Although recent disability population estimates by the Center for Disease Control and the US Census Bureau range from 13-25%; the true number remains widely unknown because of misinformation that creates disability mysticism. It’s a knowledge gap that manifests in people being unfamiliar with what is considered a disability and if they themselves have one.
Despite the disability community being the largest minority group in the US, a 2.7-14.7 point disparity exists between the percentage of people living with a disability and the 10.3% of elected officials with a known disability. This elicits questions about why more politicians with disabilities are not elected into office- the answer has layers.
One reason is rooted in why it’s important to have disability representation in the first place. People from marginalized groups have a higher chance of bringing up issues that pertain to their respective group. Since not many people with disabilities run, issues relating to disabilities such as accessible health care and transportation, are frequently excluded from campaign talking points. As a consequence, people with disabilities may feel less empowered to partake in politics, including not voting or running for office, only perpetuating the cycle.
Political analyst Jennifer Wolak examines in her research entitled, “Feelings of Political Efficacy in the Fifty States,” the correlation between external and internal efficacies. Wolak differentiates external efficacy as the people’s perception level about if politicians care what they want while internal efficacy reflects how heard people think their opinions are in the political atmosphere.
Wolak explains that external efficacy is higher when the government produces policies indicative of constituents’ preferences, they’re more likely to construe they have a higher level of political influence, thus convincing them to participate more. As mentioned before, issues surrounding disabilities are either typically not enacted or even deliberated on any level of government.
She also discovered internal efficacy rather is more responsive to the availability of voting opportunities like absentee ballots. These ballots in particular are important for people with disabilities because many encounter challenges when going to in-person voting stations.
In fact, a Rutgers University study found that 18% of people with disabilities faced at least one challenge with in-person voting in 2020, double the rate of people without a disability. 74% of voters with disabilities instead opted for the absentee ballot method, which has retained its popularity specifically amongst this group.
Despite this, since people with disabilities run into more voting troubles, they may feel less internal efficacy and therefore less initiative to run for office. Not to mention, Wolak discusses how many who lack internal efficacy tend to feel like they don’t have the resources to run, including social or political competence. For people with disabilities this perhaps stems from their societal isolation with about 40% of adults with disabilities in a 2021 University of Michigan report disclosing a sense of loneliness, likely due to stigmas against disabilities.
In a series of studies conducted by psychologist Kathleen R. Bogart, experiencing stigmas has been shown to be the greatest predictor of if someone identifies as having a disability as well. For centuries in US politics candidates were afraid to admit they have a disability, especially a cognitive one, exemplified by 1972 Vice Presidential candidate Thomas Eagleton. Eagleton withdrew after his depression hospitalizations were revealed to the public.
Incidents such as these can lead to internalization, where people begin to adopt these negative views of their own disabilities. It’s now been debunked though that mental illnesses affect intelligence levels with most being manageable with good treatment and medication.
To overcome these systemic barriers, Wolak concludes three ways the government can heighten efficacy in individuals include: diverse viewpoints in legal decisions, introduce legislation that citizens want and have institutions empower people to voice their opinions not limit them.
Part of creating these structures would be the nullification of a current major legal obstruction for people with disabilities who run for office which is the “1999 Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act.” An act that provides services like vocational rehabilitation and Social Security Disability Insurance to people with disabilities to help them return back to or enter the workforce. Yet, the Social Security Administration qualifies unpaid campaigning as work, meaning candidates with disabilities can have their benefits revoked.
Many states have laws that require elected officials to be present for meetings and the price for interpreters on campaign trails and at the office is expensive in addition, but some legislators have introduced bills to waive in-person meeting requirements. As for the specific cases of addressing the Ticket to Work Act and lack of funding, there’s Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey.
His proposed “Removing Access Barriers to Running for Elected Office for People with Disabilities Act” would clarify that campaigning is not the same as obtaining an elected position. Meanwhile, the “Accessibility and Inclusion to Diversify Local Government Leadership Act” would allocate a portion of local government budgets to administer accommodations for officials with disabilities.
Acts like this are a part of a broader movement to help people with disabilities ensure they have the right to vote and the right to run for office. One major resource if you’re looking to support the cause is Disability Victory, an organization that trains on campaign strategies, acts as a network for politicians with disabilities and provides consultation for any of the mentioned.