In other words at what IQ level if any do they (U.S. Government) not let you do things like vote, get married and be independent from your parents or guardians?
At what IQ level do people consider the word “retarded” to be a valid descriptor?
I seriously doubt there’s a cut off, if nothing else, because there’s no consensus on IQ scores; how you scored, or what your score means.
I sure that you have to get declared unfit individually, by a recognized authority/doctor to be comitted to someone’s care against your will. I can’t imagine denying an adult the right to register to vote if he had the smarts to want to do it.
bites hole through bottom lip to keep from making obvious joke
It’s ironic that you are so accusing with this statement!
This website will answer your question, and although I do not consider him an authority, he does provide citations.
The right of people to vote, with the exception of things like sex, race and age, is a matter of state law. Every state has different standards on who may vote; for example, in some states, convicted felons are allowed to vote once their sentence is up, and in some they are never allowed to vote.
In general, people deemed mentally incompetent are not allowed to vote (or do lots of other things), however, there is no single category into which we lump all these people. The person in question must be examined thoroughly and have a court order declaring them incompetent. Each state has their own standard and precedents for what makes someone incompetent.
When I worked as a social worker in Missouri, the Developmentally Disabled (or retarded, if you prefer) people I worked with were allowed to vote if they wanted to, under certain conditions.
First and foremost, they had to want to. Only those who brought up the issue themselves (by saying “I want to register to vote”) were taken to the county building to register.
Under no circumstances were their social workers allowed to influence their decision (clients who wanted to vote were asked to report electioneering social workers to their (the social workers’) superiors).
We could not take the clients to the polling places. Their friends/family etc. could take them, or they could walk or take a cab or whatever, but we could not. The reason for this is that the process would be too open to abuse this way (“I’ll take you to the polling place, but only if you promise to vote for Bush.” or “You said you’re going to vote for Bush, so I’m not gonna take you.”)
So, bottom line is that DD people who wanted to vote were allowed to, as is their constitutional right. There were/are checks and balances in place to make sure the system is not abused.
The same thought struck me when I read the thread title. That one was just too easy. Although I wonder if we are thinking of the same punchline…
This is what I was thinking:
Are retarded people allowed to vote? Maybe
Are people allowed to vote for retards? Sure, happens all the time.
Also I don’t like using that word? Am I the only one who finds ‘retarded’ offensive?
I have to ask: Did they generally register as Republican or Democrat?
I prefer mentally handicapped, but even that’s probably not PC these days. I think the PC word for handicapped these days is “challenged”. I’m not sure, they keep changing what’s acceptable so people that aren’t up on the latest naming convention are destine to embarrass themselves.
Are retarded people allowed to vote? Maybe
But they are allowed to run for office.
I have to ask: Did they generally register as Republican or Democrat?
Sorry to step on the joke, but in Missouri voters don’t register a party affiliation when they register to vote. The only time it comes into play is during a primary election.
Sorry. I can’t think of a joke. Maybe something along asking “Are Retarded people allowed to vote?” and then the other person says “I don’t know, are you registered to vote?”
I can’t figure out what joke you’re trying to make.
Why don’t you ever hear about a candidate going after the retarded vote?
The other part of the question is about independent living, etc. My niece is one of the people we’re talking about. She is about as independent as one can get and still be disabled. She has her own apartment, drives a car, has a job (“makin’ copies”), and yes, even votes. However, she is generally unable to competently handle her own finances, something her mother does for her.
The ability for independence is a factor of the extent of retardation and the amount of work and limitless patience someone is willing to invest in helping the person achieve it.
She is still her mother’s ward even though she is now in her 40s. Every year the state requires her mother to fill out all the forms showing her daughter’s financials, bank statements, etc. This review is fairly exhaustive and is required in order for my sister to remain her own daughter’s guardian.
I suspect this differs from state to state.
Developed Mentally Delayed!!
Not Retarded. :mad:
Sorry - I’m not really mad…I have a soft spot for people with disabilities.
ahem…DEVELOPMENTALLY Delayed… :smack:
Carry on.
So, Phlosphr. . .
planning to vote? 
d&r
oh irony of ironies… 
I still call it retarded. I refuse to get on the PC euphemism treadmill. No matter what is PC today, it will become un-PC tomorrow, forcing all the lemmings to run to the next soon to be un-PC term. The whole thing is…RETARDED! :wally