Here & Now

What Do Changes to Indefinitely Confined Voting Mean?

Frederica Freyberg:

Democrats at the State Capitol were joined in opposition to the bill by advocacy groups such as Disability Rights Wisconsin. The Milwaukee office director of that group is Barbara Beckert, who joins us now from Milwaukee and thanks very much for being here.

Barbara Beckert:

Thank you for the opportunity.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what is your overall reaction to the proposed bill to limit indefinitely confined voters?

Barbara Beckert:

Well, we’re concerned these proposals will make it harder for many people with disabilities and older adults to vote. We want to work with policymakers to address barriers to voting and protect the rights of voters and also ensure we have secure elections. And we agree that there are opportunities for improvement.

Frederica Freyberg:

Of the prongs of it, including requiring a doctor’s signature for voters under age 65, which parts of it stand out as problematic for you and why?

Barbara Beckert:

Well, these voters would be required to provide statements under oath that they are indefinitely confined. We’re not sure what that means, but we’re concerned. These are individuals who have a lot of difficulty getting out into the community. Does it mean they would have to go to a notary or to their municipal clerk? Needing to have a statement signed by a doctor is very concerning. This is not covered by insurance, so it’s likely the voter would need to pay for the visit. I’ve heard some people say they feel like it’s a poll tax. These are low-income people in many cases, who wouldn’t be able to afford that. In addition, if the voter or the doctor makes a false statement, it’s a felony with a fine and possible prison time. So I think it’s very unlikely that health care professionals will be willing to go out on the line and sign this, especially since it does not define what indefinitely confined means.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, we are just off the air with Senator Bernier who says she too takes issue with those kinds of elements in the proposed bill, specifically a doctor’s signature and an oath to swear that you are indefinitely confined. And she expects there to be modifications to this. What’s your response to that?

Barbara Beckert:

Yeah. We’ve appreciated the dialogue with Senator Bernier. I think she’s been very concerned about ensuring that the rights of voters with disabilities and older adults are honored. But also seeing that there’s some opportunities for improvements in the way we do business with our election system here in Wisconsin. And we welcome the chance for continuing conversation.

Frederica Freyberg:

So are there any changes to current law around indefinitely-confined voters that you would support?

Barbara Beckert:

Well, one thing that we have seen is that the term is confusing to people. At Disability Rights Wisconsin, we have a voter assistance hotline, so this year — or rather last year, 2020, we assisted hundreds of voters with disabilities and older adults who had questions. And many of them, in our experience, they want to follow the law. And when they hear a term indefinitely confined, it makes them anxious because they say, yes, I have difficulty voting and going to my polling place because of age, disability or infirmity or medical condition. However, I do leave my house sometimes. I, you know, may be able on a good day to go to the grocery store. I go out for medical appointments and so on. So do I qualify for indefinitely confined? And the State Supreme Court has affirmed that, that this is up to the voter to decide and to certify. But I do think that there’s an opportunity to further clarify it so that people are comfortable. Because in our experience, voters want to do the right thing. So I think we can help them with that. And also ensure that municipal clerks have a consistent understanding.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah, because it is true that the use of the indefinitely-confined status jumped from under 70,000 voters in 2016 to more than 200,000 voters in 2020. In your estimation, was it over-used by people who are not in fact disabled or confined?

Barbara Beckert:

Well, I guess first I would put that in the context of the fact that we had a worldwide pandemic. So I think it’s not at all surprising that the usage increased. And did some people do this in an effort in some way to be fraudulent and defraud the system? That’s possible. I don’t know that. That isn’t the people who have called us. You know, we had individuals who perhaps had not used that designation before, but they were scared because of COVID and they wanted to receive absentee ballots for the election in 2020 and did not have an easy way to provide a photo ID. It’s very interesting that the data from the Election Commission showed that the majority of people who used indefinitely-confined status did have a photo ID request on file or had shown it in a past election.

Frederica Freyberg:

Like 80% or something, yeah.

Barbara Beckert:

Exactly. You know, a lot of people don’t have a

privilege where they have access to technology or they may not know how to upload a photo ID. So that’s a challenge. Not that people want to defraud the system.

Frederica Freyberg:

Absolutely. Barbara Beckert, thank you very much. Thanks for your work.

Barbara Beckert:

Thank you for this opportunity to be a voice for voters with disabilities and older adults.