In some cases, cross-disability organizations can be more open to engaging in political activism than DPOs representing a singular constituency. Groups representing a single disability are often more tied to the status quo and may not see a benefit in raising their voice or partnering with other DPOs they perceive as taking the focus and resources from their community. This does not mean, however, that only cross-disability groups are suitable partners in democracy assistance programs. It only means that DPOs may not have overlapping incentives and issues in every instance. In many situations, it may be beneficial to provide assistance to a variety of groups initially and then look for opportunities where needs and interests intersect, and the benefits of collective action are more evident. There can be a difference between older and younger generations in their level of willingness to engage politically. This has been relevant for the disability community in certain country contexts, as older generations might be more wary of risking existing political ties and governmental support and less inclined to be involved in cross-disability organizations and efforts. Good Practice While identifying partners for an assistance program targeting the disability community in Serbia, NDI contacted other international NGOs working on disability issues in the country, including Handicap International. After identifying a number of prominent DPOs, NDI assessed which ones were best placed for assistance in political skill-building, ultimately partnering with crossdisability organizations that demonstrated the greatest willingness and interest in engaging politically. This initial mapping prior to beginning the assistance program helped avoid a situation where NDI was seen as tied to a certain DPO that may have a reputation as politically-biased or uninterested in reforms. Legal Basis for Political Rights of Persons with Disabilities17 The concept of “one person, one vote” is fundamental to democracy. The right to vote provides an opportunity for all people to influence decisions that affect their lives. However, persons with disabilities have often been discriminated against in this regard. The CRPD is the guiding international standard in disability inclusion. It has been signed by 82 percent of UN member States and ratified by 72 percent of these States.18 Article 29 of the treaty focuses on participation in political and public life. It calls on States to “ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others, directly or through freely chosen representatives, including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and be elected.” Article 12 focuses on legal capacity, an issue that often affects the right to vote of persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities. This article requires governments to ensure “persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law,” they “enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others” and they are allowed support in exercising these rights. In the context of elections and political processes, this means election laws should be void of provisions that restrict the right to vote of persons under guardianship, and if a voter requires support, he or she should be allowed assistance. The CRPD has led to increased focus on disability worldwide. It has provided an opportunity to raise public awareness of disability rights and, in countries that have signed on to the treaty, to push EMBs and other government entities to fulfill their international commitments. The CRPD provides new political space where persons with disabilities can hold governments more accountable on issues important to 17 Excerpts of standards can be found in Appendix. 18 UN Enable. “Convention and Optional Protocol Signatures and Ratifications.” United Nations. <http://www. un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?navid=12&pid=166>. Number of States signed and ratified as of November 27, 2013. 30 International Foundation for Electoral Systems and National Democratic Institute