usually get information about elections and candidates?

The last time you voted, did you vote in person or by mail?

Did someone help you get your ballot? If yes, how did they help?

Did someone help you fill it out? If yes, how did they help?

Did someone help you send it in?

Who usually helps? Is it a service provider, someone where you live, or another person?

Was there a time you wanted to vote in an election but something kept you from doing it?

IF NO (Never Voted)
Can you tell me about a time someone asked if you wanted help voting?

Do you have any ideas of things that your service provider agency could do to encourage
associates to learn about voting and how to register to vote?

How would you feel if someone regularly asked if you would like information about voting, the
next election, and the candidates?

178

How would you feel if something was setup so you could sit with a group of friends or other
associates of your service provider and learn and talk about voting, elections, and candidates?

What would you think if you learned the other people in a group had the same ideas as you and
you all could help each other think about the candidates and issues?

How would you feel if you knew voting together with other people would cause candidates to
want to learn about your life and how to make it better?

How would you feel if candidates before an election wanted to know about your life and how to
make it better?

If you could ask for one thing, what would you like elected officials in government to do that
might make your life better?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Untapped workforce: employer perceptions of people with intellectual disabilities

PDF

Black disabled lives matter: barriers to employment for African Americans with a disability

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

Understanding the critical role of parents in improving the identification and support of twice exceptional learners in the K–12 system

PDF

Developing qualified workers to support individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in home and community settings: an evaluation study

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

Toward effective succession planning in higher education: a field study

PDF

Qatari elementary school principals' attitudes toward inclusion programs: implementation challenges, solution and resources

PDF

A case Study of gender gaps in the legal profession

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

Implementing inclusive education in Ukraine: developing teachers and partnerships for change

PDF

Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

Implementing inclusive education in Ukraine: developing teachers and partnerships for change

PDF

Building equity for English language learners: technology employees in Fortune 500 companies

PDF

Practices for assigning academic accommodations for students with specific learning disabilities

PDF

Cultivating a culture of equity: lessons learned from librarians of color

PDF

The quest for alternative criminal justice reform: a criminal defense attorney as the change agent

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator DiNinni, Richard Michael (author)

Core Title Toward equity and inclusion for developmentally disabled persons: a study of electoral engagement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 01/24/2022

Defense Date 01/24/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag disabled,Elections,electoral,equity,Government,inclusion,OAI-PMH Harvest,voting

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ferrario, Kimberly (committee chair), Clark, Richard E. (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email dininni@usc.edu,richard_dininni@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110575644

Unique identifier UC110575644

Legacy Identifier etd-DiNinniRic-10353

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights DiNinni, Richard Michael

Type texts

Source 20220128-usctheses-batch-909 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu