Through a close reading of Maryland’s exclusion of both criminals and persons with mental disabilities from the franchise, this chapter shows how such restrictions buttress prevailing 19th century racial hierarchies in the present moment. This chapter explores the contradictory yet complementary logics of competence, responsibility, guilt, and dependency at play in Maryland’s constitutional debates. It shows how civil and political disabilities have been constructed both within and against understandings of disability in general and mental disability in particular. Convention delegates understood disenfranchisement as a practice that managed the boundaries of full citizenship through the courts’ power to determine criminal guilt and mental competence in order to shore up an unstable conception of whiteness as innocent, able, and fit to rule. Drawing on scholarship in critical disability studies, this chapter shows how disenfranchisement continues to operate racially not just in spite of color-blind liberalism, but also through its ability to disarm claims of racial animus. The norms that drove the adoption of disenfranchisement in the nineteenth century continue to ground these exclusions to the vote, meaning that the ideal figure of the American citizen continues to be compulsorily white, male, heterosexual, and able-bodied.
Fordham Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.