makers. Addressing each ruling and rationale in turn, we conclude the court erred as a matter of law and explain why we are remanding for reconsideration of those requests. Voting Disqualification As discussed, the legal standard governing judicial disqualification of William’s right to register and vote is whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that he “cannot communicate, with or without accommodations, a desire to participate in the voting process[.]” EL § 3-102(b)(2). William testified affirmatively (“Yeah”) when asked whether he wanted to vote in the election, considered voting in the election important, and thought he would be able to do that with help. When asked to name Republican and Democratic candidates for president, he answered, “Biden” and “Kamala Harris.” At that point, the judge interjected, asking “why is it important for you to want to vote? Can you tell me what’s important to you when it comes to voting?” Although William did not respond to that question, after counsel for Parents resumed the examination, asking whether William talked about voting when he was home with his parents, he responded “Yeah.” Next, he answered whether he “ever had a favorite president[,]” immediately stating, “Obama.” William then responded affirmatively to follow-up questions about whether he thought “he did a good job as a president” and whether William “care[d] about who is the leader of the country.” The court again posed its own question, asking “what is the leader of the country called?” Counsel for Parents then requested permission to ask the question, rephrasing it to ask what he would call Obama and “[w]ho lives in the White House?” After William 25