This article explores assisted and proxy voting options for individuals with intellectual disabilities, suggesting constitutional support for assisted voting.
This article examines the adoption of voting methods designed to support individuals with intellectual disabilities in elections. It focuses on two widely used approaches, frequently explored in scholarly discourse: assisted voting and proxy voting. Both of these voting methods rely on third-party involvement and therefore require the consideration of the prohibition of plural voting in the Australian Constitution. The article concludes that while assisted voting and a limited form of proxy voting-where the proxy must strictly follow the elector’s explicit instructions-are constitutional, proxy voting becomes unconstitutional if the elector is unable to communicate their electoral judgment. Assisted voting therefore emerges as the most practical and constitutionally compliant option.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reece Maclean Blackett (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: