[Mn-at-large] Day at the Capitol Fact Sheet

[David Andrews]

>
>TO:        Members of the 2019 Minnesota Legislature
>FROM:  The National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota (NFBM)
>RE:         Legislative Agenda for the 2019 Session
>DATE:   January 16, 2019
>
>Legislative Priorities for the 2019 Session:
>
>1. Protect the right of blind persons to parent 
>children by strengthening legislation on custody and support of children
>
>2. Preserve and increase private and independent 
>voting by blind Minnesotans and others
>
>3. Require nonvisual access to connected and 
>automated vehicles in applicable legislation
>
>About the NFB of Minnesota
>
>This information is provided by the members of 
>the National Federation of the Blind of 
>Minnesota (NFBM), the state’s oldest, largest, 
>and most active membership organization of blind 
>and interested sighted people, who have worked 
>together since 1920 to formulate much-needed 
>social change.  With chapters throughout the 
>state, we deliver a message of hope and 
>encouragement that blindness need not hold us 
>back.  We promote policies that will bring blind 
>people of all ages into full participation in our communities.
>
>Over the years, we have worked successfully with 
>the Legislature to enact laws that improve 
>opportunities for blind Minnesotans, and you can 
>help us again this year.  We want to share with 
>you a positive approach to the legislative needs 
>of blind individuals.  We ask that you consider 
>the following information about our current efforts and lend your support.
>
>Protect Civil Rights of Blind Parents
>
>Blind persons who are competent parents have 
>sometimes been denied the opportunity for 
>adoption, or have lost child custody on the 
>basis of blindness, without offering specific 
>evidence. The Minnesota legislature took a step 
>toward addressing the problem with recent 
>amendments to statute, but stronger protection 
>under the law is needed to eliminate the bias 
>and discrimination that blind persons face in 
>court decisions regarding custody, visitation, 
>foster care, guardianship, or 
>adoption.  Legislation should include procedural 
>safeguards if blindness is raised as a 
>factor­setting a proper legal standard of proof, 
>shifting the burden to the party making the 
>assertion, and taking into account the use of 
>supportive parenting services if such services are needed.
>
>Background: Social service agencies today are 
>often asked to conduct investigations to ensure 
>that children receive proper care and adequate 
>protection. Our courts are then called upon to 
>settle child custody disputes. Like other 
>members of the general public, blind persons 
>have sometimes found themselves in the midst of 
>child custody and other family disputes. 
>Unfortunately, a parent’s or prospective 
>parent's lack of vision often becomes the 
>overriding factor used by the courts and social 
>service agencies when making decisions about the 
>care of children.  Since blindness is not well 
>understood by court and agency officials, it can 
>become the primary factor in denying custody to 
>blind parents and guardians even when it is not a relevant factor at all.
>
>The National Federation of the Blind has 
>documented thousands of cases of blind people 
>who are successfully raising children, many 
>right here in Minnesota.  This vast experience 
>demonstrates that blindness is not a relevant 
>factor in whether a person is fit to be a 
>parent. We have represented many blind persons 
>in child custody cases across the country, as 
>well as in other situations involving the care 
>of children.  Unfortunately, blatant 
>discrimination still occurs in too many of these 
>cases.  The capabilities of blind individuals to 
>care for children are often brought into 
>question even when they have been successfully 
>caring for their children for many years.
>
>When a custody dispute arises between blind and 
>sighted spouses, the sighted spouse frequently 
>makes unsubstantiated accusations about the 
>incompetence of the blind spouse. In other legal 
>proceedings, the defendant is deemed innocent 
>until proven guilty. In custody cases, however, 
>court officials assume that the blind defendant 
>is incompetent or guilty.  Frequently this 
>defendant has to prove that the accusations are false.
>
>In September 2012, the National Council on 
>Disability issued a report entitled Rocking the 
>Cradle: Ensuring the Rights of Parents with 
>Disabilities and Their Children 
>(<http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2012/Sep272012>http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2012/Sep272012). 
>This report states that parents with 
>disabilities, “are the only distinct community 
>of Americans who must struggle to retain custody 
>of their children.” The report goes on to say, 
>“In families where the parental disability is 
>physical, 13 percent have reported 
>discriminatory treatment in custody cases. 
>Parents who are deaf or blind report extremely 
>high rates of child removal and loss of parental rights.”
>
>Existing Law: The Minnesota Legislature has 
>demonstrated its understanding that disabled 
>parents should not be denied a role in raising 
>their children merely on the basis of 
>disability. MS 518.17 Subdivision 1b(5) states 
>that "Disability alone, ... of a proposed 
>custodian or the child shall not be 
>determinative of the custody of the child." 
>Although this law was a positive step, the 
>language needs to be strengthened to require a 
>judge to be more specific about the reasons for 
>a decision­in other words, to require the court 
>to show that no discrimination has occurred. 
>Additionally, the law should be changed to offer 
>a blind parent the opportunity to demonstrate 
>his abilities or to learn about supportive 
>parenting services which may resolve concerns 
>before limiting or denying custody rights.
>
>The supportive parenting services referenced in 
>the proposed legislation may be accomplished by 
>having the blind person work with other blind 
>parents.  They may learn that, for example, 
>putting bells on an infant’s or toddler’s shoes 
>will help the blind parent keep track of the 
>child’s location.  These services could also 
>include the provision of training to help the 
>blind parent improve her independent living and mobility skills.
>
>Legislation Needed: Minnesota statutes should be 
>amended to prohibit any legal presumption that a 
>blind parent is unfit to carry out parental or 
>caregiving responsibilities. A party raising 
>blindness as an issue would have the burden of 
>proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that 
>specific behaviors are endangering the health, 
>safety, or welfare of the child. If the burden 
>is met, the blind parent or prospective parent 
>will be given the opportunity to demonstrate how 
>the implementation of supportive parenting 
>services can alleviate any concerns which have 
>been raised. If a court determines that a blind 
>parent’s right to custody, visitation, foster 
>care, guardianship, or adoption should be denied 
>or limited in any manner, the court must set 
>forth specific written findings stating the 
>basis for such a determination and explaining 
>why the provision of supportive parenting 
>services is not a reasonable accommodation that 
>must be made to prevent such denial or limitation.
>
>Increase Accessibility and Privacy for Blind Voters
>
>Background: As a result of the Help America Vote 
>Act (HAVA) and related state legislation, blind 
>Minnesotans have for the past ten years been 
>able to vote privately and independently in 
>elections by the use of technology that displays 
>and speaks the ballot information and enables 
>the voter to mark the paper ballot. This 
>technology has also opened the possibility of 
>independent voting by people with reading 
>difficulties or other disabilities that impede access to the print ballot.
>
>Absentee Voting: There remain challenges for 
>blind and disabled voters who need to vote using 
>absentee ballots.  There is already an existing 
>system permitting military personnel and other 
>voters living outside the United States to 
>receive a ballot by electronic methods which can 
>then be completed, printed, and mailed.  With 
>minor adjustments, this system  could be used to 
>provide blind and other disabled voters who use 
>computers a method of printing and mailing in an 
>absentee ballot with little or no 
>assistance.  The NFB of Minnesota supports 
>current efforts of the Secretary of State to 
>broaden this absentee voting process to provide 
>a more accessible absentee voting alternative for blind and disabled persons.
>
>In-Person Voting: The AutoMark, which is the 
>machine currently used for accessible in-person 
>voting in 80 out of Minnesota’s 87 counties, 
>complies completely with Minnesota's requirement 
>that a paper ballot be used.  However, in light 
>of the fact that the AutoMark machines are 
>aging, are difficult to maintain, and are no 
>longer manufactured, additional new solutions 
>are needed to ensure that individuals who are 
>blind or have other disabilities can continue to 
>vote privately and independently while allowing for affordable options.
>
>The Minnesota Secretary of State has 
>investigated the matter and found there to be 
>additional accessible voting machine options 
>that meet Minnesota's requirement for the use of 
>a paper ballot.  However, cheaper prices, 
>smaller size and wait, and lower maintenance are 
>often achieved by producing a paper ballot that 
>is of a different design and size. Such machines 
>are not only for use by blind and disabled 
>voters but can be effectively used by anyone, 
>and in most cases, allow the expensive vote 
>tabulation machines already purchased to remain in use.
>
>Legislation will again be introduced this year 
>to amend Minnesota statutes to allow for 
>continued access to independent and private 
>voting by broadening certification criteria, so 
>that newer machines, as well as other voting 
>technology yet to be developed, can be eligible 
>for certification in the state of Minnesota. The 
>National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota 
>will support such legislation, if, and only if, 
>it continues to include provisions that:
>
>•            assure that voters who use the 
>accessible technology have access to
>all of the same information that is available to 
>voters who do not use the technology to read and mark their ballots;
>•            assure that voters using the 
>technology can vote for all offices and
>questions, perform write-ins if desired, verify 
>and correct votes before casting the ballot, and 
>access all other voting options available to voters not using the technology;
>•            assure that ballots of voters using the technology are not
>segregated from ballots of voters who do not use it;
>•            take proactive measures to ensure 
>preservation of the anonymity of
>the paper ballots in the event of a re-count or post-election review.
>
>Nonvisual Access to Connected and Automated Vehicles
>
>Inadequate public transportation systems and 
>inaccessible rural and suburban transportation 
>options have long presented a major barrier to 
>employment opportunities for blind people and 
>others who cannot drive traditional vehicles. In 
>December of 2018, the Minnesota Governor's 
>Advisory Council on Connected and Automated 
>Vehicles issued recommendations for changes in 
>state law, rules, and policies to maximize the 
>benefits and prepare for the widespread adoption 
>of connected and automated vehicles (CAV).
><http://www.dot.state.mn.us/automated/docs/Governor's%20Advisory%20Council%20Connected%20and%20Automated%20Vehicles%20Executive%20R....pdf>http://www.dot.state.mn.us/automated/docs/Governor's%20Advisory%20Council%20Connected%20and%20Automated%20Vehicles%20Executive%20R....pdf
>As the report states, "While it is unclear when 
>this technology will be fully available, it is 
>clear that CAV is the future of transportation 
>and may fundamentally change the way we live our 
>lives." The report continues: "CAV may reduce 
>transportation barriers for persons with 
>disabilities, the aging population, low income 
>communities and many others. As Minnesota begins 
>to engage proactively in modernizing policy, it 
>should be kept in mind that these potential 
>benefits will only be realized if both the 
>vehicles and the policies are properly designed from the outset.
>
>CAVs with level four and five automation, 
>according to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
>Administration, are designed so that the 
>operator is not expected to monitor the roadway 
>while the vehicle is in self-driving mode and so 
>that steering, acceleration, and braking are 
>operated without human driver input. Private 
>industry stakeholders are already designing, 
>developing, and testing vehicles with this level of automation.
>
>If and when legislation is brought forward that 
>applies to vehicles with level 4 and level 5 
>automation, the NFB of Minnesota urges that such 
>legislation 1) require nonvisual access in user 
>interface; 2) include accessibility as a 
>component of reporting requirements, and 3) 
>prohibit licensing requirements that 
>discriminate on the basis of disability where 
>the actual ability to drive is not a real requirement to use such a vehicle.
>
>Additional Pending Issue: Shortage of Teachers 
>for Blind and Visually Impaired Students
>
>To access the same academic standards as other 
>students, blind students must learn specific 
>skills such as reading and writing Braille, 
>using computers with speech or braille output, 
>moving safely and confidently through the 
>environment, using transportation, etc.
>These and other such skills are taught by 
>teachers with specialized training as required by federal and state law.
>
>A 2018 report to the Minnesota legislature
>(<https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2018/mandated/180726.pdf>https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2018/mandated/180726.pdf) 
>documents a significant and increasing shortage 
>of teachers trained to provide needed education 
>services to blind children and youth in Minnesota.
>The ability to hire new teachers to replace them 
>is severely limited by the lack of a licensure 
>program within the state. The National 
>Federation of the Blind of Minnesota has been 
>working with the Teachers of the Blind and 
>Visually Impaired Advisory Committee, 
>Institutions of Higher Education, and other 
>interested parties to remove roadblocks 
>hindering Minnesotans' ability to receive the 
>appropriate licenses while maintaining the needed level of competency.
>We will be in contact with the Minnesota 
>Legislature when a specific solution is 
>presented, and we urge you to contact us if 
>questions or issues arise on this topic.
>
>For further information on these legislative 
>priorities, or should questions arise on any 
>matters affecting blind people anywhere in 
>Minnesota, contact Ryan Strunk, President, 
>National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota, 
>by phone at (612) 872-9363 or email 
><mailto:president at nfbmn.org>president at nfbmn.org
>
>
>Ryan Strunk, President
><mailto:president at nfbmn.org>president at nfbmn.org
>www.nfb.org
><http://www.nfbmn.org>www.nfbmn.org
>(612) 872-9363
>Live the life you Want.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/mn-at-large_nfbnet.org/attachments/20190116/abe6b8b3/attachment.html>