Disability advocates and state disagree over Montana State Hospital patient vote

HELENA — An advocacy organization and state officials are now embroiled in a legal battle over whether people admitted to Montana State Hospital should be allowed to vote.

Earlier this month, Disability Rights Montana filed a lawsuit, arguing that many patients at the hospital met legal requirements to vote but were “systematically disenfranchised.” In its complaint, the organization alluded to long-standing concerns about the safety of patients and staff at MSH, and said patients deserve to have a voice in electing employees who oversee the facility.

“Voting allows any eligible voter to have a seat at the table and a say in our state’s policies,” said Tal Goldin, advocacy director at Disability Rights Montana and attorney for the plaintiffs, in a press release. “Voting is one of the only powers that State Hospital patients have to influence the most private decisions about their lives, including who they interact with, where they live and what happens to their bodies. People with disabilities who meet all legal requirements to vote deserve the same opportunity to be heard as any other Montana citizen.”

Montana State Hospital, located in Warm Springs near Anaconda, provides psychiatric treatment to people with serious mental illnesses. Some were admitted to hospital through a civil case, while others were sent there for treatment as part of a criminal sentence.

The Montana Constitution says people are not eligible to vote if they are “serving time for a crime in a penal institution” or “mentally ill, as determined by a court.” The state interpreted this to mean that people convicted of crimes can vote when they are on probation, parole or deferred sentencing, but not when they are in a correctional institution or state hospital.

An MSH patient, admitted there after being convicted of a crime, filed a lawsuit after trying to register to vote in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County and the county elections administrator rejected his request. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the state hospital is not a “penal institution” and that people admitted there should not be considered “mentally ill” unless a court specifically rules so.

The complaint said that this patient’s right to vote and “the voting rights of all involuntarily compromised individuals at the Hospital who otherwise meet the qualifications to vote – convicted felons or not – are in jeopardy unless the Court declares the your rights as requested here.”

A district court judge issued a temporary restraining order, allowing the petitioner to register to vote.

However, Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office announced Tuesday that it has issued a binding legal opinion stating that people convicted of a crime and placed on MSH are not eligible to vote. Knudsen argued that those criminally committed to the hospital are only held as long as they serve the maximum prison sentence, earn seniority while in the facility, and can be sent to another correctional facility without a change in their status.

“All of this evidence shows that when a person is at MSH, they are, in effect, ‘serving time for a crime in a penal institution,’ even if they primarily receive medical treatment while at MSH,” Knudsen wrote. .

Knudsen argued that the constitution guarantees that people in state institutions do not have fewer rights than others in similar situations because of their mental illness, but that allowing this group to vote would essentially give them more rights than others convicted of the same crimes.

An attorney general’s official opinion carries the weight of law unless overturned by a court.

Knudsen’s office also filed a motion seeking to vacate the temporary restraining order.

“The law is clear: convicted felons lose the right to vote while serving their sentence,” Knudsen said in a statement. “Serving time in Warm Springs while being treated for mental illness does not restore that right.”