Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Newsteam Ercan DEL (Deutsche Eishockey Liga) Aorta Ruhrgebiet

Constitutional court judgment on the right to vote : those Who exclude people from elections, one needs very good reasons

you can't get your own Affairs, so her daughter takes care of it? Great, that was lucky – you may choose to go. You can't get your own Affairs, and the court

- 26 reads.

Constitutional court judgment on the right to vote : those Who exclude people from elections, one needs very good reasons

you can't get your own Affairs, so her daughter takes care of it? Great, that was lucky – you may choose to go. You can't get your own Affairs, and the court has ordered for you to be a maintainer? Tough luck – you should not choose.

the legal situation until Wednesday. On Thursday, the Federal constitutional court ruled that this unequal treatment is unconstitutional. It violates the principle of the generality of the election and against the principle of equality. Of the 2013 Bundestag election 81.220 had been fully excluded supervised – so those people from the second example. But how many belong to example one? You don't know. It is quite conceivable that there are at least as many.

This unequal treatment is not justified. Now a way needs to be found less package, but to be with a reasonable effort, the voters with disabilities.

The same is true for debt-to-incompetent criminal offender. The decision concerns two categories of persons by the Federal election law from participating in elections excluded: the above-mentioned Supervised and offenders who are housed in the psychiatric ward.

Actually, as a matter of course

It is a shame that it became necessary to have such a matter of course in Karlsruhe to decide instead that the legislature will change the rules of the self, such as associations of Disabled people demanding it for years.

the debate over the right to vote of criminal offenders, there are already longer. Even if a perpetrator at the Moment the fact was not in his right mind, justify the exclusion from the right to vote, made it clear to the court now.

What is a choice? It is an integration process, even for the non-disabled. The diversity of social forces, of conflicting interests is involved in a Whole.

The elections act, can achieve this effect but only if free and open communication between the Governing and the Governed is possible. Not everyone can participate in this communication process between the people and the state organs good enough. At whom that is not the case, can be excluded - it's not the Second Senate is chaired by the court President Andreas vosskuhle in doubt. But then it comes down to the " How " of the exclusion.

The policy needs to hurry up

To ensure that the "mass event choice" is feasible, can be regulated by the legislator, who is excluded from the choice. For this he must not examine each individual case but must lay the typical case as a benchmark. The advantages of the typing must be in the right proportion to the inequality that it creates. This was not the case here.

More about

Federal constitutional court rules on election law exclusion for disabled unconstitutional

associations of the Disabled the decision was welcomed by. If the policy in a hurry, could the disabled and housed offenders to participate in the European elections in may perhaps.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.