Of interest, the competence assessment tool for voting (CAT-V) was derived in part from the Doe criteria, the result of a federal court decision in Maine—Doe v. Rowe—in which persons under guardianship due to chronic mental illness contested their automatic exclusion from voting. The court proposed criteria that permitted voting, provided that the individual did not lack the ability to understand the nature of voting or lack the ability to make an individual choice. Hence, the result of this decision was to facilitate voting in a class of citizens who were previously excluded by a provision in Maine’s constitution. In contrast, as suggested here, the use of tools such as the CAT-V may effect the opposite result, i.e., they may serve to reduce voting within a group of citizens who are no longer capable. As mentioned by the authors, the increasing number of elderly persons with dementia, combined with a high rate of voting among older groups, suggests that "further refinement of approaches to identifying potential voters with inadequate capacity will become increasingly important to our electoral system." Without question, this area begs for much additional research and careful thought, particularly in view of potential misuse of such tests in populations of any age. In taking the brave step of raising this issue, the authors opened the door to a host of questions with significant ethical implications.