Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
State Provisions and County Practices for Assuring Voting
Accessibility Vary
Widely
Most
Polling Places Have Features That May Impede Access, but
Most Also Provide Accommodations That May Facilitate
Voting
A Variety of Challenges Face States and Counties as They Work
Toward Improving Access to Voting
1
5
10
16
22
33
Appendixes
Appendix I:
Appendix II:
App
endix III:
Appendix IV:
Appendix V:
Appendix VI:
Appendix VII:
Scope and Methods
Analysis of State Laws and Written Policies
Data Collection From States, Counties, and Selected National
Organizations
Selection of Polling Places
Description of Site Visits and the Data Collection Instrument
Analysis of Election Day Data
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument
People and
Counties Contacted During Our Review
State
Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility
Se
lected Potential Impediments by Location Area
Issues and Chal
lenges Rela
ted to Voting Accommodations
and Alternatives
GAO Contacts and
Staff Acknowledgements
40
40
41
43
44
47
50
64
74
86
87
90
Tables
Table 1: State Provisions Concerning Accessibility of Polling
Places 17
Table 2: State Practices in Assuring and Improving Polling Place
Accessibility 19
Table 3: State Provisions for Alternative Voting Methods and
Accommodations 21
Page i GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Contents
Table 4: Prevalence of Potential Impediments by Type of
Building 29
Table 5: Potential Challenges Posed by Various Voting Methods 31
Table 6: Comparison of Election Day and Non-Election Day Data:
Percentage
of Po
lling Places With Potential Impediments
in Two Areas 48
Table 7: Representatives of Election Offices in 50 States and the
District of Columbia 64
Table 8: Alphabetical Listing of 100 Randomly Selected Counties 67
Table 9: State Provisions Concerning Polling Place Accessibility,
Accommodation of Voting Booth Areas and Equipment,
and Aids for Visually Impaired Voters 74
Table 10: State Provisions Concerning Alternative Voting Methods or
Accommodations On or Before Election Day 80
Figures
Figure 1: Prevalence of Potential Impediments at Polling Places
and Availability of Curbside Voting 8
Figure 2: Key Features at Polling Places 24
Figure 3: Prevalence of Potential Impediments
at Poll
ing Places
and Availability of Curbside Voting 26
Figure 4: Percentage of Polling Places With Potential Impediments
That Offer Curbside Voting 27
Figure 5: Percentage of All Polling Places by Number of Potential
Impediments 28
Figure 6: Voting Methods Used at Polling Places 31
Abbreviations
ADA Ameri
cans with Disabilities Act of 1990
ANSI American National Standards Institute
DCI data collection instrument
DOD Department of Defense
DOJ Department of Justice
FEC Federal Election Commission
NACO National Association of Counties
NACRC National Association of County Recorders and Clerks
NASED National Association of State Election Directors
NASS National Association of Secretaries of State
VAEHA Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
VRA Voting Rights Act of 1965
Page ii GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Page 1 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
A
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
October 15, 2001
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Rules and Administration
United States Senate
Voting is the foundation of our American democratic system, and federal
law generally requires access to voting on Election Day for
people with
di
sabilities. Under the law, state political subdivisions responsible for
conducting elections must assure that polling places used in federal
elections are accessible, as determined by the state.
1
Exceptions are
allowed if the state determines that all potential polling places have been
surveyed and no accessible place is available, and the political subdivision
cannot make one temporarily accessible.
2
In these cases, voters with
disabilities who are assigned to inaccessible polling places must be, upon
advance request, either reassigned to an accessible polling place or
provided another means for voting on Election Day.
3
These requirements
present a challenge to state and local election officials because achieving
accessibility—which is affected by the type of impairment and various
barriers posed by polling place facilities and voting methods—is part of a
larger set of challenges they face in administering elections on a periodic
basis.
1
See the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1973ee
et seq.
2
Exceptions are also allowed in the case of an emergency, as determined by the chief
election officer of the state. See 42 U.S.C. section1973ee-1(b)(1).
3
42 U.S.C. section 1973ee-1(b)(2)(B).
Page 1 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Because nationwide information on the accessibility of voting for people
with disabilities is dated and has significant limitations, you asked us to
study voting access for people with disabilities, including access to polling
places and alternative voting methods. This study is part of a broader body
of GAO work about election procedures and election reform issues that we
are doing at the request of various members of the Congress. This report
(1) examines state and local provisions and practices for assuring voting
accessibility, both at polling places and with respect to alternative voting
methods and accommodations;
4
(2) estimates the proportion of polling
places with features that might facilitate or impede access, including
features of polling booths and voting accommodations; and (3) identifies
efforts and challenges to improving voting accessibility.
5
4
In this report, we define alternative voting method to be any voting method other than
traditional in-person voting at a polling place on Election Day. Alternative voting methods
include early voting and absentee voting, which may be available to all voters. We use the
term accommodations to refer to measures mainly intended to facilitate voting for people
with disabilities. Accommodations provided at the polling place include curbside voting
(whereby a ballot is brought outside the polling place to a voter who is unable to enter the
polling place), poll worker assistance, Braille or large-type ballots or instructions, and other
visual or audio aids. Other accommodations made available outside the traditional polling
place include reassignment to accessible polling places and permanent absentee voting.
5
This report focuses on access to voting for people with physical disabilities, but does not
specifically address access for voters with hearing impairments. It also does not address
access to voter registration.
Page 2 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
To examine provisions for assuring voting accessibility, we reviewed state
statutes and regulations pertaining to voting accessibility—both at polling
places and with respect to alternative voting methods—for all 50 states and
the District of Columbia. We also reviewed written policies and other
guidelines that we identified or were provided by chief election officials for
all states, the District of Columbia, and a statistical sample of 100 counties,
selected to be representative of all counties in the contiguous United States
with the exception of those in Oregon.
6
(The county selection process is
described later in this sect
ion.) In addition, we interviewed election
officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and in the 100 counties in
our sample to identify practices for assuring voting accessibility.
7
However,
we did not verify the implementation of state and county provisions or
practices.
6
We drew our sample of 100 counties using the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates for
Counties by Age and Sex: Annual Time Series (for 1998), which included a total of 3,074
counties or statistically similar subdivisions. We did not include counties outside the
contiguous United States for reasons of cost and efficiency, or counties in Oregon because,
since 1998, elections in this state have been conducted almost exclusively by mail. The 100
counties in our sample are located in 33 states.
7
In most states, responsibility for conducting elections is entrusted to county election
officials. For the 100 counties, we generally contacted county election officials. However,
in four counties we contacted election officials at a subcounty level, such as towns and
cities, where the responsibility for elections resided, and then combined their responses to
create county-level responses.
Page 3 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
To estimate the proportion of polling places in the contiguous United States
with features that might facilitate or impede access for people with
mobility, dexterity, and visual impairments, we visited randomly selected
polling places across the country on Election Day (Nov. 7, 2000). We used a
two-stage sampling method that created a nationally representative sample
of polling places in the contiguous United States.
8
The first stage involved
randomly selecting 100 counties. We based the probability of each county’s
selection on the size of its voting age population so that heavily populated
counties, which tend to have more polling places than less-populated
counties, would have a greater chance of being included in the sample. The
second stage involved randomly selecting eight polling places in each
county. We then visited no less than 3 and up to 8 polling places per county,
for a total of 496 polling places on Election Day.
9
At each polling place,
using a composite of various federal and nonfederal accessibility
guidelines,
10
we took measurements and made observations of features of
the facility and voting methods that could potentially impede access—such
as no accessible parking, steep ramps, high door thresholds, and voting
booths that did not accommodate voters in wheelchairs. We also
interviewed poll workers in charge of the polling place to identify
accommodations offered at the polling place—such as curbside voting
outside the polling place, and poll worker assistance and other voter aids
inside the voting room. We documented our observations and interviews
with poll workers in a data collection instrument we developed. However,
because the extent to which any given feature may affect access is
dependent upon numerous factors—including the type or severity of an
individual’s disability—we were not able to determine whether any
8
Sampling errors for these data generally range from 3 to 10 percentage points, unless
otherwise noted in this report.
9
The 496 polling places we visited on Election Day were located in 85 of the 100 counties.
We visited an additional 89 polling places in 15 counties before or after Election Day
because we were unable to gain access to polling places in these counties on Election Day.
Because we were unable to visit these polling places on Election Day, we were only able to
collect partial data at these sites. See app. I for an analysis of these data.
10
Because a single set of access standards for polling places does not exist, we incorporated
into our data collection instrument criteria from the following federal and nonfederal
accessibility guidelines: the 1991 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
for Buildings and Facilities; the ADA Guide for Small Towns; the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) accessibility guidelines; and accessibility documents published
by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and the National Organization on Disability, and
the National Task Force on Accessible Elections. See app. I for more information on the
development of the data collection instrument.
Page 4 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
observed feature prevented access. Accordingly, we do not categorize
polling places as “accessible” or “inaccessible.” Moreover, we were not able
to determine whether curbside voting or other accommodations offered at
polling places actually facilitated voting. Finally, we did not assess whether
our observations on Election Day were consistent with state and county
provisions or practices.
To identify efforts and challenges to improving voting access, we
interviewed election officials in all
50 stat
es, the District of Columbia, and
the 100 counties in our sample to obtain their views on the challenges
associated with improving the accessibility of polling places and voting
equipment.
11
We also interviewed selected election officials and
representatives of disability organizations to obtain their views on the costs
of accessible voting equipment and the extent to which alternative voting
methods and accommodations improve access for voters with disabilities.
See appendix I for more information on our methods; appendix II for a
copy of our data collection instrument; and appendix III for a list of the
people, counties, states, and organizations we contacted.
We performed our work from May 2000 to July 2001 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
All states
12
have provisions (in the form of statutes, regulations, or policies)
that specifically address voting by people with disabilities. However,
consistent with the broad discretion afforded states, these provisions vary
greatly. For example, our review of state provisions shows that while 42
states have established standards by which to judge the accessibility of
polling places, the number and specificity of these standards vary from
state to state, and the remaining 9 states have not established specific
accessibility standards. State laws and policies also vary on how counties
are to assure accessibility of polling places. For example, while some
states require counties to inspect polling places for accessibility, many do
not. Nevertheless, our survey of counties confirms that most counties
11
Sampling errors for county survey data generally range from 4 to 25 percentage points. We
generally present the lower bound of the estimate when the sampling error is large.
12
For analytical purposes we treated the District of Columbia as a state, resulting in a total of
51 states.
Page 5 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
inspect all polling places for accessibility. Our county survey also shows
that county practices for assuring accessibility vary. For example, while
some counties cite accessibility as a specific criterion used in selecting
polling places, others do not.
All states provide for one or more alternative voting methods or
accommodations that may facilitate voting by people with disabilities
whose assigned polling places are inaccessible. For example, all states
have provisions allowing voters with disabilities to vote absentee without
requiring notary or medical certification requirements, although the
deadlines and methods (for example, by mail or in person) for absentee
voting vary among states. In addition, many states, but not all, have laws or
policies that provide
for other a
ccommodations and alternatives for voting
on or before Election Day—such as reassignment to a polling place that is
accessible, curbside voting, or early voting.
Page 6 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
On Election Day 2000, we made onsite observations and collected data at
polling places on features that may facilitate or impede access for those
individuals with disabilities who prefer to vote at the polls in the same
manner as the general public. (Polling places are generally located in
schools, libraries, churches, and town halls, as well as other facilities.)
Although the extent to which any given feature may prevent or facilitate
access is unknown, we estimate that, from the parking area to the voting
room, 16 percent of all polling places in the contiguous United States
13
have
no potential impediments, 56 percent have one or more potential
impediments but offer curbside voting, and 28 percent have one or more
potential impediments and do not offer curbside voting.
14
(See fig. 1.)
These potential impediments would primarily affect individuals with
mobility impairments. Such potential impediments occur most often on the
route from the parking area to the building or at the entrance to the polling
place, with more than half of all polling places having impediments in these
areas. Inside the voting room, the types and arrangement of voting
equipment used may also pose challenges for people with mobility, vision,
or dexterity impairments. To facilitate voting inside the voting room,
polling places generally provide accommodations, such as voter assistance,
magnifying devices, and voting instructions or sample ballots in large print.
However, none of the polling places that we visited had special ballots or
voting equipment adapted for blind voters.
15
13
Although our results are representative of all polling places in the United States, they may
not be representative of all polling places in any individual state.
14
Although curbside voting is not available at a number of polling places with potential
impediments, as noted earlier all states have provisions for absentee voting, and many states
provide for other alternative voting methods or accommodations, which may facilitate
voting by people with disabilities on or before Election Day.
15
Although we did not observe such aids on Election Day, some county officials told us that,
upon request, they try to provide special aids so that blind individuals can vote
independently. We may not have observed these aids on Election Day because they may not
have been requested in advance by voters in the polling places that we visited or the local
poll workers we interviewed may not have been aware of these aids.
Page 7 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Figure 1: Prevalence of Potential Impediments at Polling Places and Availability of
Curbside Voting
16%
56%
28%
Percentage of polling places with no
potential impediments
Percentage of polling places with
one or more potential impediments
that offer curbside voting
Percentage of polling places with one
or more potential impediments that do not
offer curbside voting
Note: These potential impediments are located along the route from the parking area to the voting
room.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000.
A number of efforts have been made by states and localities to improve
voting accessibility for people with disabilities, such as modifying polling
places, acquiring new voting equipment, and expanding voting options.
Nevertheless, state and county election officials we surveyed cited a
variety of challenges to improving access. Election officials cited the
limited availability of accessible facilities as one major challenge. Facilities
used as polling places, such as schools and churches, are generally owned
or controlled by public or private entities not responsible for running
elections, complicating attempts to make polling places more accessible.
In addition, some election officials indicated that funding constraints at the
local level pose another challenge, hindering the acquisition of voting
equipment that is more accessible. Finally, expanding the availability of
alternative voting methods or accommodations can provide voters with
additional options but implementing these changes can present election
officials with legal, administrative, and operational challenges. Moreover,
some disability advocates believe that although alternative voting methods
and accommodations, such as curbside voting, expand options for voters
with disabilities, they do not provide the same voting opportunities
afforded the general public (that is, the opportunity to vote independently
Page 8 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
and privately at a polling place) and should not be viewed as permanent
solutions for inaccessible polling places.
Although improving access for voters with disabilities presents challenges
for state and local election officials, this issue warrants attention and
consideration, particularly in light of recent nationwide discussions over
election reform. While our report does not take a position on what the
appropriate access policy should be, as the Congress and other
policymakers at all levels of government consider measures aimed at
improving the accuracy of elections and the ability of American citizens to
participate in the electoral process, it would be appropriate to consider
how such reforms could affect access for people with disabilities.
We provided a copy of our draft report to selected representatives of
national organizations representing state and county election officials and
people with disabilities;
16
the Department of Justice; and the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the Access Board) for
their review. Overall, the reviewers stated that our report presented
information on access to polling places and alternative voting methods in a
fair and balanced manner. In some cases, the reviewers provided technical
comments or made specific suggestions to improve the clarity of the
report. We incorporated their comments where appropriate.
16
These national organizations include the National Association of State Election Directors,
the Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting Accessibility, the National Association
of County Recorders and Clerks, the American Foundation for the Blind, and the Paralyzed
Veterans of America.
Page 9 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Background
Holding federal elections in the United States is a massive enterprise,
administered primarily at the local level. On Election Day, millions of
voters visit polling places across the country, which are located in schools,
recreation centers, churches, various government buildings, and even
private homes.
17
For the 2000 election, counties and other local
jurisdictions deployed about 1.4 million poll workers and more than
700,000 voting machines to polling places across the country.
18
Each of the
50 states and the District of Columbia also play a role in elections, by
establishing election laws and policies and providing oversight in their
respective states. The federal government’s role in the administration of
elections is fairly limited. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is
generally responsible for regulating the financing of elections, serving as a
clearinghouse for information on elections, and providing advice and
assistance to state and local election administrators.
19
17
Federal elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even-
numbered years. In the interests of convenience and economy, most states and many local
jurisdictions also hold many of their elections on federal Election Day.
18
Data are from the National Association of Secretaries of State Election Reform
Resolution, Feb. 6, 2001, http://www.nass.
org/pubs/pubs_electionres.html (cited Mar. 26,
2001).
19
For example, the FEC’s Office of Election Administration worked with industry experts to
establish a voluntary set of standards for computer-based voting equipment in 1990.
Page 10 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
While federal elections are generally conducted under state laws and
policies, a few federal laws apply to voting and some provisions specifically
address accessibility issues for voters with disabilities.
20
Most notably, the
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA),
enacted in 1984, requires that political subdivisions responsible for
conducting elections assure that all polling places for federal elections are
accessible to elderly voters and voters with disabilities.
21
Two exceptions
are allowed: (1) in the case of an emergency as determined by the chief
election officer of the state, and (2) when the chief election officer of the
state determines that all potential polling places have been surveyed and no
such accessible place is available, nor is the political subdivision able to
make one temporarily accessible in the area involved. Any elderly voter or
voter with a disability assigned to an inaccessible polling place, upon his or
her advance request, must be assigned to an accessible polling place or be
provided with an alternative means for casting a ballot on the day of the
election.
22
Under the VAEHA, the definition of “accessible” is determined
under guidelines established by the state’s chief election officer, but the law
does not specify what those guidelines shall contain or the form those
guidelines should take. The VAEHA also contains provisions to make
absentee voting more accessible and provides for voting aids at polling
places.
23
20
For a broader review of federal laws affecting elections, see Elections: The Scope of
Congressional Authority in Election Administration (GAO-01-470, Mar. 13, 2001).
21
42 U.S.C. section 1973ee et seq.
22
The Senate Report which accompanied the VAEHA noted that “...other means for casting a
ballot could include, but would not be limited to, curbside voting or voting with an absentee
ballot on the day of the election.” See S. Rep. No. 98-590, at 2 (1984).
23
Specifically, under the VAEHA, no notarization or medical certification shall be required of
a voter with a disability with respect to an absentee ballot or an application for such ballot,
except that a state may require medical certification to establish eligibility for a permanent
absentee application or ballot, or to apply for an absentee ballot after the deadline has
passed (42 U.S.C. section 1973ee-3(b)). In addition, each state shall make available voting
aids at all polling places, including large-print instructions, and the chief election officer
shall provide public notice, calculated to reach affected voters, of the availability of aids (42
U.S.C. section 1973ee-3(a) and (c)).
Page 11 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) also applies to voting.
Title II of the ADA and implementing regulations require that people with
disabilities have access to basic public services, including the right to vote;
however, it does not strictly require that all polling place sites be
accessible.
24
Under the ADA, public entities must make reasonable
modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination
against people with disabilities. Moreover, no individual with a disability
may, by reason of the disability, be excluded from participating in or be
denied the benefits of any public program, service, or activity. State and
local governments may comply with ADA accessibility requirements in a
variety of ways, such as by redesigning equipment, reassigning services to
accessible buildings or alternative accessible sites, or altering existing
facilities or constructing new ones.
25
However, state and local
governments are not required to take actions that would threaten or
destroy the historic significance of an historic property, fundamentally alter
the nature of a service, or impose undue financial and administrative
burdens. Moreover, a public entity is not required to make structural
changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in
achieving compliance.
26
In choosing between available methods of
complying with the ADA, state and local governments must give priority to
the choices that offer services, programs, and activities in the most
integrated setting appropriate.
24
42 U.S.C. sections 12131 to12134. Title II, Subtitle A, covers all activities of state and local
governments, regardless of the government entity’s size or receipt of federal funding.
25
28 C.F.R. section 35.150(b)(1). All newly constructed public buildings where construction
commenced after Jan. 26, 1992, must be readily accessible to individuals with disabilities (28
C.F.R. section 35.151(a)). Alterations to existing facilities commenced after Jan. 26, 1992,
must also be readily accessible to the maximum extent feasible (28 C.F.R. section
35.151(b)).
26
Under “Project Civic Access,” the Department of Justice reached agreements with a
number of cities and towns to open up civic life, including voting, to people with disabilities.
Some agreements require altering polling places or providing curbside or absentee balloting.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, Enforcing the
ADA: A Status Report from the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.: (Apr.-Sept. 2000).
Page 12 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Title III of the ADA covers commercial facilities and places of “public
accommodation” such as restaurants, private schools, and privately
operated recreation centers.
27
Such facilities may also be used as polling
places. Under Title III, public accommodations must make reasonable
modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to facilitate access for
individuals with disabilities.
28
They are also required to remove physical
barriers in existing buildings when it is “readily achievable” to do so, that is,
when it can be done without much difficulty and expense, given the public
accommodation’s resources. In the event that removal of an architectural
barrier cannot be accomplished easily, the accommodation may take
alternative measures to facilitate accessibility.
29
All buildings newly
constructed by public accommodations and commercial facilities must be
readily accessible; alterations to existing buildings are required to the
maximum extent feasible to be readily accessible to individuals with
disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs.
30
Finally, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) provides that any voter
requiring assistance to vote “by reason of blindness, disability, or inability
to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s
choice….”
31
27
Exempted from these requirements generally are private clubs and religious organizations,
including places of worship.
28
28 C.F.R. section 36.302(a).
29
For example, the accommodation can rearrange furniture or provide curb service or home
delivery (28 C.F.R. section 36.305). It may also widen a doorway to a narrower width or
install a ramp with a steeper slope than is permitted by ADA accessibility guidelines (28
C.F.R. section 36.304(d)(2)).
30
28 C.F.R. sections 36.401 to 36.406 (requirement applies to new construction with
certificates of occupancy issued after Jan. 26, 1993, or alteration commenced after Jan. 26,
1992).
31
42 U.S.C. section 1973aa-6. However, the VRA prohibits assistance provided by the voter’s
employer or an agent of that employer, or an officer or agent of the voter’s union.
Page 13 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Although these federal laws support the right to vote for persons with
disabilities, concerns continue to be expressed about voting opportunities
for people with disabilities. One recent study reported that people with
disabilities were about 15 percent less likely to vote than those without
disabilities—even after controlling for demographic and other factors
related to voting—and suggested that voting behavior of people with
disabilities is affected by access to polling places.
32
According to a recent
analysis of Census data, nearly 1 out of 5 Americans has some type of
disability, and more than 1 in 10 has a severe disability. For Americans 65
and over, 54.5 percent have a disability and 37.7 percent have a severe
disability.
33
32
Douglas L. Kruse, Kay Schriner, Lisa Schur, and Todd Shields, Empowerment Through
Civic Participation: A Study of the Political Behavior of People With Disabilities, Final
Report to the Disability Research Consortium, Bureau of Economic Research, Rutgers
University and New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council (Apr. 1999). This study
involved a national telephone survey of 1,240 Americans of voting age. The sample was
based on a random selection of households and was stratified to include 700 people with
disabilities.
33
Jack McNeil, Americans with Disabilities: 1997. U.S. Census Bureau Current Population
Reports (Feb. 2001), pp. 9, 11. Data used in this report are from 1997. An analysis of more
recent data was not available as of July 2001.
Page 14 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Such concerns about voting opportunities have prompted action on the
part of policymakers and other interested parties. For example, members
of the Congress recently proposed several amendments to the VAEHA that
were intended to improve voting access.
34
In addition, the Election
Center’s National Task Force on Accessible Elections, composed of state
and local election officials and representatives of disability organizations,
met in 1999 and issued a guidebook to assist local election officials in
improving voting access.
35
Furthermore, following reports that elderly
voters were unable to decipher ballots and that voting equipment created
overcounts and undercounts in the 2000 election, members of the Congress
and other policymakers have proposed a number of election reforms,
including provisions for further improving voting access for people with
disabilities.
36
Finally, the FEC has been working toward incorporating
accessibility standards for electronic voting equipment into the update of
its 1990 voluntary standards for computer-based voting equipment.
37
In
addition, the IEEE-SA Standards Board has recently approved a project to
develop a standard by which electronic voting equipment may be evaluated
for, among other things, accessibility.
38
34
S.511 sought to amend the VAEHA to ensure that all polling methods selected and used for
federal elections are accessible to elderly voters and voters with disabilities.
35
Voting: A Constitutional Right for All Citizens—A Guidebook to Assist Election Officials
to Achieve Equal Access for All Citizens to the Polling Place and the Ballot was published
in 1999 by the National Task Force on Accessible Elections, initiated by the Election Center.
The guidebook was based on a previous document originally published in 1986 by the
National Organization on Disability and updated in 1987 by the National Easter Seal Society.
36
For example, H.R. 263, S.379, and S.565 call for the establishment of commissions to study
or advise on, among other things, how to improve voting accessibility; and H.R.1151 directs
the FEC to issue voluntary standards and make grants to improve the accessibility of voting.
In addition, about 1,700 bills concerning election reform have been introduced in state
legislatures around the country.
37
The FEC 1990 standards address only computer-based systems; aside from electronic
tabulation machines, they do not address paper or punch card ballots as used by the voter,
or mechanical voting machines. The standards are voluntary; states are free to adopt them
in whole or in part, or reject them entirely. As of Apr. 2001, 35 states have adopted at least
some part of FEC’s 1990 voting system standards. At this time, it cannot be known how
many states will adopt FEC’s revised standards.
38
The IEEE-SA is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Standards
Association.
Page 15 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
State Provisions and
County Practices for
Assuring Voting
Accessibility Vary
Widely
Considerable variation exists in how states and counties attempt to meet
the needs of voters with disabilities, both at polling places and through
alternative methods of voting. Consistent with the VAEHA, all states and
the District of Columbia have established provisions that address voting
accessibility at polling places. However, state provisions vary in a number
of ways, including whether these provisions take the form of statute or
regulation, which carry the force and effect of law, or whether they exist
only in policy. Similarly, states and counties vary in how they select,
inspect, and modify polling places to assure their accessibility. Finally, if
some polling places are not or cannot be made readily accessible, all states
have provisions for voters with disabilities to vote absentee either on or
before Election Day. Many but not all states also have provisions for other
alternative voting methods or accommodations to facilitate voting by
people with disabilities on or before Election Day.
State Provisions for
Addressing Accessibility of
Polling Places Vary Widely
All states have laws and other provisions concerning voting access for
people with disabilities, including their access to polling places, but the
extent and manner in which these provisions promote accessibility vary
from state to state. This variation is consistent with the VAEHA, which
requires that states establish guidelines but does not prescribe what those
guidelines should contain. We found that state provisions vary in several
ways, including the type or nature of the voting access provision and
whether they exist in statutes or regulations—which carry the force and
effect of law—or in policy documents. For example, table 1 shows that 36
states have a statute or regulation stating that all polling places should be
accessible, 7 states have a policy that requires or suggests that all polling
places be accessible, and 8 states have no such provisions. Similarly, while
some states have statutes or regulations covering Braille or large-type
ballots or magnifiers for visually impaired voters, the majority of states
have no such provisions. Overall, we found that some states have
numerous provisions addressing voting and polling place accessibility,
while some states have very few. (See app. IV, tables 9 and 10, for a
detailed listing of each state’s provisions.)
Page 16 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Table 1: State Provisions Concerning Accessibility of Polling Places
Number of states
w
ith provisions
Stat
e provisi
ons
Statute or
regulat
ion
Policy
only
a
Number of
states with
no provision
Voting accessibility
Voting by people with disabilities explicitly 51 0
addressed
Polling place accessibility
All polling places must/should be accessible 36 7
State pr
ovisio
ns contain one or more polling 23 19
place accessibility standards
Inspection of polling places to assess 15 14
accessibility is required
Reporting by counties to state on polling place 10 10
accessibility is required
Voting booth areas and equipment
Voting booth areas must/should accommodate 17 16
wheelchair
s
Voting s
ystems must/should accommodate 13 11
individuals with disabilities
Aids for visually impaired voters
Brai
lle ballot or method
s of voting must/may be 3 3
provided
Ballots with large type must/may be provid
ed 2 2
Magnifying instruments must/may be provided 7 15
a
Policies for a particular provision were identified only if a state did not have either a statute or
regulation for that provision.
Source: GAO analysis of statutes, regulations, and other written provisions in 50 st
ates and the
District of Columbia. Provision categories were identified based on our review of these legal and policy
documents.
Page 17
GA
O-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
0
8
9
22
31
18
27
45
47
29
Even when states have similar types of provisions, the extent to which the
provisions promote access varies considerably. For example, while some
states’ statutes recommend that all polling places be accessible, other
states require it without exception. In addition, some provisions are more
explicit or exacting in promoting access than others. For example,
according to one state’s statutes, all voting systems acquired on or after
September 1, 1999, must comply with Title II of the ADA and must provide
a practical and effective means for voters with most types of physical
disabilities to cast a secret ballot.
39
In contrast, another state’s regulations
require a large-handled stylus for punching the ballot.
Counties Are Generally
Responsible for Assuring
Polling Place Accessibility,
but Practices Vary
Consistent with the VAEHA, we found that primary responsibility for
assuring accessibility of polling places, through selecting, inspecting,
and/or modifying polling places or voting systems, typically rests with
counties or local governments. Although there are many similarities in how
counties carry out their responsibilities, there are also some key
differences in their approach and level of effort for assuring polling place
accessibility. For example, although counties and local governments are
generally responsible for selecting polling places, we estimate from our
county survey that, in at least 27 percent of all counties, accessibility to
people with disabilities is not cited among the criteria used in the selection
process. Additionally, while all polling places in at least 68 percent of all
counties are inspected by county or local governments to determine if they
meet voting accessibility policies, the frequency of these inspections varies
widely. Some polling places may be inspected as frequently as once a year,
while others may only be inspected upon selection or after a complaint or
remodeling. Moreover, in a few counties, polling places conduct their own
inspections.
39
This state’s requirements do not cover disabilities involving the combined and complete
loss of both hearing and vision because, according to the state, the technology has not yet
been developed that will allow a voter with this combination of disabilities to cast a secret
ballot.
Page 18 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
In addition, it is the county or local election office that is generally
responsible for ensuring that polling places are accessible, such as by
making and financing any polling place modifications and purchasing
accessible voting equipment. Since 1995, in at least 32 percent of all
counties, temporary or permanent modifications were made to polling
places to improve their accessibility.
40
With respect to acquiring accessible
voting equipment, county or local election officials in over 92 percent of all
counties have the authority to decide the type of voting machines to be
used. However, most states have established voting system standards with
which counties must comply; some of these state standards require
accommodations for individuals with disabilities, some do not.
While counties
and local el
ection officials typically have primary
responsibility for assuring the accessibility of polling places, table 2 shows
that states provide varying types of assistance.
Table 2: State Practices in Assuring and Improving Polling Place Accessibility
Practice Number of states
Assuring accessibility
Provide counties with training or guida
nce 25
Select or inspect polling places 5
Both 8
Neither 13
Financing improvements to accessibility
Help fund polling place modifications 3
Help fund new voting systems 9
Both 2
Neither 37
Responding to voter complaints
Help r
es
pond to voter complaints, including access complaints 42
No policies/procedures for filing or reviewing accessibility
complaints 9
Source: Interviews with state election officials in 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Moreover, the amount of assistance provided by states can vary widely for
similar types of assistance. For example, to assure accessibility of polling
places, one state conducts an annual accessibility survey of polling places,
40
Examples of temporary modifications include portable ramps and temporary signs to
designate accessible parking areas and entryways for people with disabilities. Permanent
modifications include curb cuts and paved parking lots to accommodate wheelchairs.
Page 19 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
provides inspection training for county officials, and performs inspections
of polling places. In contrast, another state only offers guidance to local
officials on how to comply with disability standards.
State Provisions and County
Practices Regarding
Alternative Voting Methods
and Accommodations Vary
As shown in table 3, states provide alternative methods for voting on or
before Election Day, but vary in the number and kind of alternatives and
accommodations they make available to voters with disabilities. For
example, in accordance with the VAEHA, all states allow absentee voting
for voters with disabilities without notary or medical certification
requirements.
41
However, the dates by which absentee ballots must be
received vary considerably, with some states requiring that, to be counted,
the ballot must be received before Election Day. In addition, 17 states
permit permanent absentee voting, allowing voters with disabilities to
receive absentee ballots on a continuing basis without reapplying for a
ballot before each election. Further, 19 states have provisions for notifying
voters in advance about the accessibility of their assigned polling places.
Other accommodations that some, but not all, states allow include curbside
voting; taking ballots to a voter’s residence; and allowing voters to use
another, more accessible polling location either on or before Election
Day.
42
(See app. IV, table 10 for a detailed state-by-state listing of alternative
voting methods provided.)
41
Some states do require that absentee voting ballots be witnessed by one or two persons.
Also, some states that allow absentee ballots or applications to be sent automatically to
voters with disabilities require a medical certificate to establish eligibility.
42
Some states may not have provisions for certain accommodations or alternative voting
methods because they require all polling places to be accessible.
Page 20 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Table 3: State Provisions for Alternative Voting Methods and Accommodations
Number of states
Methods a
nd accommodations Permitting No provision
Absentee voting by mail
a
51
Ballot due before Election Day 5
Ballot due on Election Day 36
Ballot may be received after Election Day
b
10
Permanent absentee voting 17
With restricti
ons
c
10
Without restrictions 7
Curbside voting on Election Day
d
28
Ballot can be taken to voter’s residence on or before 21
El
ection Day
e
Use of alternative, accessible polling place on 27
Election Day
Early voting 39
With provision requiring accessible location 16
No provision regarding accessible location 23
Advance notice of inaccessible polling place 19
Note: Some states may not have provisions for certain accommodations or alternative voting methods
because they require all polling places to be accessible.
a
See app. IV, table 10 for additional information on absentee voting, including absentee voting in
person or by personal representative. Absentee voting provisions for overseas or military voters, and
for emergencies, are not included in this analysis.
b
Most of these states require ballots to be postmarked on or before Election Day.
c
Examples of restrictions include medical certification requirements, or availability limited to voters with
certain disabilities.
d
Not included in the table are four states that prohibit curbside voting.
e
Not included in the table are five states that prohibit taking a ballot to a voter’s residence.
Source: GAO analysis of statues, regulations, and other written provisions pro
vided by election officials
in 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Although states may offer similar types of voting alternatives and
accommodations, wide variation exists in how these alternatives and
accommodations are implemented. For example, one state requires that all
registered voters be notified of the accessibility of their polling place by
mail at least 21 days before the election. The notice must inform the voter
of his or her right to curbside voting or to vote by absentee ballot. In
comparison, another state only recommends that a list of accessible polling
places be published in a newspaper no later than 4 days before the election.
Page 21 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
0
34
19
25
24
12
32
Finally, in states that have no provisions for particular alternative voting
methods or accommodations, county and local government practices may
vary. For example, in a number of states that have no provision for
curbside voting, we found that some counties and local governments offer
curbside voting and some do not. Similarly, in a number of states that
lacked provisions for allowing voters to use an alternative voting place on
Election Day, our county survey data showed that some counties and local
governments offer this alternative and some do not.
Most Polling Places
Have Features That
May Impede Access,
but Most Also Provide
Accommodations That
May Facilitate Voting
Voting access for people with disabilities may be impeded by a variety of
physical features at polling places; however, accommodations to facilitate
voting are often made available. Although the extent to which any given
feature may prevent access is unknown, most polling places in the
contiguous United States have one or more physical features that may pose
challenges for voters with disabilities. These features include a lack of
accessible parking and barriers en route from the parking area to the voting
room. Figure 2 shows key features we examined. Such potential
impediments can be found at all types of buildings, both public and private.
Additionally, the voting methods and equipment used inside polling places
may pose challenges for some voters with disabilities. However, polling
places generally provide accommodations, such as curbside voting, voting
stations designed for people with disabilities, and voter assistance inside
the voting room.
Page 22 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Polling Place Facilities
From our observations on Election Day, we estimate that, from the parking
area to the voting room, 16 percent of all polling places in the contiguous
United States have no potential impediments, 56 percent have one or more
potential impediments but offer curbside voting, and 28 percent have one
or more potential impediments and do not offer curbside voting.
43
(See fig.
3.) These potential impediments would primarily affect individuals with
mobility impairments. Although curbside voting is not available at a
number of polling places with potential impediments, as noted earlier, all
states have provisions for absentee voting, and many states provide for
other alternative voting methods or accommodations that may facilitate
voting by people with disabilities on or before Election Day.
44
43
About 12 percent of all polling places have no potential impediments and offer curbside
voting.
44
For example, a number of states allow absentee ballots to be cast by mail on Election Day.
In addition, some state laws and policies allow ballots to be taken to voters’ residences on
or before Election Day, or allow voters to cast their ballots at another location that is
accessible on Election Day.
Page 23 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Figure 2: Key Features at Polling Places
32" min.
36" min.
24" max. distance
for min. clearance
A
A
Parking area
A1 On- or off-street parking is designated
for persons with disabilities
B
B
Route from parking area to building
entrance
B1. Surface is paved or has no abrupt
changes over 1/4 inch
B2. Curbs are ramped or cut, and are 36
inches or more wide
B3. Path or ramp along path is 36 inches
or more wide (may narrow to 32 inches
for no more than 2 feet)
B4. Slope of path or ramp along path is no
steeper than 1:12
B5. Steps have handrails that extend at
least 1 foot beyond the landing
B6. Ramps have two handrails (one on
each side) if highest point is more than 6
inches off the ground
C
C
Entrance area to the building
C1. Doorway threshold does not exceed
1/2 inch in height
C2. Single- or double-door openings are 32
inches or more wide
C3. Closed door difficult for a
person in a wheelchair to open
D
D
Curbside voting
D1. Voting available at curbside
C2
C2
Page 24 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
E
E
Route from inside the building entrance
to the voting room
E1. Doorway threshold does not exceed
1/2 inch in height
E2. Single- or double-door openings are 32
inches or more wide
E3. Steps are not required to reach the
voting room
E4. Corridors have clearances 36 inches
or more wide (may narrow to 32 inches
for no more than 2 feet)
E5. Slope of ramp no steeper than 1:12
Level landing
Level
landing
12" Horizontal projection or run
1" Rise
Surface of
ramp
F3
F3
B4
B4
E5
E5
F2
F2
27” min.
19” min.
F1
F1
Voting stations
F1. Voting stations configured for sitting
can accommodate a wheelchair
F2. Voting stations configured for standing
have forward reach no lower than 15 inches
and no higher than 48 inches
F3. Voting stations configured for standing
have side reach no lower than 9 inches
and no higher than 54 inches
F
F
54" max
9" min
48" max
15" min.
Page 25 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Figure 3: Prevalence of Potential Impediments at Polling Places and Availability of
Curbside Voting
16%
56%
28%
Percentage of polling places with no
potential impediments
Percentage of polling places with
one or more potential impediments
that offer curbside voting
Percentage of polling places with one
or more potential impediments that do not
offer curbside voting
Note: These potential impediments are located along the route from the parking area to the voting
room.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000.
As shown in figure 4, most polling places with potential impediments also
offer curbside voting: of the 84 percent of polling places that have one or
more potential impediments, 67 percent offer curbside voting. Figure 4
also shows that most of the potential impediments occur in two of the four
location areas we examined—en route from the parking area to the
building, and at the entrance of the building. For example, 57 percent of all
polling places have some type of potential impediment from the parking
area to the building, such as unpaved/poor surfaces, or paths or ramps with
slopes that exceed the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines,
45
which could hinder the approach of a voter in a wheelchair.
Appendix V contains a listing of some of the potential impediments in each
location area.
45
The 1991 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and
Facilities require that slopes on sidewalks/pathways or ramps rise no more than 1 inch over
a 12-inch distance; that is, a slope no steeper than 1:12. The Guidelines are generally
mandatory for new construction and for alterations of public buildings, places of public
accommodations such as private schools, and commercial facilities. Places of worship are
exempt.
Page 26 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Figure 4: Percentage of Polling Places With Potential Impediments That Offer
Curbside Voting
a
a
Sampling errors on the percentages of polling places with potential impediments range from 4 to 8
percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level; the sampling errors on the percentages of polling
places offering curbside voting range from 10 to 16 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence
level.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000.
We also found that many polling places have more than one potential
impediment, some of which occur in more than one location area. For
example, figure 5 shows that 63 percent of all polling places have two or
more potential impediments. Further, in the four location areas we
examined, we found that 52 percent of polling places have potential
impediments in more than one location area. A small percentage of all
Page 27 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
polling places (5 percent) have a potential impediment in all four location
areas.
Figure 5: Percentage of All Polling Places by Number of Potential Impediments
Percentage
100
80
60
40
20
0
16%
84%
63%
45%
29%
21%
14%
Zero One or Two or Three or Four or Five or Six or
more more more more more more
Number of Potential Impediments
Notes: Thirteen was the maximum number of potential impediments we found at any one polling place.
Sampling errors range from 4 to 8 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000.
Our polling place data also show that potential impediments to access
occur at fairly high rates regardless of the type of building used as a polling
place. Table 4 shows that, for each type of building, 76 percent or more
have potential impediments to voting access for people with disabilities.
Page 28 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Table 4: Prevalence of Potential Impediments by Type of Building
Type of building
Percentage of all
polling places
Percentage of buildings with at
least one potential impediment
School 24% 78%
Library or recreational/ 21% 90%
community center
House of worship 18% 82%
City/town hall or courthouse 14% 91%
Police/fire station 9% 76%
Private home 4% 93%
Other
a
10% 78%
Note: Sampling errors for the types of buildings as a percentage of all polling places range from 3 to 6
percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level; the sampling errors on the percentage of these
buildings with potential impediments range from 8 to 15 percentage points at the 95-percent
confidence level.
a
Includes National Guard Armories, lodges and fraternal organizations, apartment buildings, and
private businesses.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000.
Moreover, about 70 percent of all polling places are in facilities—such as
schools, recreational/community centers, city/town halls, police/fire
stations, libraries, and courthouses—potentially subject to either Title II or
III of the ADA, irrespective of their use as polling places.
46
Our polling
place data show that, of the polling places located in these types of
facilities, about 84 percent have one or more features that may present
challenges to physical access for voters with disabilities.
47
Potential
impediments found at these facilities include high door thresholds, ramps
with steep slopes, and a lack of accessible parking. However, under the
ADA, only new construction and alterations must be readily accessible, and
we did not determine the date that polling place facilities were either
constructed or altered. In addition, due to the number of possible
46
As noted previously, Title II, Subtitle A, which applies to state and local governments,
requires that public programs, services, and activities be accessible to individuals with
disabilities (42 U.S.C. sections 12131 to 12134). Title III requires reasonable modifications in
policies, practices, or procedures to be made by public accommodations to achieve
accessibility for people with disabilities (42 U.S.C. section 12182(b)). Also, new
construction and alteration of existing facilities by state and local governments, public
accommodations, and commercial facilities generally must be readily accessible to
individuals with disabilities (42 U.S.C. section 12183(b)(2)).
47
Sampling error of +/-6 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.
Page 29 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
approaches for meeting ADA requirements on accessibility to public
services and because places of public accommodation need remove
barriers only where it is easy to do so, our data do not allow us to
determine whether polling places with potential impediments would meet
ADA requirements.
Inside the Voting Room
Inside the voting room, many of the voting methods and the equipment
used may prove challenging for voters with certain types of disabilities.
Figure 6 shows that the use of ballots marked by a pen or pencil—
traditional paper ballots and mark-sense ballots used with optical scanning
equipment—is the most widespread voting method. This method is
followed in prevalence by punch-card ballots, direct recording electronic
(“electronic”) voting equipment, and lever machines. Table 5 details the
potential challenges these methods may present to voters with visual or
dexterity impairments.
48
In addition, voters in wheelchairs may have
difficulty reaching and manipulating the handles on lever machines, and
they also may find it difficult to reach and press the buttons on electronic
voting equipment. Although electronic voting equipment may pose
challenges for some voters with disabilities, some types of this method may
be adapted with audio and other aids to accommodate a range of
impairments.
48
We identified these challenges from interviews with election officials and representatives
of disability organizations. We did not observe whether voters encountered difficulties
using these methods.
Page 30 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Figure 6: Voting Methods Used at Polling Places
Note: Sampling errors range from 9 to 13 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.
a
According to 2000 Election Data Services data, about 3 percent of all precincts use traditional hand-
counted paper ballots.
b
We observed two types of equipment used with punch-card ballots: Votomatic and Datavote.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000.
Table 5: Potential Challenges Posed by Various Voting Methods
Potential challenges for
voters with
Voting method Dexterity impairments Visual
impairments
Paper or mark-sense ballots Holding the pencil or pen Reading the text on the
ballots
Punch-
card ball
ots Pinpointing the stylus, or Pinpointing the stylus, or
applying the appropriate reading the text on the
amount of pressure to punch ballots
holes
Electr
onic voting
equipment Pressing the buttons or Reading the text on the
images on the machine screen or the machine
Lever machine Manipulating the handles to Reading the text, or
operate the machine manipulating the handl
es to
operate the machine
Source: GAO interviews with election officials and representatives of disability organizations.
Page 31 GA
O-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
For voters experiencing difficulties using these various voting methods, we
found that one or more accommodations may be provided. Nearly all
polling places allow voters to be assisted either by a friend or a poll
worker.
49
Forty-seven percent of all polling places provide magnifying
devices to assist voters with visual impairments.
50
Additionally, 51 percent
of all polling places provide voting instructions or sample ballots in 18-
point or larger type.
51
However, none of the polling places that we visited
had special ballots or voting equipment adapted for blind voters, such as
audiotaped ballots, or Braille ballots or sleeves.
52
The configuration of voting stations, tables, or booths used in polling
places may pose additional challenges for voters in wheelchairs. Fifty-two
percent of all polling places have voting stations set up for people to sit and
vote, 38 percent have stations set up for people to stand and vote, and 10
percent have stations set up for either seated or standing voting.
53
At voting
stations configured for sitting, 43 percent do not have the minimum height,
width, or depth dimensions to position a wheelchair under a table.
54
Moreover, many of the voting booths configured for standing have one or
more features that might create an impediment for a voter in a wheelchair.
For example, 51 percent of the booths configured for standing do not
accommodate a voter in a wheelchair who has to reach forward to mark or
cast a ballot, and 55 percent do not accommodate a person in a wheelchair
who has to reach sideways to vote.
55
However, as noted earlier, nearly all
polling places allow a friend or poll worker to assist with voting.
49
As noted previously, under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, voters requiring
assistance to vote may be given assistance by a person of their choosing, such as a friend or
an election official.
50
Sampling error of +/-11 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.
51
Sampling error of +/- 11 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.
52
A Braille sleeve is an overlay that covers a ballot, or a sheath into which a ballot is inserted.
The sleeve is aligned so that the Braille corresponds to the items on the ballot. A person
marks through the sleeve in order to cast his/her vote.
53
Sampling errors range from 5 to 11 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.
54
Sampling error of +/- 13 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.
55
Sampling errors for the side and forward-reach findings are +/-17 percentage points at the
95-percent confidence level.
Page 32 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
A Variety of Challenges
Face States and
Counties as They Work
Toward Improving
Access to Voting
Although a number of efforts have been made to improve voting access for
people with disabilities, election officials cited a variety of challenges they
face in trying to do so. Challenges cited by election officials include the
limited availability of accessible buildings and the lack of authority to
modify buildings to make them more accessible. Election officials also told
us that the cost of acquiring voting equipment that is more accessible is
another major challenge. Finally, election officials cited a number of legal,
administrative, and operational challenges associated with implementing
accommodations and voting alternatives that might make voting more
accessible. Nevertheless, a number of states and counties have been
successful at surmounting some of these difficulties.
Improving Polling Place
Accessibility Hindered by
the Lack of Accessible
Buildings and Authority or
Funds to Modify Them
Some counties find that a major challenge to improving polling place
accessibility is a lack of accessible buildings, according to our national
survey of county election officials. Comments from both state and county
election officials indicate that problems finding accessible buildings can
occur in both rural and urban locations. For example, in rural areas, the
lack of buildings or the existence of rough terrain can create difficulties;
whereas in cities, a lack of parking or the prevalence of older buildings that
may be not accessible can be a problem.
However, even when accessible buildings exist in an area, election officials
may lack the authority to use them. While some county election officials
told us they had the authority to use public buildings as polling places,
other officials indicated that they did not have this authority. Furthermore,
states and counties generally lack the authority to require the owners of
private buildings to make their buildings available for elections. According
to our survey results, at least 26 percent of all counties find it difficult to
provide accessible polling places because buildings are under the control
of persons who do not want them to be used as polling places. In addition,
while at least 86 percent of the counties can provide private building
owners some compensation for the use of their buildings, the amount may
be limited to paying janitorial costs or a small usage fee—
sometimes les
s
than $100 per facility—which may not serve as a persuasive incentive.
One option for overcoming the limited supply of accessible buildings is to
modify buildings, for example by installing ramps or widening doorways.
While election officials have reported some success with this option, some
indicated that their ability to make modifications has been impeded by
authority limitations and funding constraints. For publicly held buildings,
Page 33 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
we found that the county or local election office has the authority to order
permanent modifications to public polling places in less than one-third of
the counties. For privately held buildings, election officials generally need
the owners’ permission to make temporary or permanent modifications. In
addition, some state and county election officials indicated that funding
constraints could also limit needed modifications. Despite these
limitations, we estimate that, in at least 32 percent of all counties, one or
more polling places may have been modified, either temporarily or
permanently, since 1995 to improve accessibility. Furthermore, while
election officials may not have the authority or funding to alleviate all
accessibility problems, there may still be opportunities for some
improvements, such as using signs to designate accessible parking and
pathways.
Providing Accessible Voting
Equipment Is Hindered by
Funding Constraints and
Concerns about Reliability
and Security
Most state election officials told us that limited funding is one of the main
barriers to improving voting accessibility, especially with regard to
providing more accessible voting equipment. While some states may
provide funds to ease this burden, according to our county survey, the
county and local levels of government generally bear the cost for
purchasing, leasing, or modifying voting equipment. Although a number of
election officials and disability advocates we interviewed agreed that the
new electronic voting equipment can accommodate a wider range of
disabilities than other voting methods, they also expressed concern that it
can be expensive, despite dramatic price reductions in the recent past.
56
At
the time of our interviews, election officials estimated that each electronic
voting unit can cost from $3,000 to about $6,000, with attachments to
enable voting by people with various disabilities costing up to an additional
$1,000 per unit.
57
Moreover, competing priorities for funding at a local level
may limit funding for improving voting accessibility, according to several
election officials we interviewed. For example, counties needing road
56
Currently, a number of counties are looking to acquire new voting systems—electronic
voting equipment or optical scanning systems. In comparing these systems, in addition to
initial costs, counties would likely consider recurring costs (such as the cost of printing
ballots, programming, training staff, operating and maintaining equipment, and storage) as
well as other factors (such as reliability, security, voter accessibility, and ease of use and
administration). An upcoming GAO report will provide information on the cost, security,
efficiency, accuracy, and ease of use of voting systems.
57
These attachments vary by manufacturer and might include audio features for voters who
are blind or visually impaired, or features that would allow people with severe disabilities to
vote using breathing or head movements.
Page 34 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
improvements may decide to pave roads rather than purchase or lease new
voting equipment.
In addition to costs, concerns about the reliability and security of
electronic equipment can discourage its adoption, according to election
officials we interviewed. For example, without the traditional paper ballot
to rely upon, some election officials fear that the equipment could be
tampered with to produce unreliable or fraudulent election outcomes. One
state official told us that several of the counties in his state that are
accustomed to paper ballots do not want electronic voting machines, even
if the state pays for them. Also state election official told us that some
officials are concerned because this newer technology does not create
traditional paper ballots and would not, therefore, allow for a standard
ballot recount to verify the election outcome. However, newer electronic
systems have enhancements that allow voters to confirm their selections
and that improve the ability of election officials to verify election results.
Although some counties indicated that they had purchased or were
considering the purchase of newer electronic voting equipment, a number
have indicated that they had made improvements to their existing
equipment to enhance voter accessibility. For example, some counties
reported modifying existing voting machines
—fo
r example, by making
them adjustable—so that individuals who need to vote in a sitting position
can vote independently. Some counties using punch-card equipment
reported providing a larger stylus to make it easier for those who could not
grip or otherwise vote using a regular stylus. Also, some county officials
told us that, upon request, they try to provide special aids—such as Braille
sleeves for the paper ballot and an accompanying audiotape or Braille
ballots—so that blind individuals can vote independently, although we did
not observe such aids on Election Day.
58
While incremental improvements to older voting technology may enable
more people with disabilities to vote independently, some election officials
and disability advocates we interviewed believe these measures have
shortcomings. For example, according to spokespersons for national
advocacy groups for people with disabilities, blind voters may not be
comfortable with audiotapes because using them is time-consuming and
58
Special aids for the blind may not have been observed on Election Day because they may
not have been requested in advance by voters in the polling places that we visited or the
local poll workers we interviewed may not have been aware of these aids.
Page 35 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
does not allow them to independently confirm that they marked their
ballots correctly. Moreover, only a small percentage of blind individuals
have the Braille proficiency needed to vote using a Braille ballot. In
addition, some voters with severe dexterity problems may not be able to
mark their ballots even with a larger punching stylus or special writing
implement.
Alternative Voting Methods
and Accommodations
Provide Options, but Also
Present Access and
Implementation Challenges
Expanding the availability of alternative voting methods or
accommodations can provide voters with additional options, but
implementing these changes can present election officials with legal,
administrative, and operational challenges. For example, expanding the
use of curbside voting could allow more voters with disabilities to cast
their votes at neighborhood polling places on Election Day. For election
officials, implementing curbside voting requires having staff trained and
available to assist voters outside the polling place. Moreover, in some
states where curbside voting is either prohibited or not currently used,
policymakers would need to be convinced that providing this
accommodation would not increase the potential for fraud as a result of
ballots being taken out of the polling place facility. Disability advocates
told us that this accommodation and other alternatives represent important
and needed options for some voters with disabilities; at the same time,
advocates believe that such alternatives do not provide an equal
opportunity to vote in the same manner as the general public and should
not be viewed as permanent solutions for inaccessible polling places.
Given the limited availability of accessible polling places, other options
that could allow more voters with disabilities to vote at a polling place on
Election Day include reassigning them to another, more accessible polling
place or creating accessible superprecincts in which voters from more than
one precinct would all vote in the same building. For voters with
disabilities, reassignment to more accessible polling places may require
them to travel farther to vote. For election officials, some challenges to
reassigning voters are ensuring that they have notified the voter, trained
poll workers, and provided an appropriate ballot at the reassigned location.
In comparison, superprecincts could inconvenience many voters by
requiring extra
travel
for those whose polling place was relocated. The
challenge in creating a superprecinct that is also accessible is finding an
accessible facility of sufficient size and amenities to meet the needs of a
large number of voters.
Page 36 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
In addition, some alternatives and accommodations allow individuals to
vote before Election Day, including voting in person at early voting sites or
using less restrictive absentee voting options, such as “no excuse” or
permanent absentee voting.
59
Some voters may prefer voting before
Election Day because it provides greater flexibility and convenience. For
example, some voters with disabilities may want to use an absentee voting
alternative and may find permanent absentee voting more convenient than
reapplying every election. However, the various limitations and
requirements of these voting options, such as traveling to an early voting
site or providing a doctor’s certification to qualify for permanent absentee
voting, may discourage the use of these options by some voters with
disabilities whose only obstacle to voting as others do is an inaccessible
polling place. For election officials, establishing early voting sites and
expanding the number of absentee voters add to the cost and complexity of
running an election. In addition, some election officials told us that
policymakers in their states are reluctant to adopt or expand voting
options—for example, to allow permanent absentee voting—because they
fear it may increase the risk of fraud. At the same time, these options have
been adopted by a number of states. A unique early voting option chosen
by Oregon’s voters is universal vote-by-mail. While there were challenges
in implementing this method, such as establishing uniform statewide voting
procedures, there have also been benefits, such as reducing the cost of
holding an election, according to an Oregon election official.
59
“No excuse” absentee voting is available to all voters—that is, voters do not need to give a
reason to vote absentee.
Page 37 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Internet voting—an alternative that has been only used on a limited basis to
date—also presents increased participation opportunities and
implementation challenges.
60
Internet voting could potentially provide
voters the convenience of voting from remote locations, such as their
homes, and thereby provide another option for increasing voter
participation. However, numerous election officials and others have
expressed concerns about the security and reliability of the Internet and
lack of widespread access to it. To resolve these issues, task force studies
have suggested that Internet voting could be introduced in phases.
61
Appendix VI provides a summary of the wide assortment of issues and
challenges for each voting accommodation and alternative method
discussed above.
60
There have been several Internet voting pilots and demonstrations in the last 2 years,
including (1) the Republican Party straw poll in Alaska; (2) the Presidential Primary in
Thurston, Washington; (3) the Democratic Party Primary in Arizona; and (4) the Presidential
Election, in which the Department of Defense piloted on-line voting for about 100 personnel
from the states of South Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Utah. In other pilot tests, four
counties in California held on-line voting demonstrations prior to Election Day and one
county in Arizona held them on Election Day.
61
These phases might include first offering Internet voting only at polling places, where
election officials could better ensure the security and reliability of the connection, and then
expanding it to kiosks and other remote locations. See California Internet Voting Task
Force, A Report on the Feasibility of Internet Voting (Jan. 2000); and Internet Policy
Institute, Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda
(Mar. 2001).
Page 38 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
We are sending copies of this report to the Department of Justice, the
Federal Election Commission, the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (the Access Board), appropriate congressional
committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions
concerning this report, please call me or Carol Dawn Petersen, Assistant
Director, at (202) 512-7215. Staff acknowledgements are listed in appendix
VII.
Barbara D. Bovbjerg
Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Issues
Page 39 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I
Scope and Methods
This appendix provides more detail about the procedures used to conduct
our legal analysis, collect information from states and counties, and select
our sample of polling places. It also provides more information about the
final sample of polling places that was used in our analysis, as well as
details about the analysis itself.
Analysis of State Laws
and Written Policies
Our review of state provisions for assuring voting accessibility included a
review of laws (statutes and regulations) and written policies related to
accessibility of polling places and alternative voting methods and
accommodations.
With respect
to polling
place accessibility, our review focused on state
provisions concerning accessibility standards, inspection and reporting
requirements, voting booth and system accommodations, and aids for
voters with visual impairments. With respect to alternative voting methods
and accommodations, our review focused on state provisions concerning
early voting and absentee voting (including methods and deadlines),
permanent absentee voting (including restrictions), curbside voting, taking
ballots to voters’ residences, assigning voters to more accessible polling
places, and notifying voters in advance of inaccessible polling places.
To identify relevant laws and written policies, we first interviewed
appropriate election officials in 50 states and the District of Columbia to
discuss their laws and policies concerning polling place accessibility and
alternative voting methods. We asked these officials to provide us with
legal citations to laws and copies of written policies on any state policies
they identified. In addition to the information provided by state election
officials, we researched legal databases and the Internet to identify any
additional state statutes, regulations, and written policies concerning
polling place accessibility or alternative voting methods or
accommodations. We did not include emergency provisions or provisions
applicable only to military, out-of-state, or overseas voters.
To determine a state’s provisions concerning polling place accessibility or
alternative voting methods or accommodations, we first reviewed state
statutes. If state statutes did not specifically address the issue, we then
reviewed any applicable regulations. In the absence of an applicable
statute or regulation, we reviewed written policies and guidelines we
identified and collected or had been provided by the state. After
determining each state’s provisions, and whether the provisions were
based in state law or written policy, we shared our determinations with
Page 40 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I
Scope and Methods
each state election office. We reviewed changes suggested by state
election offices, reviewed any additional documents submitted, and
adjusted our determinations where appropriate. We generally deferred to
interpretations by a state of its own statutory or regulatory provisions.
However, as a rule, we did not include policies or practices that were not
supported by a written document.
Data Collection From
States, Counties, and
Selected National
Organizations
To identify efforts and challenges to improving voting accessibility for
people with disabilities, we interviewed election officials in all 50 states
and the District of Columbia, as well as in our statistical sample of 100
counties.
1
We also interviewed selected representatives of national
organizations representing states, counties, and people with disabilities to
obtain their views on the costs of accessible equipment and the extent to
which alternative voting methods and accommodations improve access for
voters with disabilities. We did not independently verify the information
provided by election officials or organization representatives through our
interviews.
Our interviews of election officials
in the 50 states and
the District of
Columbia focused on state laws concerning absentee voting requirements,
as well as laws, regulations, and written policies concerning voting access
for people with disabilities. We also asked for information about the state’s
role in assuring compliance with state policy, or providing or controlling
resources for assuring compliance. Other topics covered in the interview
were the state’s role in making polling places accessible, the voting systems
used in the state, any efforts initiated by the states to increase voting
access for people with disabilities, and whether they perceived any barriers
or constraints to such efforts.
For the 100 counties, we generally contacted county election officials
because in most states responsibility for conducting elections is entrusted
to them. However, in four counties we contacted election officials at a
subcounty level, such as towns and cities, where the responsibility for
elections resides. We then combined their responses to create county level
responses.
1
Selection of the counties is discussed in the next section on selection of polling places.
Page 41 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I
Scope and Methods
In contacting the 100 counties we intended to visit on Election Day, we
generally conducted two interviews—one before Election Day and one
after. The first interview was designed to alert appropriate election
officials to the nature of our inquiry and to ask for their cooperation so that
we could visit polling places in their counties on Election Day.
2
We also
asked for information about county laws or policies on voting access for
people with disabilities, as well as county practices such as assessment and
inspection of polling places, choice of buildings to be used as polling
places, choice of voting methods and machines, and efforts for
improvements in accessibility.
Our second interview with county and local election officials was
conducted after Election Day and was designed to collect more
information about county practices in selecting polling places, obtaining
and using voting equipment, and handling voter complaints, as well as
accessibility of polling places and voting methods in the county and steps
the county may take
when a po
lling place is not accessible. In addition, we
asked for information about types of facilities used in conducting an
election and resources for meeting accessibility standards and improving
accessibility. We also asked for information about voter participation,
extent of polling place resources, and officials’ opinions about major
barriers and constraints to improving accessibility to voting for people with
disabilities.
3
For our interviews with election officials from states and counties, we used
three data collection instruments (DCIs) to ensure that questions were
asked, and responses were documented, in a consistent manner. The DCIs-
-one for the state interviews and two for the county interviews--were
developed in consultation with GAO methodologists. To further ensure
reliable and accurate results, the DCIs were administered by GAO staff
who were trained to administer them.
Our interviews with selected representatives of national organizations
were designed to collect more in-depth information on the cost and
challenges of acquiring more-accessible voting equipment, and on the
challenges and benefits of implementing alternative voting methods and
2
Some interviews with county officials before Election Day covered only the logistics of our
visits, and in these cases all other questions were covered in the second interview.
3
Some counties were unable to respond to some of our questions; the data from these
questions therefore yielded inconclusive results and are not included in this report.
Page 42 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I
Scope and Methods
accommodations. GAO staff asked each representative the same set of
questions to ensure we obtained comprehensive and balanced views on
each issue.
Selection of Polling
Places
Our selection of a sample of polling places used what is known as a two-
stage sampling method. The first stage was the selection of a sample of
counties. Each of those counties was then treated as a “cluster” of polling
places. In the second stage, we selected a sample of polling places from
each cluster.
Because there is no central list of all of the polling places in the United
States, the first stage of our sampling method started with a list of all
counties, since most elections are administered at the county level.
4
For
cost and efficiency reasons we confined our list of counties to those in the
contiguous United States, thus excluding the states of Alaska and Hawaii.
We also excluded the state of Oregon because, since 1998, elections in that
state have been conducted almost exclusively by mail. The final number of
counties from which we sampled was 3,074. Because the unit of analysis
we were ultimately interested in was the polling place, we used a
probability proportional to size sampling method to select the counties. We
wanted to base the probability that a particular county would be selected
on the number of polling places in that county, so that counties with many
polling places would be more likely to be selected than counties with few.
Since information on the number of polling places in each county is not
readily available, we based our selection of counties on the size of the
voting-age population of each county (age 18 and over), with more-
populous counties more likely to be selected than less-populous counties.
We considered the voting-age population to be an acceptable correlate to
the number of polling places. We therefore arranged our list of counties so
that, for each county, the probability of selection would be proportional to
the size of its voting-age population. We then randomly selected, without
replacement, 100 counties from that list.
4
To identify counties we used the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates for Counties by
Age and Sex: Annual Time Series (1998). From this database we pulled the Federal
Information Processing Standard codes for counties and other entities treated as legal
and/or statistical subdivisions. The following entities are listed by the U.S. Census Bureau
as equivalent to counties: parishes in Louisiana; the District of Columbia; and the
independent cities in Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia.
Page 43 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I
Scope and Methods
The second stage of our sampling method involved selecting from each
county the specific polling places to be visited. Once the 100 counties were
selected, we contacted county election officials and asked for the most
recent listing of all polling places in each.
5
From each county list, we
randomly selected eight polling places for a total sample of 800 polling
places. These 800 polling places were located in 33 states. Our sampling
method produced a representative sample of polling places in the
contiguous United States. To preserve the integrity of the data collection
effort, the selected polling place locations were not disclosed prior to
Election Day. Sampling errors for the polling place data generally range
between 3 and 10 percentage points.
6
Description of Site
Visits and the Data
Collection Instrument
On Election Day, GAO deployed one- or two-person “teams” composed of
experienced GAO staff to counties in our sample. Each team was equipped
with a DCI on which to record their observations; a measuring tape; and the
“ADA Accessibility Stick II,” a tool designed to measure potential
structural impediments in buildings and on walkways.
7
GAO monitored the
activities of the teams throughout Election Day and provided advice by
telephone from our Washington, D.C., and San Francisco offices.
To ensure uniform data collection across the country, all teams received
training in the use of the ADA Accessibility Stick II™ and the proper way to
fill out each question on the DCI. Teams were instructed on how to
interview the poll worker in charge of each polling place about
accommodations for voters with disabilities and were instructed to review
their responses with them.
8
Teams also received instructions on the
appropriate times for visiting polling places and were instructed not to
5
In the states where elections were administered at the township level, we contacted all
townships within the selected county and asked for their listings of polling places. In some
cases we found polling place lists on county or township Web sites.
6
Sampling errors for the county-level data had a wider range (generally between 4 and 25
percentage points) than the errors associated with the national polling place data because
we used a probability proportional to size sampling method to select the counties.
7
The ADA Accessibility Stick II is supplied by Access, Inc., Lawrence, Kan.
8
In addition, if the teams did not locate an accessible parking area, route, entrance, or
pathway, they were instructed to ask the poll worker in charge of the polling place whether
one existed and, if so, to show it to them. The teams were instructed to then revise the DCI
where appropriate.
Page 44 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I
Scope and Methods
approach voters or interfere with the voting process in any way during their
visits.
Representatives appointed by the county election officials escorted many
of the teams to the polling places. The escorts accompanied the teams to
polling places, and facilitated access into the voting room. To maintain the
integrity
of the data coll
ection process, GAO teams were instructed not to
disclose the location of the selected polling places ahead of time.
9
Due to constraints of time and geography, some teams were not able to
visit all eight polling places in their assigned county. We preserved the
randomness of our sample, however, by having the teams visit the polling
places in the same order in which they were pulled from the sample. That
is, each team was given an ordered list of polling places to visit and was
expected to follow the order number in making their visits. If for some
reason a polling place in a particular county was skipped, all polling places
farther down that list were dropped from the sample. Thus, for example,
polling site number five was not included in the final sample unless polling
sites one through four had also been visited.
In addition, some counties did not allow us to visit
their poll
ing places on
Election Day itself, but made the sites available to us on an alternative date.
Ultimately, all teams visited at least three and as many as eight polling
places. In total, we visited 496 polling places in 85 counties on Election
Day and another 89 polling places in 15 counties either before or after
Election Day.
10
9
GAO teams disclosed the location of the polling places to the escorts on the morning of the
site visits.
10
See app. III for a list of the counties we visited.
Page 45 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I
Scope and Methods
The DCI we used is reproduced in appendix II. Most of the questions
contained in this instrument incorporate access standards from the 1991
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and
Facilities,
11
the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) Standard
A117.1-1998: Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities,
12
and the ADA
Guide for Small Towns from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
13
In
addition, some of the questions in our instrument were based upon
questions in an earlier access survey by the Federal Election Commission
(FEC),
14
and upon guidelines published by the National Task Force on
Accessible Elections.
15
All DCI questions were carefully reviewed by GAO methodologists to
ensure the questions would result in the collection of reliable and accurate
data. We then provided copies of a draft version of our DCI to
representatives of the Election Center, the National Organization on
Disability, and the Task Force on Accessible Elections for their review and
comments, but did not receive comments from these organizations. We
also provided the Access Board with a copy of our draft instrument and
they provided comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Finally,
to ensure that the instrument could be used effectively in the field and
completed in a reasonable amount of time by the teams, we pretested the
DCI twice—during the June 27, 2000, Special Election and the September
12, 2000, Primary Election—both in the District of Columbia.
11
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (otherwise known as the
Access Board) is responsible for developing access guidelines for the design, construction,
and alteration of buildings and facilities subject to the ADA. Although new amendments to
the guidelines were proposed in 1998, they had not been approved and added to the
standards enforceable by the Department of Justice by Nov. 7, 2000.
12
The ANSI’s Standard A117.1-1998 was created to allow a person with a physical disability
to independently get to, enter, and use a site, facility, building, or element.
13
U.S. Department of Justice, ADA Guide for Small Towns, Civil Rights Division, Disability
Rights Section (Apr. 2000).
14
Federal Election Commission, Polling Place Accessibility Survey Form, Polling Place
Accessibility in the 1992 General Election.
15
The guidebook, Voting: A Constitutional Right for All Citizens, contains guidelines for
making polling places and voting equipment accessible for people with disabilities. It was
published in 1999 by the National Task Force on Accessible Elections, initiated by the
Election Center. The guidebook was based on a previous document originally published in
1986 by the National Organization on Disability and updated in 1987 by the National Easter
Seal Society.
Page 46 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I
Scope and Methods
Analysis of Election
Day Data
In analyzing the data collected on Election Day, we first grouped the types
of impediments that could be encountered at a polling place into those that
might be encountered at each of four locations—the parking area, the route
from the parking area to the building, the building entrance, and the route
from the entrance to the voting room. Therefore, the percentage of polling
places cited as having one or more potential impediments was based on
whether or not a polling place was found to have at least one potential
impediment in any of the four locations we examined and does not include
potential impediments associated with the voting booth or equipment,
which we report on separately.
While features of the voting booth or equipment did not enter into our
summary measure of whether a polling place had a potential impediment,
we did look for potential impediments inside the voting room. We took
measurements of the voting booth or table used by people with disabilities
to determine whether equipment was within reach for wheelchair users
and whether wheelchairs could fit inside the booth or under the table. We
checked to see if sample ballots and voting instructions were provided in
18-point type, and if magnifying devices were available. Further, we
checked whether Braille ballots and sleeves, audiotaped ballots, and other
accommodations for blind voters were available. We also briefly
interviewed the poll worker in charge at almost all
of the polling
places to
find out whether curbside voting was available and how the poll workers
would handle voter requests for assistance from a friend or an election
official.
16
Comparison of Non-
Election Day Sample With
Election Day Sample
In the 15 counties that did not give us access to their polling places on
Election Day, we were able to complete only those portions of our DCI that
referred to the outside of the building. That is, we observed the parking
area and the route from the parking area to the building. However, because
we were not at the polling places on Election Day itself, we could not
observe temporary features that might have been provided to facilitate the
building’s use as a polling place, such as temporary signs or ramps. More
important, we could not determine what accommodations, if any, were
available to voters with disabilities if they were to encounter features that
impeded their access to the polling place on Election Day itself. For this
reason, although we visited 89 polling places in these counties either before
16
We were unable to conduct this interview in 2.5 percent of polling places.
Page 47 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I
Scope and Methods
or after Election Day, we excluded the data from these visits from our
analysis. We reweighted our final sample to account for the exclusion of
these polling places so that our findings regarding various polling place
features can still be considered representative of all polling places in the
contiguous United States.
When we compare the limited data from the non-Election Day visits with
those from the Election Day visits, it is clear that the exclusion of the non-
Election Day data does not increase the percentage of polling places with a
potential impediment in the parking area or on the route from the parking
area to the building. The percentage of polling places in the non-Election
Day sample with one or more potential impediments in these areas is
higher than the percentage in the Election Day sample. While it is
impossible to compare the entire route from parking to inside the building
across the two sets of data, we found nothing to suggest that the non-
Election Day sites would have had significantly fewer impediments than
those found at the Election Day sites. Table 6 presents the percentage of
polling places visited on Election Day and not on Election Day that had
potential impediments either in the parking area or on the route to the
building’s entrance.
Table 6: Comparison of Election Day and Non-Election Day Data: Percentage of
Polling Places With Potential Impediments in Two Areas
Route from parking area to
Parking area building entra
nce
Election Day sites 33% 57%
Non-E
lection Day sites 38% 7
3%
Note: Sampling errors for the Election Day sites range from 7 to 8 percentage points at the 95-percent
confidence level. Sampling errors for the Non-Election Day sites range from 15 to 20 percentage
points at the 95-percent confidence level.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data.
Sampling Errors
All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, which is the extent to
which the survey results differ from what would have been obtained if the
whole universe had been observed. Measures of sampling error are defined
by two elements—the width of the confidence interval around the estimate
(sometimes called precision of the estimate) and the confidence level at
which the interval is computed. The confidence interval refers to the fact
that estimates actually encompass a range of possible values, not just a
Page 48 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I
Scope and Methods
single point. This interval is often expressed as a point estimate, plus or
minus some value (the precision level). For example, a point estimate of 75
percent plus or minus 5 percentage points means that the true population
value is estimated to lie between 70 percent and 80 percent, at some
specified level of confidence.
The confidence level of the estimate is a measure of the certainty that the
true value lies within the range of the confidence interval. We calculated
the sampling error for each statistical estimate in this report at the 95-
percent confidence level and present this information throughout the
report.
Page 49 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
DCI to Assess Polling Place Accessibility
Background Information
1. Date ________________, 2000
�
Time of Visit: ________________to________________
�
Name of Observer(s) ______________________________________________
______________________________________________
�
Name of HQ’s Team
or Region ________________________________________
�
Is this location still a polling place? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Not an “Election Day” vis
it (CONTINUE WITH DCI.)
2. [ ] Yes
3. [ ] No (STOP H
ERE AND GO TO THE NEXT POLLING PLACE!)
�
What is the building in which the polling place is located normally used as? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] House of worship (e.g., church, parish,
synagogue, mosque, temple)
2. [ ] School
3. [ ]
Library
4. [ ] Courthouse
5. [ ] Police or fire station
6. [ ] Recreational or commun
ity center
7. [ ] City Hall
8. [ ] Private home
9. [ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)
____________________________________________________________
Page 50 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
Parking
�
Is there temporary or permanent on or off street parking associated with this polling site that
is specifically designated for persons with disabilities? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes, design
ated parking that is permanent only
2. [ ] Yes, design
ated parking that is temporary only
3. [ ] Yes, both temporary and permanen
t designated parking
4. [ ] No designated parking for persons with disabilities (IF CHECKED, GO TO I
TEM
10.)
5. [ ] No parking for any voters (IF CHECKED, GO TO ITEM 10.)
�
Is the parking specifically designated for persons with disabilities on or off street parking, or
is there both? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] On street only
2. [ ] Off street only
3. [ ] Both on and off street parking
�
If the parking area specifically designated for persons with disabilities was not easily visible
from the front of the polling place, was there a temporary or permanent sign directing voters
to that parking area? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes, a temporary sign only
2. [ ] Yes, a pe
rmanent
sign only
3.� [ ] Yes, both temporary and permanent signs
4.� [ ] No, there was no sign
5.� [ ] Not applicable, parking area was easily visible
Page 51 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
Route from Leaving the Car to the Accessible Entrance of the Building
�
What impediments to wheelchair use, if any, are there along the path from the point at which
persons with disabilities leave their car to the “accessible” entrance (or main entrance if no
accessible entrance designated) of the building? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.)
Parking Area or Street in Front of Building
�
[ ] Unpaved or poor surface, e.g. abrupt changes over ¼ inch
�
[ ] One or more unramped or uncut curbs
�
[ ] One or more ramped or cut curbs that are less than 36 inches wide
�
[ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)
____________________________________________________________
Path from Parking Area or Street in Front of Building to the Entrance of the Building
�
[ ] Overly narrow (less than 36 inches wide, but can go down to 32 inches wide for a
distance of two feet) sidewalk/pathway along the path
�
[ ] For at least part of the way there is no sidewalk/pathway
�
[ ] Sidewalk/pathway has at least one slope that is steeper than 1:12
�
[ ] Leaves, snow, or litter creating a hazard or impediment
�
[ ] Steps required to reach building entrance (i.e., no ramps or lifts available)
a. [ ]Steps have handrails t
hat extend at least one foot beyond the landing
b. [ ]Steps have handrails t
hat extend less than one foot beyond the landing
c. [ ]Steps have no hand
rails
�
[ ] Ramps along main or accessible path have a slope steeper than 1:12
�
[ ] Ramps that measure more than 6 inches from the ground to their highest point and
lack 2 handrails (i.e. one on each side)
�
[ ] Ramps that are less than 36 inches wide (can go down to 32 inches wide for a
distance of two feet)
�
[ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)
____________________________________________________________
�
[ ] No impediments
Page 52 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
�
If there was a special path for persons with disabilities that was different from the path that
non-disabled persons would generally use, was there a temporary or permanent sign(s)
clearly indicating that route? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes, a temporary sign only
2. [ ] Yes, a permanent
sign only
�
[ ] Yes, both a temporary and a permanent sign
4.� [ ] No, there was no sign clearly indicating that route
�
[ ] Not applicable, there was no special path
Entrances to the Building
�
What, if any, impediments to wheelchair use are presented by the entrance(s) to the building
to which the “accessible” path (or main path if no “accessible” path designated) from the
parking area leads? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.)
1. [ ] Doorway thresholds that exceed ½
inch in height
2. [ ]
Single door openings that are less th
an 32 inches wide
3. [ ] Double door openings that are
less than 32 inches wide, including situations in which
one of the doors cannot be opened
4. [ ] Closed doors that would be difficult for a person in a wheelchair to open
(PLEASE DESCRIBE.)
____________________________________________________________
5. [ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)
____________________________________________________________
6. [ ] No impediments
�
Were you allowed into the polling place? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes
2. [ ] No (STOP H
ERE AND GO TO THE NEXT POLLING PLACE!)
Page 53 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
Route to Voting Room from Inside the Building
�
Once you have entered the building, what impediments, if any, are there to wheelchair use
along the path to the voting room? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.)
Doorways and Entrances that Present Impediments
1. [ ] One or more doorway thresholds that exceed ½ inch in height
2. [ ] One or more single door openings that are less than 32 inches wide
3. [ ] One or more double door openings that are
less than 32 inches wide, including
situations in which one of the doors cannot be opened
4. [ ] One or more closed doors that would be difficult for a person in a wheelchair to
open (PLEASE DESCRIBE.)
____________________________________________________________
5. [ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)
____________________________________________________________
Steps
6. [ ] Steps required to gain access to the voting room (i.e., no ramp or lift)
a. [ ] Steps have handrails t
hat extend at least one foot beyond the landing
b. [ ] Steps have handrails t
hat extend less than one foot beyond the landing
c. [ ] Steps have no hand
rails
Ramps that Presen
t Impediments
7. [ ] One or more ramps that have a slope steeper than 1:12
8. [ ] One or mo
re ramps rising more than 6 inches that lack 2 handrails (i.e., one on each
side)
9. [ ] One or mo
re ramps that are less than 36 inches wide at any point (but can go down
to 32 inches wide for a distance of two feet)
10. [ ] Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)
____________________________________________________________
Page 54 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
14. (Continued)
Corridors that Present Impediments
11. [ ] One or more corridors that do not provide a clearance of at least 36 inches (can go
down to a clearance of 32 inches for a distance of two feet)
12. [ ] Other
__________________________________________________________
13. [ ] No impediments
�
If there was a special path to the voting room for persons with disabilities that was different
from the path that non-disabled persons would generally use, was there a temporary or
permanent sign(s) clearly indicating that route? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes, a temporary sign only
2. [ ] Yes, a pe
rmanent
sign only
�
[ ] Yes, both a temporary and a permanent sign
4.� [ ] No, there was no sign clearly indicating that route
�
[ ] Not applicable, there was no special path
�
Is it necessary for a person in a wheelchair or a blind person to take an elevator to gain
access to the voting room? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] No (IF “NO,” GO TO QUESTION 18 ON PAGE 10.)
2. [ ] Yes
Page 55 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
�
What impediments, if any, does the elevator present to blind persons or persons in a
wheelchair? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.)
1.� [ ] The center of the outside call button is higher than 48 inches from the ground
or floor
2.� [ ] The
elevator op
ening is less than 36 inches wide
3.� [ ] The center of th
e top inside floor button(s) is higher than 48 inches from the floor
of the elevator
4.� [ ] The panel surrounding the inside buttons lacked raised lettering or Braille
5.�
[ ] Outside or inside elevator button
s require a heat sensor to operate, that is, the
elevator buttons require human touch to operate (PLEASE TRY TO OPERATE BY
PRESSING BUTTONS WITH A PEN OR SIMILAR OBJECT.)
6.� [ ] The
insi
de car is less than 48” by 48”
7.� [ ] Other
____________________________________________________________
8.� [ ] No impediments
Page 56 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
Voting Room Facilities for Persons with or without Disabilities
�
What kind of voting method do voters without disabilities use? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Electronic
2. [ ] Paper or mark-sense
3. [ ] Votomatic punc
h card
4. [ ] Datavote punch card
5. [
] Machine that uses levers to record vote
6. [ ] Choice or combination of _____________ and _____________
7. [ ] Other
____________________________________________________________
�
What are the name of the manufacturer and the model number of the voting machines used
by voters without disabilities?
Manufacturer____________________________________________________________
Mode
l number___________________________________________________________
�
Are there one or more voting stations specifically designated for use by persons with
disabilities? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes
2. [ ] No (IF “NO,” GO TO ITEM 24.)
�
Is a different type of voting method available to persons with disabilities? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes (DESCRIBE.)___________
________________________________
2. [ ] No
�
Are there different kinds of voting machines available to persons with disabilities? (CHECK
ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes (DESCRIBE MAKE AND MODEL #.) ______________________________
2. [ ] No
Page 57 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
�
In your opinion, do the voting stations specifically designated for persons with disabilities
provide less privacy than, the same privacy as, or more privacy than the voting stations
designated for non-disabled voters? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Less privacy than the voting stations for non-disabled voters
2. [ ] The same
privacy as the voting stations for non-disabled voters
3. [ ] More privacy than the voting stations for non-disabled voters
�
Is the station at which a person with a disability would vote configured for voters to stand or
sit? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Stand (IF “STAND,” GO TO ITEM 26 ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
2. [ ] Sit
�
If the station at which a person with a disability would vote is configured for seated voting, is
there clear knee space underneath that is 27 or more inches high, 30 or more inches wide
and 19 or more inches deep? Is the equipment necessary for voting located 44 inches or less
above the floor? (CHECK ONE FOR EACH.)
Yes No
(1) (2)
1. 27” or more high [ ] [ ]
2. 30” or mo
re wide [ ] [ ]
3. 19” or mo
re deep [ ] [ ]
4. Voting equipment 44” or less above the floor [ ] [ ]
(NOW GO TO ITEM 27.)
Page 58 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
�
If the station at which a person with a disability would vote is one in which non-disabled
voters would usually stand, does the station have any of the impediments listed below?
(CHECK ONE FOR EACH.)
Yes No
(1) (2)
1. An entryway that is less than 36 inches wide [ ] [ ]
2. Thresholds that are more than ½ inch
in the entryway [ ] [ ]
3.� For a voter reaching forward to cast a vote, at least some
of the buttons or levers are less than 15 inches above the floor [ ] [ ]
4.� For a voter reaching forward to cast a vote, at least some
of the buttons or levers are more than 48 inches above the floor [ ] [ ]
5.� For a voter reaching sideways to
cast a vote, at least some of
the buttons or levers are less than 9 inches above the floor [ ] [ ]
6.� For a voter reaching sideways to
cast a vote, at least some of
the buttons or levers are more than 54 inches above the floor [ ] [ ]
Page 59 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
In the DCI used in the field,
the bolded "18 point" text
in questions 27, 28, 30 and
31 appeared in 18-point
font size, in order that GAO
staff could compare the
font size of this text with
Aid for Visually Impaired Voters
that used in actual voting
instructions and sample
ballots.
�
Are voting instructions posted that use 18-point or larger type? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes, instructions post
ed with 18 point type or larger
2. [ ] No
�
Are sample ballots posted that use 18-point or larger type? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes
2. [ ] No
Questions for Main Preci
nct Official
�
Are you able to interview the main precinct official? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes
2. [ ] No (STOP H
ERE AND GO TO THE NEXT POLLING PLACE!)
�
Do you have voting instructions that use 18-point or larger type that are available for voters
to use? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes (If so, ask) Ma
y I see a set of those instructions? [ ] Instructions Shown
2. [ ] No
�
Do you have sample ballots that use 18-point or larger type that are available for voters to
use? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes (If so, ask) May I see one of those ballots? [ ] Ballot Shown
2. [ ] No
�
Does the polling place have magnifying devices available that visually impaired voters can
use? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes (If so, ask) May I see the device (glasses.)? [ ] Device Shown
2. [ ] No
Page 60 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
�
Does the polling place have any special equipment available to enable a blind person to vote?
(CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes
2. [ ] No (IF “NO,” GO TO ITEM 35.)
�
May I see the equipment that is available? (CHECK EACH SHOWN.)
1. [ ] Braille sleeve
2. [ ] Braille paper ballot
3. [ ] Braille ballot as part of the voting device
4. [ ] Audio-ta
pe
d ballot
5. [ ] Other (SPECIFY.)
________________________________________________________
�
If a blind person wishes to vote, may that person have a friend assist him or her with voting?
(CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes
2. [ ] No
�
If a person with a disability other than blindness, wishes to vote may that person have a
friend assist him or her with voting? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes
2. [ ] No
�
If a blind person asks for help with voting, will an election official assist him or her? (CHECK
ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes
2. [ ] No
Page 61 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
�
If a person with a disability, other than blindness, asks for help with voting, will an election
official assist him or her? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes
2. [ ] No
�
If a person with a disability arrives at the polling place in a car and believes that he or she
would have difficulty entering or voting at the polling place, what would you do to enable the
person to vote? (CHECK ALL THAT ARE INDICATED.)
1. [ ] Provide assistance so that the person with a disability could vote
in the polling
p
lace (ASK) What kind of assistance would you provide? (ENTER ANSWER.)
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
2. [ ] Enable th
e person to vote in his or her automobile by using the same kind of
voting device as is used in the polling place
3. [ ] Enable th
e person to vote in his or her automobile by using a paper ballot
4. [ ] Other ______________________________________________________________
�
(IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE ON OR OFF STREET PARKING DESIGNATED FOR PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS POLLING PLACE ASK:) Is there on
or off street parking associated with this polling site that is specifically designated for
persons with disabilities that is either temporary or permanent? Would you show it to me?
(CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes [ ] Shown (IF NECESSARY,
REVISE AN
SWERS TO ITEMS 7-9.)
2. [ ] No
�
(IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM LEAVING THE CAR TO THE
ENTRANCE OF THE VOTING ROOM ASK:) Is there an accessible path from the point at
which blind persons or persons with disabilities leave their car to the entrance of the
building? Would you show it to me? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes [ ] Shown (IF NECESSARY,
REVISE AN
SWERS TO ITEMS 10 AND
11.)
2. [ ] No
Page 62 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II
Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection
Instrument
�
(IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE AN ENTRANCE THAT IS WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE ASK:) Is
there an entrance to this building that is wheelchair accessible? Would you show it to me?
(CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes [ ] Shown (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEM 12.)
2. [ ] No
�
(IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE AN ACCESSIBLE PATH FROM THE ENTRANCE TO THE
VOTING ROOM ASK:) Is there a path from the entrance of the building to the voting room
that is accessible to blind persons and persons with disabilities? Would you show it to me?
(CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes [ ] Shown (IF NECESSARY,
REVISE AN
SWERS TO ITEMS 14 AND
15.)
2. [ ] No
�
Can the voting equipment in the voting stations be lowered? Would you show me how this is
done? (CHECK ONE.)
1. [ ] Yes [ ] Shown (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEMS 25 OR
26.)
2. [ ] No
�
I would like to just take a few minutes to review the answers you have given to the interview
questions. (QUICKLY READ BACK THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO THE INTERVIEW
QUESTIONS TO CHECK FOR CORRECTNESS AND REVISE ACCORDINGLY.)
1. [ ] Answers to interview questions reviewed and revised, if necessa
ry.
�
Additional Notes and Comments
Page 63 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III
People and Counties Contacted During Our
Review
Table 7: Representatives of Election Offices in 50 States and the District of Columbia
State Office Name
and title
Alabama Office of Secretary
of State Vicki Balogh
Director of Election
s
Arizona Office of Secretary of State J
essica Funkhouser
Election Director
Alaska Division of Elections Janet Kowalski
Director
Arkansas State Boar
d of Election C
ommissioners Suzy Stormes
Director
California Office of Secretary of State J
ohn Mott-Smith,
Chief of Elections Division
Colorado Office of Secretary of State Bi
ll Compton
Director of Election
s
Connecticut Office of Secretary of State Tho
mas Ferguson
Director of Election
s
Delaware Department of Elections Tom Cook
Commissioner of Elections
District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics Alice P. Miller
Executive Director
Marvin A. Ford
Chief of
Staff
To ny Bass
Election Oper
ations Manager
Florida Division of Elections L. Clayton Roberts
Director
Geor
gia Electio
ns Division Linda Beazley
Director
Hawaii Office of Elections Dwayne Yoshina
Chief Elections Officer
Idaho Elections Division Ben Ysur
sa
Chief Deputy
Secretar
y of State
Illinois State Board of Elections Ron
Michaelson
Executive Director
Indiana Election Commission Spencer Valentine
Co-Director
Io
wa Office of the Secretary of State Bob
Galbraith
Deputy Secretary of State for Elections
Sandy Steinbach
Director of Election
s
Kansas Office of the Secretary of State Brad Br
yant
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Elections
Page 64 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III
People and Counties Contacted During Our
Review
(Continued From Previous Page)
State Office Name
and title
Kentucky Sta
te Board of Elections Mary Sue Helm
Executive Director
Louisiana Office of the Secretary of State F
rances Hurst
Elections/Commissions/Publications Administrator
Warren Ponder
Executive Counsel
Pat Stewart
A
ssista
nt Administrator
Maine Bureau of
Corporations, Elections & Commissions Julie Flynn
Director
Melissa Packar
d
Elections
Assistant
Maryland State Administrative Board of Election Laws Linda Lamone
Administrator
Massachusetts Election Division Michelle Tassinari
Director
of Election
s
Michigan Bureau of Elections Bradley S. Wittman
Director of Inf
ormation and Voter Registration
Minnesota Election Division J. Bradley King
Director
Mississippi Secretary of State for Elections Leslie Scott
Assistant
Missouri Election Division Daniel Hayes
Senior Election Specialist
Montana Office of S
ecretary of State Joe K
erwin
Deputy for Elections
Nebraska Office of Secretary of State Neal
Erickson
Assistant Secret
ary of State
Nevada Office of Secretary of State S
usan Morandi
Deputy Secretary of
State for Elections
New Hampshire State
Election Office Ellen Dube
Elections Assistant
New Jersey State Election Office Sharon Young
Dir
ector of Election
s Division
New Mexico State Bureau of Elections Denise Lamb
Director of Election
s
New York State Board of Electi
ons Thomas R. Wilkey
Executive Director
North Carolina State Board of Elections G
ary Bartlett
Executive Director
North Dakota Office of Secretary of State Lee
Ann Oliver
Elections Specialist
Page 65 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III
People and Counties Contacted During Our
Review
(Continued From Previous Page)
State Office Name
and title
Ohio Office of Secretary of State Dana W
alch
Director of Election
s
Oklahoma State Elections Board Lance Ward
Secretary
O
regon Offi
ce of the Secretary of State Scott Tighe
Operations Manager
Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation Dick Filling
Commissioner of Elections
Rhode Island State Boar
d of Elections Rober
t Fontaine
Executive Director
South Carolina State Elections Commission Jim F. Hendrix
Executive Director
South Dakota State Election Office Chris Nelson
Election Supervisor
Tennessee Office of Secr
etary of State B
rook Thompson
State Coordinator of
Elections
Texas Office of Secretary of State A
nn McGeehan
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Elec
tions
Utah Office of the Lieutenant Governor Amy Naccarato
Director of Election
s
Vermont Office of Secretary of State Ka
thy DeWolfe
Director of Ele
ctions & Campaign Finance
Virginia State Board of Elections Cam
eron Quinn
Secretary
W
ashington Office of Secretary of State Charl
otte Ottavelli
Elections Assistant
West Virginia Offi
ce of Secretary of State Jan Casto
Deputy Secretary of
State and Director of Elections
Wisconsin State Elections Board Kevin Kennedy
Executive Director
Wyoming Office of Secretary of State Peggy
Nighswonger
Elections Officer
Page 66 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III
People and Counties Contacted During Our
Review
Table 8: Alphabetical Listing of 100 Randomly Selected Counties
# County State
Coffee Alabama
Mobile
a
Alabama
Alameda California
Imperial California
Los Angeles Calif
ornia
Monterey California
Placer California
San Bernardino Calif
ornia
San Diego California
San Mateo California
Santa Clara California
Tulare California
Fairfield
b
Connecticut
Brevard Florida
Dade Florida
Duval Florida
17 Lee Florida
18 Manatee Florida
19 Monroe Florida
20 Pasco Florida
21 Pinellas Florida
22 De K
alb Georg
ia
23 Forsyth Georg
ia
24 Gwinnett Georgia
25 Rich
mond Georgia
26 Cook Illinois
27 Stephenson Illinois
28 Marion Indiana
29 Plymouth Iowa
30 Worth Iowa
31 Johnson Kansas
32 Sedgwick Kansas
33 Wilson Kansas
34 Bracken Kentucky
35 Jefferson Kentucky
Page 67 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Appendix III
People and Counties Contacted During Our
Review
(Continued From Previous Page)
# County State
36 Kenton Kentucky
Hampshire
b
Massachusetts
Norfolk
b
Massachusetts
Suffolk Massachusetts
Berrien Michi
gan
Carlton Minnesota
Morrison Minnesota
Ramsey Minnesota
Jackson Mississippi
New Madrid
a
Missouri
St. Louis City Missouri
St. Louis
a
Missouri
Clay Nebraska
Washoe Nevada
Bergen New Jersey
Essex New Jersey
52 Mo
rris New Jersey
53 Union New Jersey
54 Mora
a
New Mexico
55 San Juan
a
New Mexico
56 Kings New York
57 Monroe New York
58 New York New York
59 Niagara New York
60 Rockland New York
61 Sar
atoga Ne
w York
62 Schenectady New York
63 Suffolk New York
64 Guilford North Carolina
65 Henderson North Carolina
66 Mecklenburg North Carolina
67 Auglaize
a
Ohio
68 Franklin
a
Ohio
69 Stark
a
Ohio
70 Trumbull
a
Ohio
71 Oklahoma Oklahoma
72 Pontotoc Oklahoma
Page 68 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Appendix III
People and Counties Contacted During Our
Review
(Continued From Previous Page)
# County State
73 Allegheny Pennsylvania
74 Bradford Pennsylvania
75 Bucks Pennsylvania
76 Dauphin Pennsylvania
77 Mercer Penn
sylvania
78 Monroe
a
Pennsylvania
79 Philadelphia Pennsylvania
80 Union Pennsylvania
81 Orangeburg South Carolina
82 Putnam Tennessee
83 Shelby Tennessee
84 Bexar
a
Texas
85 Brazoria
a
Texas
86 Dallas
a
Texas
87 Tarrant
a
Texas
88 Williamson
a
Texas
89 Davis Utah
90 Chittenden
b
Vermont
91 Arlington Virginia
92 Wythe Virginia
93 Benton Washington
94 Grant Washington
95 King Washington
96 Snohomish Washington
97 Boone West Virginia
98 Marathon Wisconsin
99 Oconto Wisconsin
100 Trempealeau Wisconsin
a
For these 15 counties, we visited polling places either before or after Election Day.
b
For these four counties, we spoke with election officials at the subcounty level (such as towns and
cities) where responsibility for elections lies.
Election and Other Officials
Gary Bartlett
and Representatives of
Executive Secretary-Director, State Board of Elections, North Carolina;
Disability Organizations
Cochair, Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting Accessibility; and
Whom We Contacted
member of National Association of State Election Directors (NASED)
Page 69 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III
People and Counties Contacted During Our
Review
David Baquis
Accessibility Specialist, Office of Technical & Information Services, U.S.
Access Board
Penelope Bonsall
Director, Office of Election Administration, FEC
John Y. Brown, III
Secretary of State, Kentucky; and Southern Regional Vice President of the
National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS)
Pauline Brunelli
Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD)
Brad Bryant
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Elections/Legislative matters,
Kansas; and Midwest Regional representative, NASED
Bryan Casky
Assistant State Election Director, Kansas
David Capozzi
Director, Office of Technical & Information Services, U.S. Access Board;
and member of the Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting
Accessibility
Alfie Charles
Chair, California Internet Task Force
Kristen Cox
Assistant Director, Government Affairs, National Federation of the Blind
Jim Dickson
Vice President, American Association of People with Disabilities and
Consultant for the National Organization on Disability
Jessica Funkhouser
Election Director, Arizona Secretary of State’s office; and member of
NASED
Page 70 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III
People and Counties Contacted During Our
Review
James Gashel
Director of Government Affairs, National Federation of the Blind
Tom Goodman
Director of Public Affairs, National Association of Counties (NACO)
Brian Hancock
Election Research Specialist, Office of Election Administration, FEC
Ernest Hawkins
Registrar of Voters, Sacramento County; former President, National
Association of County Recorders and Clerks (NACRC); Cochair of NACO
National Commission on Election Standards and Reform; and member of
the FEC Election Administration Advisory Panel—
2001
J. Patric
k Kelly
County Clerk and Recorder, El Paso County; Cochair of NACRC Election
Interest Group; and member, NACO National Commission on Election
Standards and Reform
Robert Kengle
Deputy Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, DOJ
William C. Kimberling
Deputy Director, Office of Election Administration, FEC
Andrew Lelling
Counsel to Assistant Attorney General, Senior Counsel Voting Reform, DOJ
R. Doug Lewis
Executive Director, Election Center; and member of the Election Center’s
National Task Force on Voting Accessibility and NACO National
Commission on Election Standards and Reform
Marsha Mazz
Technical Assistance Coordinator and Accessibility Specialist, Office of
Technical and Information Services, U.S. Access Board
Ann McGeehan
Texas State Elections Director; NASED President; and member of the
Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting Accessibility
Page 71 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III
People and Counties Contacted During Our
Review
Gary McIntosh
Former Director of Elections, Washington and former NASED President
Michelle Mrozkowski
Director, Information and Education, North Carolina State Board of
Elections
Amy Naccarato
Director of Elections, Utah; and NASED West Regional Representative
Lee Page
Associate Advocacy Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America; and Cochair,
Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting Accessibility
Carol Paquette
Program Analyst, Federal Voting Assistance Program, DOD
Cathy Pearsall-Stipek
Certified Public Official-Auditor, Pierce County, Washington; President,
NACRC; member of NACO National Commission on Election Standards
and Reform
Jim Pecht
Accessibility Specialist, Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S.
Access Board
Sharon Priest
Secretary of State, Arkansas; and President, NASS
Leslie Reynolds
Executive Director, NASS
Joseph D. Rich
Acting Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, DOJ
Mark Richert
Government Relations Representative, American Foundation for the Blind;
and member of the Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting
Accessibility
David Scott
Policy Analyst, The Council of State Governments; and NASED member
Page 72 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
DOD
Appendix III
People and Counties Contacted During Our
Review
Susie Stormes
Director, Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners; and NASED
member
Christopher M. Thomas
Director, Bureau of Elections, Michigan; and NASED member
Brook Thompson
Coordinator of Elections, Tennessee; and NASED President-Elect
Scott Tighe
Operations Manager, Secretary of State, Oregon; and member of the
Election Center’s National Task Force on Voting Accessibility
Rebecca Wertz
Deputy Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, DOJ
Terrence Williams
Information Systems and Services, Federal Voting Assistance Program,
John L. Wodatch
Chief, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, DOJ
Page 73 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
Table 9: State Provisions Concerning Polling Place Accessibility, Accommodation of
Voting Booth Areas and Equipment, and Aids for Visually Impaired Voters
Polling place accessibility
All polling State has Inspections of Reporting on
places must/
should be
acce
ssible
a
polling place
accessibility
standards
polling place
accessibility
required
polling place
accessibility
requiredState
Alabama Policy Policy * *
Alaska Policy Policy Policy *
Arizona Policy (n) Policy Policy *
Arkansas Law (
n) Po
licy Law Law
California Law Policy Policy Policy
Colorado *
b
Law * *
Connecticut Law Law Law Policy
Delaware Law * * *
District of Pol
icy Policy * *
Columbia
Florida Law Law * *
Georgia Law (
n) Law Law Law
Ha
waii * Policy * *
Idaho Law Law * *
Illinois Law Law Law *
Indiana Law Policy * Policy
Iowa Policy Policy Policy *
Kansas Law Law Law *
Kentucky Law (n) Policy Policy Policy
Louisiana Law Law Law Law
Maine Law (
n) Law * *
Mary
land Law Law Law Policy
Massachusetts Law
c
Law Law Policy
Michigan Law (n) Policy Policy Policy
Minnesota Law Law * *
Mississippi * * * *
Missouri *
e
* * *
Montana Law Law Law Law
Nebraska Law (n) Law * *
Ne
vada Law (n) * Poli
cy Policy
New Hampshire Law (n) Law * *
New Jersey Law Law Law Law
Page 74 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
Voting booth areas and equipment Aids for visually impaired voters
Voting areas must/
should accommodate
wheelchairs
Voting systems must/
should accommodate
individuals wit
h
disabi
lities
Braille ballot or
methods of voting
must
/may be pro
vided
Ballots with larger type
must
/may be p
rovided
Magnifying instruments
must/may be provided
* * * * Policy
Policy * * * Policy
Policy Policy * * *
Policy Law * Policy Policy
Policy Policy * * Policy
* * * * *
Law Law * * Policy
* * * * *
Policy Policy * * Policy
* * * * *
Law (s) * * * *
Policy Policy * * Policy
Policy Policy * * *
* Law * * Law (s)
* * * * Policy
Law * * * *
* * * * *
Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy
Law Policy * * *
* * * * Law
Policy Law * * *
Law Law * * *
Policy Law * * Policy
Law *
d
* * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
Law
* * * *
Law * * * *
Law Law * Law (s) *
La
w * * * *
* * * * *
Page 75 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
Polling place accessibility
All polling State has Inspe
ctions of Reporting on
places must/
should be
acce
ssible
a
polling place
accessibility
standards
polling place
accessibility
required
polling place
accessibility
requiredState
New Me
xico Law
f
(n) Policy Law *
New York Law Law * Law
North Carolina Poli
cy Policy Policy Policy
North Dakota Law (n) Policy Policy *
Ohio Law Law Law Policy
Oklahoma Law (n) Po
licy Policy Law
Oregon
g
Law (s) Law Law Law
Pennsylvania * * * *
Rhode Island Law Law Policy *
South Carolina Law
i
(s) * * *
South Dakota * * * *
Tennessee Law Policy * *
Texas Law (n) Law Poli
cy *
Utah * * * *
Vermont Law (s) Law Law Law
Virgin
ia Law Policy Policy *
Washington Law Law Law Law
West Virginia Poli
cy Policy * *
Wisconsin Law
j
Policy Policy *
Wyoming * * * *
Page 76 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
Voting booth areas and equipment Aids for visually impaired voters
Voting areas must/
should accommodate
wheelchairs
Voting systems must/
should accommodate
individuals wit
h
disabilities
Braille ballo
t or
methods of voting
must/may be pro
vided
Ballots with larger type
must/may be pr
ovided
Magnifying instruments
must/may be provided
Law Law * * Law (s)
Law Law * * *
Policy Policy Policy * Policy
Policy Policy * * Policy
* Law (s) * * *
Policy Policy * * Law
Law * *
h
* Law (s)
* * * * *
* Law Law * *
* * * * Policy
* * * * *
* * * * *
Law Law Law (s) Law (
s) *
La
w * * * *
Law (s) Law Law (s) * Law (s)
Policy Policy Policy * Policy
Law * * * Law (s)
Policy * * * *
Policy * * * Policy
* * * * *
Notes: This analysis does not include provisions related to emergencies. Law = required by law.
Policy = required or recommended in written state policy or other guidelines. * = no provision in law or
policy. (s) = suggested, recommended, or otherwise allowed by law, but not required. (n) = no
exceptions.
a
All polling places must/should be accessible: State provisions may allow exceptions if no accessible
polling places are available.
b
Colorado: At least one polling place within each political subdivision must be accessible.
c
Massachusetts: A state election official indicated that it is the policy of the Secretary of State not to
grant exceptions to accessibility requirements and, to date, no exemptions have been granted.
d
Minnesota: Recent legislation authorizes the licensing of touch-sensitive electronic voting systems for
experimental use at an election before approval for general use, including at least one voting system
permitting blind or visually impaired individuals to vote independently and privately. The extent of
experimental use will be determined by the Secretary of State.
e
Missouri: Each local election authority may designate one common site as an Election Day polling
place for accessibility to the handicapped and elderly.
f
New Mexico: One polling place in each precinct must be accessible.
Page 77 GA
O-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
g
Oregon: This is a unique state in that all elections held on the date of the biennial primaries and
general elections are generally conducted by mail balloting. While vote-by-mail is the normal practice
for federal elections, some polling booths are required and the responses shown for Oregon generally
reflect traditional voting at a polling place.
h
Oregon: Public notice must be made of voting aids available.
i
South Carolina: Each county election commission (1) is encouraged to make every polling place
barrier free and (2) shall provide at least one polling place in the county free of architectural barriers for
voters with disabilities.
j
Wisconsin: A state election official informed us that they have never implemented the statutory
authority to exempt polling places from accessibility requirements.
Source: GAO analysis of state statutes, regulations, and other written provisions that w
ere identified
and obtained by GAO, or were provided by state election officials as of July 2001. State policies or
practices that are unwritten, or for which supporting documentation was not provided as of July 2001,
were not included in this analysis. Election officials in each state reviewed our analysis and provided
comments and corrections, which we incorporated where appropriate.
Page 78
GA
O-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
Page 79
GA
O-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
Table 10: State Provisions Concerning Alternative Voting Methods or Accommodations On or Before Election Day
Ballot taken to voters’ residences
State
Notify voters of
inaccessible polling
places
Curbside voting
available on
Election Day
Alternative and
accessible polling
places available on
Election Day On Election Day Before Election Day
Alabama * * * * *
Alaska * Law Law Law Law
Arizona Policy Policy Policy Law Law
Arkansas * Law (p) * Law (p) Law (p)
California Law Law Law * *
Colorado Law Law Law * Law
f
Connecticut Policy * Policy Law (p) Law
g
(p)
Delaware Law * Law * *
Di
strict of Columbia * Policy Law * *
Florida * * * * Law
h
Georgia * * * * *
Hawaii * Law * * *
Idaho * Law Policy * *
Illinois Law Law Law * *
Indiana * * Law * Law
Iowa Policy Law * Law
j
Law
j
Kansas * Law * * *
Kentucky * Law (p) * Law (p) Law (p)
Louisiana Law
k
Policy (p) Law * Law
l
Maine * Law * * Law
m
Maryland Policy * Law * *
Massachusetts *
Law (p) * * Law
n
Michigan Policy * Policy Law Law
Minnesota * Law * * Law
o
Mississippi * Policy * Law (p) Law (p)
Missouri * Law Law * Law
Montana Law Law Law * *
Nebraska * Law * * *
Nevada * Law * Law
p
*
Page 80 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
Absentee voting
a
Ballot due before Election Day Ballot due on Election Day
Permanent
Mailed ballot absentee ba
llot
may be received available to Other early
after Election voters with voting
In person
b
By mail In person
b
By mail Day
c
disabilities provisions
* * Law Law
d
* * *
e
* * Law * (d) Law Law Law
* * Law Law * * Law (q)
Law * * Law (d) * * Law (q)
* * Law Law * Law (r) Law (q)
* * Law Law (d) * * Law (q)
Law * * Law (d) * * *
Law Law * * * * *
* * Law * Law * Law
* * Law Law (d) * * Law
i
* * Law Law (d) * * Law (q)
* * Law Law * * Law
* * Law Law * * Law (q)
* * Law Law (d) * * Law (q)
* * Law Law (d) * * Law
* * Law * Law * Law (q)
* * L
aw Law (d) * Law (r) Law
* * * Law * * *
Law Law * * * Law (r) Law (q)
* * Law Law (d) * * Law
* * Law * Law * *
* * Law Law (d) * Law (r) Law
* * Law Law (d) * * Law (q)
Law * * Law (d) * Law Law (q)
Law Law * * * Law (r) Law
Law * * Law * Law (r
) La
w
* * Policy Policy * * Law
* * Law *(d) Law * L
aw
* * Law Law (d) * * Law
Page 81 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
Ballot taken to voters’ residences
State
Notify voters of
inaccessible polling
places
Curbside voting
available on
Election Day
Alternative and
accessible polling
places available on
Election Day On Election Day Before Election Day
New Hampshir
e * * * * *
Ne
w Jersey Law * Law * *
Ne
w Mexico * * * * *
New York Law * Law * Law
q
North Carolina * Law Law * *
North Dakota * * * * *
Ohio * Law * Law Law
Oklahoma * Law
r
Law * Law
s
Oregon
t
Law Law Law Law
u
Law
u
Pennsylvania * * * * *
Rhode Island Law Law
w
Law * Law
x
South Carolina Policy Law Law * *
South Dakota * * * * *
Tennessee Law * Law * *
Texas * Law *
z
Law (p) Law (p)
Utah * * * * *
Vermont * Law Law Law Law
Virginia * Law * * *
Washington Law * Law * *
West Virginia * Law
aa
Law Law
bb
Law
bb
Wisconsin Policy Law Law * Law
cc
Wyoming * * * * *
Page 82 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
Absentee voting
a
Ballot due before Election Day Ballot due on Election Day
Permanent
Mailed ballot absentee ba
llot
may be received available to Other early
after Election voters with voting
In person
b
By mail In person
b
By mail Day
c
disabilities provisions
Policy * * Law * * *
* * Law Law (d) * Law *
Law * * Law * * Law
* * Law * Law Law (r) *
La
w Law(d) * * * * L
aw
Law * * * Law * Law
* * Law Law (d) * * Law (q)
Law * * Law * * Law (q)
* * Law Law * Law Law
Law
v
Law
v
* * * * *
* * * Law * Law
y
(r) *
* * Law Law * * Policy
* * Law Law (d) * * Law
Law * * Law * Law Law (q)
Law * * Law * * Law (q)
* * Law * Law Law Law
* * Law Law * * Law
* * Policy Policy * * Law
* * Law * Law Law *
Law * * * Law Law (r) Law (q)
* * Law Law * Law (
r) Law
* * La
w Law * * *
Notes: This analysis does not include provisions relating to emergencies. Law = provided by law.
Policy = provided by policy documents. * = no provision. (p) = prohibited by law. (r) = law includes
restrictions. (q) = law or policy requires accessibility. (d) = law also permits ballot to be delivered by a
personal representative. Thirteen states—Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas—require all
polling places to be accessible.
a
Absentee voting: Provisions for overseas or military voters are not included in this analysis.
b
In-person absentee voting: May include provisions for either voting in person or personal delivery of
ballot or both; we use the latest date if they are different.
c
Mailed ballots may be received after Election Day: Most of these states require ballots to be
postmarked on or before Election Day.
d
Alabama: Must be postmarked by the day prior to Election Day and received by Election Day.
Page 83 GA
O-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
e
Alabama: State statute permits early voting on Saturday 10 days prior to Election Day only for voters
who will be absent on Election Day, and does not address early voting by voters with disabilities who
will be present in the county on Election Day.
f
Colorado: When more than five absentee ballots are to be sent to the same group residential facility—
nursing home, senior citizen housing facility, etc.—the statute authorizes county clerk employees to
deliver and return the absentee ballots. However, the statute is silent as to when the visits to the
nursing homes can occur.
g
Connecticut: Ballots cannot be hand-delivered to the voter’s home. However, if 20 or more patients in
a nursing home, residential care home, or VA health-care facility wish to vote, registrars of voters may
supervise absentee voting and early voting at the homes. Absentee balloting at the homes must be no
later than the last business day before the election.
h
Florida: The statute permits “supervised” voting at a certain time and date in assisted living facilities
and nursing homes. The statute is silent as to when the voting must occur.
i
Florida: Effective January 1, 2002, any qualified and registered voter may pick up and vote an
absentee ballot in person before Election Day at the supervisor of elections’ office.
j
Iowa: The county auditor must send a bipartisan team to deliver an absentee ballot to any resident or
patient of a hospital or nursing home who requests a ballot.
k
Louisiana: Notification requirement applies only to absentee voting in person at registrar’s office.
l
Louisiana: On a fixed day, election officials will go to nursing homes so voters can cast their votes.
m
Maine: A state election official interprets the statute, permitting absentee voting in the presence of the
clerk, to permit the clerk to take the absentee ballot to a voter’s home. Another statute establishes
early voting at nursing homes.
n
Massachusetts: Local election officials may conduct supervised absentee voting at a designated
health care facility before Election Day.
o
Minnesota: Permits voting by people with disabilities at nursing homes or health-care residences
(early absentee voting in front of two election judges who come to the facility).
p
Nevada: County clerk shall establish at least one polling place for a precinct in any residential
development exclusively for elderly persons if more than 100 of the residents of the development are
registered to vote, and adequate area is available and the development owner consents to the
establishment of the polling place.
q
New York: Permits people with disabilities to vote in their nursing home if there are at least five
residents with disabilities on site.
r
Oklahoma: Curbside voting is not available to voters whose sole impairment is blindness or other type
of visual impairment.
s
Oklahoma: Voters confined to nursing homes can vote there by written ballot, which is delivered and
collected by the state.
t
Oregon: This is a unique state in that all elections held on the date of the biennial primaries and
general elections are generally conducted by mail balloting. While vote-by-mail is the normal practice
for federal elections, some polling booths are required and the responses shown for Oregon generally
reflect traditional voting at a polling place.
u
Oregon: Any voter with disabilities, upon request, shall receive assistance of two persons of different
parties provided by the clerk. Also, a voter with a physical disability may request assistance; the
location is negotiable, including home, the elections office, drop site locations, or community service
center, depending on the voter’s need.
v
Pennsylvania: A ballot received after 5 p.m. on the Friday before the election but before the closing of
the polls on Election Day is valid only for presidential and vice-presidential votes.
w
Rhode Island: Curbside voting is permitted if there is no alternative accessible location within the city
or town.
x
Rhode Island: The statute permits election officials to come to a nursing home or hospital to deliver
ballots and supervise the casting of votes and assist where necessary. Ballots are then mailed.
Page 84 GA
O-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV
State Provisions Concerning Voting
Accessibility
y
Rhode Island: Individuals permanently incapacitated may be put on a list to automatically receive
absentee ballot applications for 5 years.
z
Texas: State law requires that all polling places be accessible without exception.
aa
West Virginia: A state official informed us that curbside voting is available only if a polling place is not
accessible.
bb
West Virginia: Nursing home residents may qualify for emergency absentee voting. Election officials
may deliver an application and ballot to nursing home resident voters no earlier than the 7
th
day
preceding the election and no later than noon on Election Day, await their completion, and return the
completed application and ballot to the circuit clerk prior to the close of polls on Election Day.
cc
Wisconsin: Residents of nursing homes, retirement homes, and certain community-based facilities
may vote absentee. Two special voting deputies will visit the home or qualified community-based
residential facility at a prearranged day and time (but no later than 5 p.m. on the Monday preceding the
election) for the purpose of supervising absentee voting.
Source: GAO analysis of state statutes, regulations, and other written prov
isions that w
ere identified
and obtained by GAO or were provided by state election officials as of July 2001. State policies or
practices that are unwritten, or for which supporting documentation was not provided as of July 2001,
were not included in this analysis. Election officials in each state reviewed our analysis and provided
comments and corrections, which we incorporated where appropriate.
Page 85
GA
O-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix V
Selected Potential Impediments by Location
Area
Location area and potential impediment
Percentage of all polling place
s with
impediments in the specified
location area
Parking ar
ea 33%
No park
ing designated for people with 32%
disabilities
No parking for any voters 1%
Route from parking area to build
ing entrance 57%
Unpaved or poor surface 23%
Ra
mps with slopes greater
than 1:12 21%
Sidewalk slope steeper than 1:12 20%
Unramped or uncu
t curb(s) 8%
No sidewalk or pathway fo
r part of the way 8%
Ramps that measure more than 6 inches from 6%
the ground to
their highest point and lack two
handrails
Steps have no handrails 5%
Entrance to the building 59%
Door
thresholds g
reater than ½-inch in height 37%
Closed doors that would be difficult for a 26%
person in a wheelchair to open
Single-door openings less than 32 inches 10%
wide
Double-door openings less than 32 inches 5%
wide
Route from inside of the building to the voting 14%
room
Single-door openings less than 32 inches 5%
wide
Closed doors that would be difficult for a 3%
person in a wheelchair to open
Notes: Potential impediments listed are those that occurred with the greatest frequency. Sampling
errors of the listed potential impediments range from 2 to 8 percentage points at the 95-percent
confidence level.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000.
Page 86
GA
O-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VI
Issues and Challenges Related to Voting
Accommodations and Alternatives
Accommodations and Advantages and disadvantages
alternatives for voters Challenges for election officials
Curbside voting: Allow voters who Advantage • Provide and train staff at each polling place to
cannot enter
the po
lling place to • Voters with disabilities may be able to vote ensure that voters who cannot enter the building are
vote at the curbside of their outside their neighborhood polling places on able to vote
neighborhood polling place Election Day • May require changing laws that prohibit using this
accommodation
Disadvantages—
so
me voters with disabilities
• may see this accommodation as unequal
treatment and may prefer to vote as
others in
the polling room
• may not want to draw special attention and
feel that this represents a loss of dignity or
independence
• may not be able to cast a secret ballot
• may have difficulty voting if a poll worker is
unavailable to pr
ovide
assistance or weather
is inclement
Reassignment: Allow voters to Advantage • Identify polling places that may prevent access for
use another
polli
ng place on • Voters with disabilities have an accessible some voters and communicate this issue to them so
Election Day when their polling place for voting on Election Day that they can arrange reassignment
neighborhood polling place is not • Identify an accessible polling place
accessible Disadvantages—voters with disabilities may • Provide appropriate ballots at reassigned polling
need to make an extra effort to
• Become aware
of ac
cessibility problems and
arrange reassignment with the election office
• Travel farther to vote than other voters in
their prec
inct
place
• Train poll workers to handl
e a reassigned voter
Superprecinc
ts: Locate the Advantages • Find an accessible facility that has sufficient space
polling place for more than one • Voters with disabilities have an accessible for voting and parking and will not require excessive
precinct within the same building polling place for voting on Election Day travel for most voters
on Election Day • Voters with disabilities are not required to
travel farther than others
Disadvantage
• Some voters may be required to tr
avel
out
side of their neighborhood to vote
Page 87 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VI
Issues and Challenges Related to Voting
Accommodations and Alternatives
(Continued From Previous Page)
Accommodations and Advantages and disadvantag
es
alternatives for voters Challenges for election officials
Early voting: Allow voters to use
one or more central sites
sometimes for a week or more,
just before Election Day
Advantages
• Voters are provided with a more flexible time
period for voting
• Some voters with disabilities may find that
these sites offer better access and voting
equipment that allow them to vote
independently
Disadvantages
• Voters with disabilities may pr
efer
that the
traditional polling places used on Election
Day be fully accessible
• Voters would not have access to late-
breaking information on candidates and
ballot measures prior to casting their ballot
• Establish sites and provide staff and resour
ces,
s
uch as voting equipment and different ballot types
• Mitigate any increased opportunity for fraudulent
voting
Less-restrictive absentee voting:
Allow less-restrictive use of
absentee ballots, such as not
requiring a reason to use
temporary absentee ballots or
allowing permanent absentee
ballots
Advantages
• Voters have the convenience of being able to
vote fr
om ho
me and greater flexibility in
choosing when to vote
Disadvantages
• Voters, especially those needing assistance,
may have a gr
eater po
tential for
experiencing inappropriate influence from
other household members when voting
• Some voters with disabilities may find that
r
equir
ements in some states for using
permanent absentee voting (for example,
providing doctor’s certification) discourage
use of this option
• Some voters with disabilities may prefer that
the traditional polling places used on
Election Day be fully accessible
• Voters would not have access to late-
breaking information on candidates and
ballot measures
• Provide additional staff and other resources
necessary to accommodate the expansion of
absentee voting, such as for mailing, receiving, and
counting additional absentee votes
• Develop pr
ocedu
res to maintain an accurate list of
absentee voters
• Balance providing voter convenience with fraud
contr
ol
U
niversal vote
-by-mail: Mail
ballots to voters who can return
them by mail or deposit them at
designated locations, with
exceptions for those who are
unable to vote without assistance
Advantages
• Voters ar
e all
owed to vote from their own
home and within an expanded time frame
• Voters are provid
ed with uniform statewide
voting access that provides equal treatment
for all
Disadvantages
• Voters who pr
efer
using a polling place may
resist this method
• Voters may have increase
d potential for
inappropriate influence from other
household members
• Assure uniformity of statewide system, if
implemented at the state level
• Demonstr
ate reliabi
lity and security
• Provide staff and other resources necessary for
maintaining an accurate list of voters and
addresses as well as mailing, receiving, verifying,
and counting votes
• Rely upon postal service to provide timely delivery
of ballots
• Provide another
option f
or those who cannot use
this method without assistance, such as sending
staff to the residence of a voter with a disability
Page 88 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VI
Issues and Challenges Related to Voting
Accommodations and Alternatives
(Continued From Previous Page)
Accommodations and Advantages and disadvantag
es
alternatives for voters Challenges for election officials
Internet voting: Allow voters to
cast a ballot using the Internet;
implementation may be in several
phases, starting at polling places
and potentially expanding to
kiosks and other remote
locations, such a voter’s home or
office
Advantages
• Voters ar
e provid
ed greater flexibility to vote
when they want and from convenient
locations, if remote Internet voting is allowed
• Blind individuals may be able to vote
independently with special equipment and a
web site that has been designed to pr
ovide
univ
ersal access, per federal standards
Disadvantages
• Voters who ar
e acc
ustomed to traditional
methods may resist this method
• Voters who lack a convenient connection to
the Internet may not have equal access to
voting
• Blind voters may need special equipment to
allow them to use the Internet
• Take steps (for example, pilot testing and
certification)
t
o en
sure that the system is secure,
reliable, cost effective, and accessible to disabled
voters and that it allows voters to cast a secret
ballot
• Develop operational pr
ocedu
res and train workers
to ensure sufficient technical support to maintain
equipment and assist voters
• Educate public on security features and use of
system
• Wait for technological improvements to ensure voter
identity, secr
ecy, and i
ntegrity of the votes, if remote
access is allowed
• Protect equipment from vandalism or tampering, if
public kiosks are used
• Ensure widespread availability of Internet access, if
r
em
ote access is allowed
Source: GAO analysis of comments by officials of organizations that represent the interests of election
officials and people with disabilities.
Page 89 GA
O-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VII
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements
GAO Contacts
Barbara D. Bovbjerg, (202) 512-7215
Carol Dawn Petersen, (202) 512-7215
Staff Acknowledgements
In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
significant contributions to this report: Michele Grgich, Alicia Puente
Cackley, Julie DeVault, Gretta L. Goodwin, Stephen S. Langley III, Robert
Tomco, Margaret Boeckmann, James Wright, Joel Grossman, and Patrick
DiBattista, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues; Joan Vogel,
Grant Mallie, and Art Kendall, Applied Research and Methods; Dayna K.
Shah and Behn Miller, General Counsel. Numerous staff from headquarters
and field offices who collected data for this report also made important
contributions.
(207099)
Page 90 GAO-02-107 Voters With Disabilities
Ordering Information
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of
reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit
cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies
to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U.S. Gener
al Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
Orders by visiting:
Ro
om 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders by phon
e:
(202) 512-6000
fax: (202) 512-6061
TDD (202) 512-2537
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available repor
ts and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list
from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone
phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain
these lists.
Orders by Internet:
For inform
ation on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,
send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:
info@www.gao.gov
or visi
t GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:
http://www
.gao.gov
To Report Fraud,
Contact one:
Waste, or Abuse in
• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs
• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)
Presorted Standard
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. GI00
United States
General Accounting
Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
