Despicable.

You don´t have to be crazy to vote Democrat but it helps.

It is not hard to guess who is behind such drives, which are the reductio ad absurdum of democracy.

´BO gets mentally ill vote"

Isn´t that a better headline?

Translation: their families viewed them as loved ones, but we just need warm bodies to keep the gravy train moving.

"He also said that . . . a patient’s right to vote takes priority over any objections from guardians."

Put a different way, they´ll continue the practice because they can, and it allows them opportunities to cast two, three, or more votes for their own choices, by ´helping´ patients fill out their ballots.

There are a lot of Red States but I doubt if the majority of public employees of even one state vote GOP.

Having state employees ´assist´ will produce a small but reliable bloc of Democrat votes where and when it is done.

Maybe state universities could cast the votes of all the students? Just make it an admission requirement.

One of the requirements to register to vote in Texas is that you must not have been judicially declared mentally incompetent. Any adult who has had a guardian appointed for them has to have been declared mentally incompetent first. I notice that North Carolina does not have this restriction. Thus, even a person declared mentally incompetent by a court can still vote there. Were I a NC resident, I would want that fixed.

They were doing this with my daughter, who is profoundly retarded, until I found out . They were SHOCKED that I didn´t want her to.
"that way you get to vote twice!," they claimed. Typical liberals assume everyone is one of them!!!

Translation: Democrat Operatives will be more than happy to assist your insane relatives to vote.

Next stop, the cemeteries!

IMHO, very few who push this do so for any legitimate reason[s].

Further, there is no "right" to vote. Anyone informed on the Constitution understands this.

NO ONE has the RIGHT to vote.....we have a duty to vote...no where is it written that voting is a right....wont findit anywhere in the Consitutuion....

#8, in Texas each guardianship may cover different aspects of the person´s life. I am a guardian for a disabled adult; however, this particular disabled adult retains his right to vote. Why? Because in his personal situation, he is not competent to enter into contracts, but he is aware of politics and is an avid student of history. (And as for the theory some have here about 100% of such people voting Democrat...the person I´m speaking of nearly always votes Republican. Nothing is 100% in this world...except death and taxes.)

The instiutionalized person should be allowed to vote if accompanied by a family member or a guardian. No hospital employee or someone campaigning for a candidate should be allowed to take the person to the poll and tell them how to vote. This is not ideal, but if the law allows them to vote, the vote should not be hi-jacked by a democrate.

My mother was in an assisted living facility in the 2008 election and was confused most of the time. On a visit to see her after the election, she was rambling about something, and said something about voting for Obama because she wanted "change." I was apalled that my life-long Republican mother was talked into voting for BO. Thankfully, she passed away before the 2012 election.

For Dems, there´s no such thing as "too low".

They´re coming to take me away, ha ha ho ho hee hee..... to the polls!

How about we schedule an NRA membership drive too?

Think that would be okay?

When I registered to vote in NY State in 1964, I had to show proof of literacy.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act killed off any test of literacy.
And prior to 1965, ballots were printed in English. Now, in some voting precincts, the ballots are printed in multiple languages.
Yet citizenship requires that a person be literate in English.
that contradiction is never explained.

No.20: A small correction. NATURALIZATION requires English literacy. Citizenship does not. For instance, Puerto Ricans are citizens but may or may not be fluent or literate in English. That becomes a problem when they move to one of the States and vote there.

The issue is not about the rights of those who want to vote but about those who get steam-rollered into an Acorn type aggregate of votes tallied in the names of those who were truly incompetent and disinterested.

When Obamacare is fully implemented, the disabled will be allowed one more vote in election years and then encouraged to die with dignity right after the election.

This is absoultely pathetic! The Liberals have gone to their lowest point but somehow I believe they can do worse.

I agree there´s a problem with mentally ill people voting.

But - I have a bigger problem when the mentally ill run for and are elected to the House and Senate!

It would be nice if someone could stand outside by the street and hold a sign saying, "Democrats soliciation drive here".

You can see why the liberal Democrats always blame a gun when a mentally ill person goes on a shooting rampage. The mentally ill can vote, guns can´t!

Here in MA we conduct them at funeral parlors too.

It´s an abusive practice. Maybe a recovered person could sue the pants off the perpetrators of this abuse.

I thought the democrats had been casting ballots on behalf of the mentally ill, the dead, the jailed, those out of the country, those that have moved, the unregistered, etc for years.

Sorry, but if they are not competent enough to:
live alone
buy a firearm
drive a car
and need a legal guardian to sign documents and pay bills

Then they are unable to vote.

By law, the mentally ill and developmentally disabled are barred from entering a contract. So why is it they´re not barred from voting? This is all part of the demonrat fraud scheme.