AN ACT proposing an amendment to Section 145 of the Constitution of Kentucky relating to persons entitled to vote.
Summary
SB79 is a proposed constitutional amendment to Section 145 of the Kentucky Constitution concerning voter eligibility. The measure would revise the list of persons who are not entitled to vote by replacing the current archaic language “Idiots and insane persons” with a modern standard that bars only persons who have been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be mentally incompetent to vote, unless that judicial determination has been set aside. The bill also places the amendment before Kentucky voters for ratification or rejection at a future general election and directs the Secretary of State and county clerks to publish and place the full question and amendment text on the ballot according to specified deadlines.
In practical terms, the bill would not itself change election law immediately; instead, it would ask voters to approve a constitutional change that would govern who may be excluded from voting on mental competency grounds. It also preserves the existing constitutional disqualifications for persons convicted of treason, felony, bribery in an election, certain high misdemeanors, and persons in confinement under a penal judgment. If adopted, the amendment would update the constitutional text and align it more closely with modern legal terminology and court-based competency determinations.
Impact
SB79 would amend Kentucky’s Constitution, specifically Section 145, by narrowing and modernizing the language governing voter disqualification for mental incapacity. It would affect election administration by requiring the Secretary of State and county clerks to publish the amendment and place the full text on ballots for voter approval, while leaving the ultimate legal effect contingent on ratification by the electorate. The bill would primarily affect voters, election officials, and courts that make competency determinations.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is procedural and likely framed as a modernization measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the materials supplied. The wording change from outdated terminology to a court-based standard suggests an intent to update the constitution in a more precise and legally current way.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope and standard for disenfranchising people based on mental competency. Supporters would likely view the amendment as a necessary update that replaces offensive, outdated language with a judicially determined standard, while critics may focus on whether the amendment could still allow exclusion of some voters with disabilities or mental health conditions. Another possible issue is the use of a constitutional amendment, which requires voter ratification and may raise broader concerns about access to the ballot and the role of courts in determining voting rights.