Abstract: This article analyzes the legal frameworks and practical implementation of the right to vote and stand for election of persons with disabilities in Australia and Viet Nam. It identifies key enabling factors and persistent barriers, as well as recent trends in reform. Based on a comparative analysis, the article offers recommendations for improving Viet Nam’s policies and legal provisions better to ensure the electoral rights of persons with disabilities, drawing on Australia’s experience.

Keywords: Persons with disabilities, Voting rights, Australia, Vietnam

1. Introduction

The rights to vote and stand for election are fundamental political rights of citizens in a democratic rule-of-law state. However, persons with disabilities around the world continue to face numerous barriers in exercising these rights, including legal and institutional constraints, inaccessible infrastructure, and societal attitudes. According to Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), State Parties are obligated to ensure that persons with disabilities can fully and effectively participate in political and public life, particularly the rights to vote and be elected, on an equal basis with others[1].

Australia is among the leading countries in the world in domesticating the provisions of the CRPD into its legal system, through instruments such as the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and institutions such as the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). Despite these advances, Australia still faces issues such as legal exclusion based on mental capacity and technical barriers for voters, which have resulted in several reform recommendations from international human rights bodies[2].

Viet Nam, while having achieved some positive outcomes and maintaining a relatively open legal framework, still lacks specific and necessary policies to ensure the rights to vote and stand for election for persons with disabilities. Therefore, analysing Australia's experience can provide useful insights for improving policies and institutional reforms aimed at better protecting these rights in Viet Nam. This article contributes to that effort by: analysing the legal framework, opportunities, and challenges related to ensuring the voting and candidacy rights of persons with disabilities in Australia (Section 2); providing a general assessment of the situation in Viet Nam, including key achievements and challenges (Section 3.1); and highlighting relevant lessons from Australia that Viet Nam may draw on to address these challenges and enhance the protection of voting and candidacy rights for persons with disabilities in the near future (Section 3.2).

2. Voting and Candidacy Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Australia: Legal Framework, Challenges, and Reform Prospects

2.1. Legal Framework

Australia is a country with a long-standing parliamentary democratic tradition, in which voting is considered a compulsory legal obligation for all citizens aged 18 and above, including persons with disabilities. The current legal framework in Australia relating to citizens’ voting rights includes the following instruments:

- The Constitution of Australia: While the Constitution does not directly stipulate the right to vote or stand for election, it contains several provisions that indirectly relate to these rights, especially concerning elections to the Federal Parliament (Parliament of the Commonwealth). Specifically, Section 7, concerning the Senate, states that senators must be “directly chosen by the people,” implying that universal suffrage is a constitutional principle in Senate elections[3]. Similarly, Section 24, concerning the House of Representatives, provides that its members must also be “directly chosen by the people” across the nation[4]. Furthermore, Section 30 allows federal legislation to define voter eligibility, while Section 44 outlines the grounds for disqualification from serving in Parliament (either House), including[5]: holding dual citizenship; having been convicted of a serious offence; being bankrupt; having financial interests in government contracts; or being a government employee.

- The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918: This Act governs the conduct of federal elections in Australia, including elections to the House of Representatives and the Senate. It regulates voter rolls, electoral boundaries, campaigning rules, election spending, and the publication of results[6]. The Act operationalises the principle of universal suffrage as set out in Sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution. Under this Act, all Australian citizens aged 18 or over, who are ordinarily resident in Australia and properly registered, have both the right and the obligation to vote[7].However, Section 93(8)(a) of the Act has been a source of controversy. It provides that individuals deemed to be “of unsound mind” may be excluded from the electoral roll if they are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of voting[8]. This provision has led to the exclusion of certain individuals with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities from voting, often without case-specific or adequately substantiated assessments[9].Regarding election administration, the Act establishes the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) as an independent body responsible for organising, supervising, and ensuring the transparency and fairness of all federal elections. The AEC is also tasked with maintaining voter rolls, providing guidance on election procedures, and ensuring accessibility for vulnerable groups, including persons with disabilities[10].

Although the Act has undergone several amendments over time, it continues to contain provisions criticised by human rights experts as inconsistent with the CRPD, particularly the exclusion of individuals deemed to lack mental capacity[11] from voting and candidacy rights.

- The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986: This Act establishes and governs the operation of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)—an independent body tasked with promoting and protecting human rights in Australia. The Act empowers the Commission to investigate human rights violations, provide policy recommendations to the government, and monitor discrimination cases [12]. Although the Act does not contain specific provisions for persons with disabilities, they are protected as a vulnerable group through anti-discrimination complaint mechanisms. Under this Act, the AHRC can: Receive and investigate complaints from persons with disabilities related to denial of access to public services, education, elections, or employment; Issue recommendations for policy or legislative reforms to improve legal protections for persons with disabilities[13]. Overall, this Act provides the legal foundation for the AHRC to oversee and promote the implementation of international human rights treaties, including the CRPD. Thanks to this law, persons with disabilities in Australia have access to a quasi-judicial mechanism to raise concerns, file complaints, and demand improvements in policies to ensure their rights, including the rights to vote and run for office[14].

- The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA): This Act prohibits all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities—whether physical, intellectual, psychosocial, neurological, etc.—in both the public and private sectors[15]. It explicitly bans disability-based discrimination in areas such as: Employment; Education; Access to public services; Housing; Access to buildings, transport, and facilities; Participation in political and public life, including voting and standing for election [16]. Importantly, the Act requires electoral bodies—particularly the AEC—to provide reasonable adjustments to ensure that persons with disabilities can access polling stations, voting information, and voting methods suited to their needs [17]. Failure to provide such adjustments may constitute unlawful discrimination[18]. Persons with disabilities who are denied access or treated unfavorably may lodge complaints with the AHRC, which can mediate, investigate, and recommend corrective actions. If unresolved through mediation, individuals may pursue legal proceedings in court[19]. Thus, although the DDA does not directly grant voting or candidacy rights, it plays a crucial role in ensuring those rights can be exercised without discriminatory barriers. For example, if a person with a disability is unable to access a polling station due to the absence of a ramp, or if voting materials are not available in accessible formats, they may invoke the DDA to claim remedies or demand procedural changes. Similarly, candidates with disabilities are protected from unreasonable exclusion by political parties or electoral organizations during the nomination and campaigning process[20].

2.2. Enabling Factors and Challenges

In terms of enabling factors, Australia’s legal framework on elections is relatively well developed to protect the electoral rights of all citizens, including persons with disabilities. Another significant advantage is that Australia ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2008, thereby committing to ensuring the political participation of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others[21].

The aforementioned laws in Australia contain specific provisions to support the exercise of voting and candidacy rights by persons with disabilities. These include the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which prohibits discrimination in access to polling places, election information, and services[22]; and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which mandates the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to ensure fairness and provide reasonable accommodations for all voters, including persons with disabilities[23]. In practice, the AEC has implemented a number of measures to support persons with disabilities, such as: providing election materials in Braille, Auslan sign language, Easy Read format, and instructional videos; offering postal voting, early voting at home, and mobile voting with assistive technologies; setting up a helpline for people with hearing impairments; and providing digital accessibility on its website[24]. Some states, such as New South Wales, have introduced the iVote system (electronic voting), which expands political participation opportunities for those unable to travel to polling stations[25].

Nevertheless, the implementation of voting and candidacy rights for persons with disabilities in Australia still faces several challenges, specifically:

First, legal barriers related to legal capacity

One of the most controversial issues is the provision in Section 93(8)(a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which excludes from the electoral roll those deemed “of unsound mind”—that is, those considered incapable of understanding the act of voting[26]. This provision does not clearly define what constitutes “unsound mind” and does not require individual assessments of capacity, resulting in the arbitrary exclusion of many persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities from voting rights[27]. In practice, many individuals living in disability care institutions, those with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities, or those under guardianship in Australia have been removed from the electoral roll[28]. A survey by Inclusion Australia found that 17% of people with intellectual disabilities had been excluded from the electoral roll[29]. Accordingly, the CRPD Committee’s Concluding Observations on Australia in 2019 highlighted these shortcomings, particularly the exclusion of those deemed incapable of understanding voting, which it considered a violation of Article 29 of the Convention[30].

Second, limited physical and informational accessibility

Although the Australian Electoral Commission has implemented support measures, many polling places still fail to meet accessibility standards for voters with disabilities. According to a report by the Australian Human Rights Commission, in the 2019 federal election, only around 68% of polling places were considered accessible to wheelchair users and people with visual impairments[31]. Common physical barriers for persons with disabilities—such as the lack of ramps, signage, and assistive devices—were prevalent at many polling stations[32]. In addition, digital election materials remain inconsistent, and electronic voting systems like iVote have been suspended in some states, such as New South Wales since 2021, due to technical issues, raising concerns about the reliability of alternatives to traditional voting[33].

Third, lack of political representation of persons with disabilities

Although Australian law does not prohibit persons with disabilities from running for office, in practice they are almost absent from Parliament and local councils. This is due to various reasons, such as lack of financial support, inadequate training in campaigning, and attitudinal barriers that make it difficult for persons with disabilities to compete fairly with candidates without disabilities[34]. Meanwhile, no affirmative action policies have been adopted by major Australian political parties to encourage candidates with disabilities to run for office[35].

2.3. Prospects for Reform

From the analysis in the previous sections, it is clear that Australia has made notable progress in establishing a legal and institutional framework to ensure the voting and candidacy rights of persons with disabilities. However, several challenges remain to be addressed, particularly the removal of legal barriers, the upgrading of accessibility systems, and the promotion of substantive representation of persons with disabilities in the political system.

In recent years, various advocacy efforts have been undertaken to eliminate these barriers and ensure the meaningful realization of voting and candidacy rights for persons with disabilities in Australia. These include[36]:

· First, amending or repealing Section 93(8)(a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to remove the vague provision on mental capacity.· Second, implementing electronic voting systems that are secure and user-friendly for people with visual or mobility impairments.

· Third, ensuring comprehensive accessibility at polling places as a prerequisite, accompanied by staff training and infrastructure improvements.

· Fourth, providing financial support policies for candidates with disabilities and establishing a national fund to promote inclusive political representation.

· Finally, collecting disaggregated statistical data to serve as a basis for fairer assessment and policymaking in the area of inclusive elections for persons with disabilities[37].

3. Lessons for Viet Nam

3.1. Overview of the Protection of Voting and Candidacy Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Viet Nam

The rights to vote and stand for election are fundamental political rights recognized by the 2013 Constitution of Viet Nam. Article 27 of the Constitution states: “Citizens who are eighteen years of age or older have the right to vote; citizens who are twenty-one years of age or older have the right to stand for election to the National Assembly and the People's Councils.” Additionally, Article 49 affirms: “Persons with disabilities are provided with conditions by the State and society to integrate into the community and enjoy equal rights.” The Law on the Election of Deputies to the National Assembly and People’s Councils (2015) operationalizes the constitutional provisions and does not impose any exclusionary conditions preventing persons with disabilities from being on the voter roll or running for office[38]. Furthermore, the Law on Persons with Disabilities (2010) states in Article 11 that persons with disabilities “have the right to participate in political, economic, cultural, and social activities” like any other citizen. Viet Nam has been a State Party to the CRPD since 2014 and has committed to implementing Article 29 on the political rights and public participation of persons with disabilities.In recent elections to the National Assembly and People’s Councils, Viet Nam has made commendable efforts to ensure the right to vote for persons with disabilities, primarily through in-person assistance at polling stations and mobile voting. According to the summary report of the National Election Council, during the 15th National Assembly election in 2021, election teams delivered ballots to the homes of many voters with severe disabilities, elderly citizens, and those with mobility difficulties[39]. Additionally, some social initiatives—such as sign language interpretation at selected polling sites and the broadcasting of election information in audio format for blind voters—were implemented in certain localities such as Da Nang and Ho Chi Minh City[40].
The absence of any legal provisions excluding persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities from the voter roll—as still exists in some countries—is a noteworthy progressive element in Viet Nam’s approach. This provides a solid foundation for the positive results Viet Nam has achieved in safeguarding the electoral rights of persons with disabilities in recent years. Nevertheless, the realization of these rights still faces several challenges in Viet Nam[41]:

- First, there is no specialized and consistent nationwide guidance on reasonable accommodation in the electoral process, including accessibility at polling stations, easy-to-read materials, or technical assistance for persons with disabilities. Persons who are blind or have mobility impairments still face difficulties reaching polling places or reading ballots independently.

- Second, while mobile voting helps guarantee participation, it may compromise the independence and confidentiality of the vote for persons with disabilities, as they often rely on polling officials or family members to assist them in voting.

- Third, there is no specific policy or action program to promote the candidacy of persons with disabilities for elected bodies. Public data indicate that there has been no recorded proportion of candidates with disabilities in National Assembly or People’s Council elections, and there have been no dedicated communication campaigns targeting this group.

- Fourth, social prejudice remains a major barrier. In many cases, the community still does not view persons with disabilities—especially those with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities—as equal political actors with full legal capacity.

- Fifth, Viet Nam lacks a disaggregated data system on the electoral participation of persons with disabilities, making it difficult to design evidence-based policies to support this group.

In summary, Viet Nam’s legal framework is relatively inclusive and does not exclude persons with disabilities from voting or standing for election. However, for these rights to be truly realized in an equal and effective manner, more concrete support policies are needed, along with accessible infrastructure, trained personnel, and reasonable accommodations tailored to different types of disabilities[42]. Fully institutionalizing Viet Nam’s commitments under Article 29 of the CRPD will be a crucial step toward achieving inclusive democracy[43].

3.2. Lessons from Australia that Viet Nam Can Refer to in Addressing Limitations in Ensuring the Electoral Rights of Persons with Disabilities

To address the limitations in ensuring the right to vote and stand for election for persons with disabilities, Viet Nam can refer to several practices from Australia:

First, develop a comprehensive legal and policy framework supporting the electoral rights of persons with disabilities.

One of the most valuable lessons from Australia is the development of a comprehensive legal framework that integrates human rights law, electoral law, and concrete implementation policies to safeguard the political participation of persons with disabilities. As discussed earlier, Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act 1992 not only prohibits discrimination but also requires responsible bodies, particularly the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), to provide reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to the electoral process for persons with disabilities[44]. Furthermore, the AEC regularly refers to international standards such as the CRPD, and the Australian Parliament frequently holds hearings and evaluations on the effectiveness of accessibility policies, demonstrating a highly institutionalized system for protecting the political rights of persons with disabilities. A valuable lesson for Viet Nam is the need to establish a clear intersectoral policy mechanism that brings together electoral bodies, social protection agencies, and legal institutions to share responsibility for effectively and consistently safeguarding the electoral rights of persons with disabilities[45].

Second, diversify voting methods and design inclusive voting systems.

Australia has implemented various flexible voting methods to meet the diverse needs of persons with disabilities, such as early voting, postal voting, and mobile polling[46]. In some states, such as New South Wales, a remote electronic voting system (iVote) has been introduced, allowing persons with disabilities to vote safely from home through specially designed platforms with features like braille, text-to-speech, and touchscreen assistance[47]. The AEC also ensures that all election-related materials (ballots, instructions, announcements, etc.) are provided in multiple accessible formats, including Braille, Auslan videos (Australian Sign Language), Easy-to-read documents, and audio files for people with visual impairments[48]. This approach addresses a long-debated question in academic circles regarding reasonable accommodations in elections: should they be mandatory or merely encouraged? Unlike some countries that implement them only “when feasible,” thereby potentially legitimising exclusion, Australia demonstrates that reasonable accommodations in elections are necessary and feasible—even for low-income countries.

The lesson for Viet Nam is to standardise election materials in accessible formats for persons with disabilities and to diversify voting methods, rather than relying solely on in-person voting at fixed locations or unsecured mobile polling. Viet Nam could pilot certified postal voting and gradually introduce digital voting for persons with severe disabilities or those in remote areas.

Third, train election personnel and raise public awareness.

A key factor in ensuring the voting rights of persons with disabilities in Australia is the mandatory and regular training for election staff at all levels on accessibility, inclusive attitudes, and skills for supporting persons with disabilities. On-site guidance is standardised through materials, simulations, and direct interaction with persons with disabilities to ensure sensitivity and equality in practice. Australia also combines this with public awareness campaigns led by organisations such as People With Disability Australia and Inclusion Australia to encourage persons with disabilities to confidently engage in democratic processes and affirm their political agency[49]. A meaningful lesson for Viet Nam is the need to institutionalise training programmes for election officials on the rights of persons with disabilities and to enhance the role of civil society organisations in monitoring inclusive elections and conducting awareness-raising campaigns for voters, election staff, and the broader public.

Fourth, promote political representation of persons with disabilities.

Although not yet fully successful, Australia has introduced small grant programmes, election support initiatives, and lobbying efforts to encourage persons with disabilities to run for elected office[50]. Some political parties have also committed to diversity targets, including candidates with disabilities[51]. In the ongoing debate between “formal equality” and “substantive equality” in the design of electoral laws and policies, Australia provides a compelling answer to the question: should the political rights of persons with disabilities be universally guaranteed like those of all citizens, or require specific mechanisms? The takeaway for Viet Nam is to establish support mechanisms for candidates with disabilities, such as waiving registration fees, providing campaign communication support, and setting up diversity incentive funds for People’s Councils at all levels. In addition, a positive communication campaign should be launched to publicly encourage persons with disabilities to run for office.

Fifth, collect data and ensure independent monitoring.

After each election cycle, Australia regularly conducts surveys on the satisfaction and accessibility of the electoral process for persons with disabilities, using the findings to amend policies based on evidence[52]. The Electoral Commission publishes regular reports with disaggregated data by gender, ethnicity, type of disability, and level of accessibility[53]. The relevant lesson for Viet Nam is to establish a mechanism for collecting disaggregated statistical data on the political participation of persons with disabilities. This would provide the foundation for developing practical accessibility policies and evidence-based monitoring of political rights.

4. Conclusion

Ensuring the electoral rights of persons with disabilities is one of the indicators reflecting the level of inclusive democracy and social equity in each country. This is not only a matter of fulfilling international obligations but also a manifestation of genuine democracy—one that respects the dignity and capabilities of all citizens, regardless of their physical or mental conditions.

Through the analysis of Australia's legal framework and practical implementation, this article presents a relatively comprehensive model that combines legal institutions, administrative policies, and technical adjustments to substantively support persons with disabilities in exercising their political rights. However, persistent challenges such as legal barriers related to legal capacity, lack of political representation, and unequal access remain.

For Viet Nam, Australia’s experience offers valuable lessons to support the improvement of laws and policies toward inclusive democracy. Relevant practices that Viet Nam could consider adopting include: institutionalizing reasonable accommodation, diversifying voting modalities, training election officials, and promoting the political representation of persons with disabilities—measures that should be implemented systematically and with a clear roadmap. In addition, establishing independent monitoring mechanisms and developing disaggregated data systems on persons with disabilities in elections are essential conditions for evidence-based policy planning.

REFERENCES
1. ABC News. (2021). iVote glitch affects council elections. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-06/ivoting-system-crashes

2. Accessible Australia Act, SC 2019, c. 10.

3. Australian Electoral Commission. (2023). Services for voters with disability. https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Disability.htm

4. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2020). Ensuring access to democracy: Disability access and federal elections.

5. Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

6. Australian Law Reform Commission. (2014). Equality, capacity and disability in Commonwealth laws (ALRC Report 124). https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/equality-capacity-and-disability-in-commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-124/

7. Bình, L. T. T., Access to the rights of persons with disabilities from the perspective of the CRPD, Viet Nam Journal of Legal Science, (9), 17–26 (2021)

8. Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Feb. 21, 2019, 2 BvC 62/14 (Ger.).

9. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2019). Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Australia, CRPD/C/AUS/CO/1, 15 October.

10. Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 24, 29.

11. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) ss 90–93.

12. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

13. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 29, Dec. 13, 2006, 2515 U.N.T.S. 3.

14. Đại, Đ. V, Legalising the reasonable accommodation principle in protecting vulnerable groups in Viet Nam, Journal of Law, (3), 15–24 (2020).

15. Degener, T., Disability in a human rights context, Laws, 5(3), 35 (2016) https://doi.org/10.3390/laws5030035

16. Harpur, P., Disability human rights law, and the policy of free and informed consent for people with cognitive impairments: A marriage of incompatible ideals, Journal of Law and Medicine, 19(4), 802–816 (2012).

17. Hạnh, N. T., Forms of support for persons with disabilities to participate in elections in Viet Nam – Evaluation from practice, Democracy and Law Journal, (10), 55–61 (2023).

18. Kayess, R., & French, P., Out of darkness into light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Human Rights Law Review, 8(1), 1–34 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngm044

19. Luật Người khuyết tật [Law on Persons with Disabilities] (QH12/2010/VN), art. 11.

20. MARTENS, T. ET AL., ESTONIAN INTERNET VOTING SECURITY AND VERIFIABILITY: LESSONS LEARNED FROM 15 YEARS IN ELECTRONIC VOTING, SPRINGER , PP. 3–21 (2021).

21. National Election Council. (2021). Final report on the organization of the election of the 15th National Assembly and People's Councils at all levels for the 2021–2026 term.

22. Quân, N. V., Realisation of the political rights of persons with disabilities in Viet Nam – Some emerging issues, State and Law Review, (3), 23–31 (2022).

23. NSW Electoral Commission. iVote: A guide to voting remotely. https://elections.nsw.gov.au/Voting/iVote

24. People With Disability Australia. Election Accessibility Toolkits. https://pwd.org.au

25. Soldatic, K., & Meekosha, H., Disability and neoliberal state formations, Critical Sociology, 38(4), 529–543 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920511430864

26. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Viet Nam. (2022). Participation of persons with disabilities in political and public life in Viet Nam: Situational analysis and policy recommendations. https://www.undp.org/vietnam/publications/participation-persons-disabilities-political-and-public-life