Throughout America, tens of thousands of people who live with disabilities have been stripped of their right to vote, usually because someone has been awarded guardianship. But now, some disabled Americans are fighting back and demanding that their voting rights be restored.In 2011, California resident David Rector suffered a traumatic brain injury and was left unable to walk or talk. His fiance, Rosalind Alexander-Kasparik was appointed as his conservator, which under state law meant Rector also lost his right to vote.Now, Rector has filed a request with the Superior Court in San Diego to have his voting rights restored. Alexander-Kasparik said that despite his disability, Rector is fully capable of expressing his wishes to a court clerk. Outside of the courthouse, she told supporters that he had been able to communicate his desire to vote while speaking to the judge. He did manage to say through his electronic voice on his eye-tracking device,  I, David Rector, want my voting rights restored, immediately,'  Alexander-Kasparik said.The importance of this cannot be overstated since California law requires that people with disabilities express their desire to vote before they are granted the right to do so.Rector, who was a producer for NPR, is one of at least 30,000 people in California who have been stripped of their right to vote because they have a disability. Nationally, the number of people who have lost their voting rights under state guardianship laws is not even known.David Rector and Rosalind Alexander-Kasparik. Image via The Root.Jennifer Mathis, director of policy and legal advocacy at the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law in Washington DC, explained the problem with the current systems that are in place. The problem with those laws is that a determination of guardianship or competence really has nothing to do with someone s ability to vote. They have to do with someone s ability to ensure their basic health and safety needs,  she’said.Mathis added that just because a person isn’t able to do one thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t do another. However, that isn’t a distinction that courts across the country tend to consider. Only eleven states do not automatically strip a disabled person of their voting rights when someone is awarded guardianship. But each state has different laws on the issue. Some automatically revoke a person s right to vote when someone is awarded guardianship.Other states make people with disabilities prove that they want to vote. According to Mathis, this amounts to disabled people being held to a higher standard and violates the Voting Rights Act. Those people end up having to answer questions like: Who s the governor? Who s the president? Who s the mayor? Why do you want to vote? How would you vote on a particular issue? And those are exactly the type of questions we never would impose on voters without disabilities,  she’said.Mathis noted that a lot of times, people are not even aware that their rights have been stripped because of the complicated nature of the guardianship process.Last year, Californa softened its law, allowing for rights to be restored if a person expressed a desire to vote. Republican State Senator Jeff Stone oppposed the measure and argued that  desire  does not necessarily equal  competency. I think this bill is equating desire to vote with the competency to vote. A conservatee may want to drive a car, but may not be competent or able to drive a car and get a license is a perfect example,  Stone said.On Aug. 29, the judge in Rector s case decided that she wasn’t yet convinced that he really wants his right to vote back, despite the fact that he’stood in her courtroom and told her point blank to her face that he did.Alexander-Kasparik said she’s hopeful Rector will win his case but said she is still disappointed that he will have to wait even longer. That hurts. I think that hurts David. I know it hurt me. It hurt me for David,  she’said.  And it hurt me for, you know, all those people out.. As she’spoke, Rector let out a loud moan. That s David s response. Did you hear it?  she asked.Alexander-Kasparik said that Rector is better informed than most voters and follows the news closely. Like the rest of us paying attention the current state of politics in America, Rector is eager to vote in November so his voice can be heard. Whether or not they can convince a judge of that remains to be seen, though.Listen to more here, via NPR:Featured image via NPR
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Throughout America, tens of thousands of people who live with disabilities have been stripped of their right to vote, usually because someone has been awarded guardianship. But now, some disabled Americans are fighting back and demanding that their voting rights be restored.In 2011, California resident David Rector suffered a traumatic brain injury and was left unable to walk or talk. His fiance, Rosalind Alexander-Kasparik was appointed as his conservator, which under state law meant Rector also lost his right to vote.Now, Rector has filed a request with the Superior Court in San Diego to have his voting rights restored. Alexander-Kasparik said that despite his disability, Rector is fully capable of expressing his wishes to a court clerk. Outside of the courthouse, she told supporters that he had been able to communicate his desire to vote while speaking to the judge. He did manage to say through his electronic voice on his eye-tracking device,  I, David Rector, want my voting rights restored, immediately,'  Alexander-Kasparik said.The importance of this cannot be overstated since California law requires that people with disabilities express their desire to vote before they are granted the right to do so.Rector, who was a producer for NPR, is one of at least 30,000 people in California who have been stripped of their right to vote because they have a disability. Nationally, the number of people who have lost their voting rights under state guardianship laws is not even known.David Rector and Rosalind Alexander-Kasparik. Image via The Root.Jennifer Mathis, director of policy and legal advocacy at the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law in Washington DC, explained the problem with the current systems that are in place. The problem with those laws is that a determination of guardianship or competence really has nothing to do with someone s ability to vote. They have to do with someone s ability to ensure their basic health and safety needs,  she’said.Mathis added that just because a person isn’t able to do one thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t do another. However, that isn’t a distinction that courts across the country tend to consider. Only eleven states do not automatically strip a disabled person of their voting rights when someone is awarded guardianship. But each state has different laws on the issue. Some automatically revoke a person s right to vote when someone is awarded guardianship.Other states make people with disabilities prove that they want to vote. According to Mathis, this amounts to disabled people being held to a higher standard and violates the Voting Rights Act. Those people end up having to answer questions like: Who s the governor? Who s the president? Who s the mayor? Why do you want to vote? How would you vote on a particular issue? And those are exactly the type of questions we never would impose on voters without disabilities,  she’said.Mathis noted that a lot of times, people are not even aware that their rights have been stripped because of the complicated nature of the guardianship process.Last year, Californa softened its law, allowing for rights to be restored if a person expressed a desire to vote. Republican State Senator Jeff Stone oppposed the measure and argued that  desire  does not necessarily equal  competency. I think this bill is equating desire to vote with the competency to vote. A conservatee may want to drive a car, but may not be competent or able to drive a car and get a license is a perfect example,  Stone said.On Aug. 29, the judge in Rector s case decided that she wasn’t yet convinced that he really wants his right to vote back, despite the fact that he’stood in her courtroom and told her point blank to her face that he did.Alexander-Kasparik said she’s hopeful Rector will win his case but said she is still disappointed that he will have to wait even longer. That hurts. I think that hurts David. I know it hurt me. It hurt me for David,  she’said.  And it hurt me for, you know, all those people out.. As she’spoke, Rector let out a loud moan. That s David s response. Did you hear it?  she asked.Alexander-Kasparik said that Rector is better informed than most voters and follows the news closely. Like the rest of us paying attention the current state of politics in America, Rector is eager to vote in November so his voice can be heard. Whether or not they can convince a judge of that remains to be seen, though.Listen to more here, via NPR:Featured image via NPR