    Voters With Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and
    Alternative Voting Methods (15-OCT-01, GAO-02-107).

    Federal law requires that disabled persons have access to polling
    places on election day. State political subdivisions must ensure
    that polling places used in federal elections are accessible.
    Exceptions are allowed if all potential polling places have been
    surveyed, no accessible place is available, and the political
    subdivision cannot make one temporarily accessible. In these
    cases, disabled voters must either be reassigned to an accessible
    polling place or provided another means for voting on election
    day. All states have provisions that address voting by people
    with disabilities, but these provisions vary greatly. All states
    provide for one or more alternative voting methods or
    accommodations that may facilitate voting by people with
    disabilities. States and localities have made several efforts to
    improve voting accessibility for the disabled, such as modifying
    poling places, acquiring new voting equipment, and expanding
    voting options. Nevertheless, state and county election officials
    GAO surveyed cited various challenges to improving access.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-107
        ACCNO:   A02296
      TITLE:     Voters With Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and
    Alternative Voting Methods
         DATE:   10/15/2001
      SUBJECT:   Elections
    	     Persons with disabilities
    	     Statutory law
    	     Civil rights law enforcement
    	     State law

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-02-107

    A

    1 Results in Brief

    5 Background

    10 State Provisions and County Practices for Assuring Voting

    Accessibility Vary Widely 16 Most Polling Places Have Features That May
    Impede Access, but

    Most Also Provide Accommodations That May Facilitate Voting

    22 A Variety of Challenges Face States and Counties as They Work

    Toward Improving Access to Voting 33

    Appendixes

    Appendix I: Scope and Methods 40 Analysis of State Laws and Written Policies

    40 Data Collection From States, Counties, and Selected National

    Organizations 41 Selection of Polling Places

    43 Description of Site Visits and the Data Collection Instrument

    44 Analysis of Election Day Data

    47

    Appendix II: Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument 50

    Appendix III: People and Counties Contacted During Our Review 64

    Appendix IV: State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility 74

    Appendix V: Selected Potential Impediments by Location Area 86

    Appendix VI: Issues and Challenges Related to Voting Accommodations and
    Alternatives 87

    Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements 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

    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 Polling 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 Polling 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 Americans with Disabilities Act of ANSI American National
    Standards DCI data collection DOD Department of DOJ Department of FEC
    Federal Election NACO National Association of NACRC National Association of
    County Recorders and NASED National Association of State Election NASS
    National Association of Secretaries of VAEHA Voting Accessibility for the
    Elderly and Handicapped VRA Voting Rights Act of

    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
    disabilities. 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) .

    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.

    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 section. ) 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.

    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.

    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 states, 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 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.

    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 accommodations and alternatives for
    voting on or before Election Day such as reassignment to a polling place
    that is accessible, curbside voting, or early voting.

    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.

    Figure 1: Prevalence of Potential Impediments at Polling Places and
    Availability of Curbside Voting

    Percentage of polling places with no potential impediments

    16%

    Percentage of polling places with

    56%

    one or more potential impediments that offer curbside voting

    28%

    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

    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.

    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 evennumbered 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.

    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) ) .

    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) .

    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.

    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.

    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.

    State Provisions and Considerable variation exists in how states and
    counties attempt to meet

    County Practices for the needs of voters with disabilities, both at polling
    places and through

    alternative methods of voting. Consistent with the VAEHA, all states and
    Assuring Voting

    the District of Columbia have established provisions that address voting
    Accessibility Vary

    accessibility at polling places. However, state provisions vary in a number
    Widely

    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 All states have laws and other provisions concerning
    voting access for

    Addressing Accessibility of people with disabilities, including their access
    to polling places, but the

    Polling Places Vary Widely 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. )

    Table 1: State Provisions Concerning Accessibility of Polling Places Number
    of states with provisions

    Number of Statute or

    Policy states with

    State provisions regulation only a no provision

    Voting accessibility Voting by people with disabilities explicitly 51 0

    0 addressed

    Polling place accessibility All polling places must/ should be accessible 36
    7

    8 State provisions contain one or more polling 23 19

    9 place accessibility standards

    Inspection of polling places to assess 15 14 22 accessibility is required

    Reporting by counties to state on polling place 10 10 31 accessibility is
    required

    Voting booth areas and equipment Voting booth areas must/ should accommodate
    17 16

    18 wheelchairs

    Voting systems must/ should accommodate 13 11 27 individuals with
    disabilities

    Aids for visually impaired voters Braille ballot or methods of voting must/
    may be 3 3

    45 provided

    Ballots with large type must/ may be provided 2 2 47 Magnifying instruments
    must/ may be provided 7 15

    29 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 states
    and the District of Columbia. Provision categories were identified based on
    our review of these legal and policy documents.

    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 Consistent with the VAEHA, we found that primary
    responsibility for

    Responsible for Assuring assuring accessibility of polling places, through
    selecting, inspecting,

    Polling Place Accessibility, and/ or modifying polling places or voting
    systems, typically rests with

    but Practices Vary 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.

    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 election 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 guidance 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 respond 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.

    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 As shown in table 3, states provide alternative
    methods for voting on or

    Practices Regarding before Election Day, but vary in the number and kind of
    alternatives and

    Alternative Voting Methods accommodations they make available to voters with
    disabilities. For

    and Accommodations Vary 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.

    Table 3: State Provisions for Alternative Voting Methods and Accommodations
    Number of states Methods and accommodations Permitting No provision

    Absentee voting by mail a 51 0

    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 34

    With restrictions c 10 Without restrictions 7

    Curbside voting on Election Day d 28 19

    Ballot can be taken to voter s residence on or before 21 25

    Election Day e Use of alternative, accessible polling place on 27

    24 Election Day

    Early voting 39 12 With provision requiring accessible location 16 No
    provision regarding accessible location 23

    Advance notice of inaccessible polling place 19 32 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 provided 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.

    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 Voting access for people with disabilities may be
    impeded by a variety of

    Have Features That physical features at polling places; however,
    accommodations to facilitate

    voting are often made available. Although the extent to which any given May
    Impede Access,

    feature may prevent access is unknown, most polling places in the but Most
    Also Provide

    contiguous United States have one or more physical features that may pose
    Accommodations That

    challenges for voters with disabilities. These features include a lack of
    accessible parking and barriers en route from the parking area to the voting

    May Facilitate 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.

    Polling Place 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.

    Figure 2: Key Features at Polling Places AA

    Parking area BB

    Route from parking area to building A1 On- or off- street parking is
    designated

    entrance

    for persons with disabilities

    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)

    Slope of path or ramp along path is no

    24" D max. distance D Curbside voting

    D1. Voting available at curbside

    clearance B4. 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

    C2 C2 32" min.

    36" min. for min.

    1" Rise F

    F 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

    F1 F1 19 min.

    F2 F2 E E Route from inside the building entrance

    F3 F3 to the voting room

    E1. Doorway threshold does not exceed 1/ 2 inch in height

    E5E5 B4B4

    E2. Single- or double- door openings are 32 inches or more wide

    Level landing Surface 54" max 9" min

    48" max 15" min.

    min. E3. Steps are not required to reach the

    of Level

    voting room

    ramp landing

    E4. Corridors have clearances 36 inches or more wide ( may narrow to 32
    inches for no more than 2 feet)

    12" Horizontal projection or run E5. Slope of ramp no steeper than 1: 12 27

    Figure 3: Prevalence of Potential Impediments at Polling Places and
    Availability of Curbside Voting

    Percentage of polling places with no potential impediments

    16%

    Percentage of polling places with

    56%

    one or more potential impediments that offer curbside voting

    28%

    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.

    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

    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

    84%

    60

    63%

    40

    45% 29%

    20

    21% 16%

    14%

    0 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.

    Table 4: Prevalence of Potential Impediments by Type of Building Percentage
    of all

    Percentage of buildings with at Type of building polling places 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.

    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 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.

    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 Reading the text on the
    ballots

    Punch- card Pinpointing the stylus, or Pinpointing the stylus, or applying
    the appropriate reading the text on the amount of pressure to punch ballots
    holes

    Electronic voting 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 handles to

    operate the machine Source: GAO interviews with election officials and
    representatives of disability organizations.

    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.

    A Variety of Challenges Although a number of efforts have been made to
    improve voting access for

    Face States and people with disabilities, election officials cited a variety
    of challenges they

    face in trying to do so. Challenges cited by election officials include the
    Counties as They Work

    limited availability of accessible buildings and the lack of authority to
    Toward Improving

    modify buildings to make them more accessible. Election officials also told
    Access to Voting

    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 Some counties find that a major challenge to
    improving polling place

    Accessibility Hindered by accessibility is a lack of accessible buildings,
    according to our national

    the Lack of Accessible survey of county election officials. Comments from
    both state and county

    Buildings and Authority or election officials indicate that problems finding
    accessible buildings can

    occur in both rural and urban locations. For example, in rural areas, the
    Funds to Modify Them

    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
    less 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,

    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 Most state election officials told us that
    limited funding is one of the main

    Equipment Is Hindered by barriers to improving voting accessibility,
    especially with regard to

    Funding Constraints and providing more accessible voting equipment. While
    some states may

    Concerns about Reliability provide funds to ease this burden, according to
    our county survey, the

    county and local levels of government generally bear the cost for and
    Security

    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.

    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 for 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.

    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 Expanding the availability of alternative voting
    methods or

    and Accommodations accommodations can provide voters with additional
    options, but

    Provide Options, but Also implementing these changes can present election
    officials with legal,

    Present Access and administrative, and operational challenges. For example,
    expanding the

    use of curbside voting could allow more voters with disabilities to cast
    Implementation Challenges

    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.

    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.

    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) .

    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

    Scope and 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 Our review of state provisions for assuring voting
    accessibility included a

    and Written Policies 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

    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 To identify efforts and challenges to improving voting
    accessibility for

    States, Counties, and 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
    Selected National

    counties. 1 We also interviewed selected representatives of national
    Organizations

    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.

    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
    polling 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.

    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 Our selection of a sample of polling places used what
    is known as a two-

    Places 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 morepopulous 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.

    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 On Election Day, GAO deployed one- or two- person teams
    composed of

    Visits and the Data 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
    Collection Instrument

    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.

    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 collection 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 polling 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.

    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.

    Analysis of Election In analyzing the data collected on Election Day, we
    first grouped the types

    Day Data 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- In the 15 counties that did not give us access to their
    polling places on

    Election Day Sample With Election Day, we were able to complete only those
    portions of our DCI that

    Election Day Sample 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.

    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 entrance

    Election Day sites 33% 57% Non- Election Day sites 38% 73% 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 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

    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.

    Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    DCI to Assess Polling Place Accessibility

    Background Information 1 Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 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 visit ( CONTINUE WITH DCI. ) 2. [ ] Yes 3. [ ] No ( STOP HERE
    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 community center 7. [ ] City Hall 8. [ ] Private home
    9. [ ] Other ( PLEASE SPECIFY. )

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    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, designated parking that is
    permanent only 2. [ ] Yes, designated parking that is temporary only 3. [ ]
    Yes, both temporary and permanent designated parking 4. [ ] No designated
    parking for persons with disabilities ( IF CHECKED, GO TO ITEM

    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 permanent sign 3. [ ] Yes,
    both temporary and permanent 4. [ ] No, there was no 5. [ ] Not applicable,
    parking area was easily

    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 � 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 that extend at least one foot beyond
    the landing b. [ ] Steps have handrails that extend less than one foot
    beyond the landing c. [ ] Steps have no handrails

    [ ] 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

    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 [ ] Yes, both
    a temporary and a permanent 4. [ ] No, there was no sign clearly indicating
    that [ ] Not applicable, there was no special 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 � inch in height 2. [ ] Single door
    openings that are less than 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 HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT POLLING PLACE!)

    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 �
    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 that extend at least one foot beyond the landing
    b. [ ] Steps have handrails that extend less than one foot beyond the
    landing c. [ ] Steps have no handrails Ramps that Present Impediments 7. [ ]
    One or more ramps that have a slope steeper than 1: 12 8. [ ] One or more
    ramps rising more than 6 inches that lack 2 handrails ( i. e. , one on each

    side) 9. [ ] One or more 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. )

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    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 permanent sign [ ] Yes, both
    a temporary and a permanent 4. [ ] No, there was no sign clearly indicating
    that [ ] Not applicable, there was no special 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

    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 opening is less than 36 inches wide 3. [ ] The
    center of the 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 buttons
    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 inside car is less than 48 by 48

    7. [ ] Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8. [ ] No
    impediments

    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 punch 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_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Model 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

    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 more wide [ ] [ ] 3. 19 or more deep [ ]
    [ ] 4. Voting equipment 44 or less above the floor [ ] [ ]

    ( NOW GO TO ITEM 27. )

    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 � 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 [ ] [ ]

    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 ballots. Are voting instructions posted that use 18- point
    or larger type? ( CHECK ONE. ) 1. [ ] Yes, instructions posted 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 Precinct Official Are you able to interview the main
    precinct official? ( CHECK ONE. ) 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No ( STOP HERE 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 ) May 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

    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- taped 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

    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 place ( ASK) What kind of assistance would you provide? ( ENTER
    ANSWER. )

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. [ ] Enable the 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 the 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 ANSWERS 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 ANSWERS TO ITEMS 10 AND 11. )

    2. [ ] No

    ( 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 ANSWERS 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 necessary.
    Additional Notes and Comments

    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 Elections

    Arizona Office of Secretary of State Jessica Funkhouser Election Director

    Alaska Division of Elections Janet Kowalski Director

    Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners Suzy Stormes Director

    California Office of Secretary of State John Mott- Smith, Chief of Elections
    Division

    Colorado Office of Secretary of State Bill Compton Director of Elections

    Connecticut Office of Secretary of State Thomas Ferguson Director of
    Elections

    Delaware Department of Elections Tom Cook Commissioner of Elections

    District of Columbia Board of Elections and Alice P. Miller Executive
    Director

    Marvin A. Chief of Staff Tony Election Operations Florida Division of
    Elections L. Clayton Roberts Director Georgia Elections Division Linda
    Beazley

    Director Hawaii Office of Elections Dwayne Yoshina

    Chief Elections Officer Idaho Elections Division Ben Ysursa

    Chief Deputy Secretary of State Illinois State Board of Elections Ron
    Michaelson

    Executive Director Indiana Election Commission Spencer Valentine

    Co- Director Iowa Office of the Secretary of Bob Galbraith

    Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Sandy Steinbach Director of
    Elections

    Kansas Office of the Secretary of Brad Bryant Deputy Assistant Secretary of
    State for Elections

    ( Continued From Previous Page)

    State Office Name and title

    Kentucky State Board of Mary Sue Helm Executive Director

    Louisiana Office of the Secretary of Frances Hurst Elections/ Commissions/
    Publications Administrator

    Warren Ponder Executive Counsel

    Pat Stewart Assistant Administrator

    Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections & Julie Flynn Director

    Melissa Packard Elections Assistant

    Maryland State Administrative Board of Election Laws Linda Lamone
    Administrator

    Massachusetts Election Division Michelle Tassinari Director of Elections

    Michigan Bureau of Elections Bradley S. Wittman Director of Information 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 Secretary of State Joe Kerwin Deputy for Elections

    Nebraska Office of Secretary of State Neal Erickson Assistant Secretary of
    State

    Nevada Office of Secretary of State Susan Morandi Deputy Secretary of State
    for Elections

    New Hampshire State Election Office Ellen Dube Elections Assistant

    New Jersey State Election Office Sharon Young Director of Elections Division

    New Mexico State Bureau of Elections Denise Lamb Director of Elections

    New York State Board of Elections Thomas R. Wilkey Executive Director

    North Carolina State Board of Elections Gary Bartlett Executive Director

    North Dakota Office of Secretary of State Lee Ann Oliver Elections
    Specialist

    ( Continued From Previous Page)

    State Office Name and title

    Ohio Office of Secretary of State Dana Walch Director of Elections

    Oklahoma State Elections Board Lance Ward Secretary

    Oregon Office of the Secretary of State Scott Tighe Operations Manager

    Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Dick Filling Commissioner
    of Elections

    Rhode Island State Board of Elections Robert 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 Secretary of State Brook Thompson State Coordinator of
    Elections

    Texas Office of Secretary of State Ann McGeehan Deputy Assistant Secretary
    of State for Elections

    Utah Office of the Lieutenant Governor Amy Naccarato Director of Elections

    Vermont Office of Secretary of State Kathy DeWolfe Director of Elections &
    Campaign Finance

    Virginia State Board of Elections Cameron Quinn Secretary

    Washington Office of Secretary of State Charlotte Ottavelli Elections
    Assistant

    West Virginia Office 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

    Table 8: Alphabetical Listing of 100 Randomly Selected Counties # County
    State

    1 Coffee Alabama 2

    Mobile a Alabama 3

    Alameda California 4

    Imperial California 5

    Los Angeles California 6

    Monterey California 7

    Placer California 8

    San Bernardino California 9

    San Diego California 10

    San Mateo California 11

    Santa Clara California 12

    Tulare California 13

    Fairfield b Connecticut 14

    Brevard Florida 15

    Dade Florida 16

    Duval Florida 17 Lee Florida 18 Manatee Florida 19 Monroe Florida 20 Pasco
    Florida 21 Pinellas Florida 22 De Kalb Georgia 23 Forsyth Georgia 24
    Gwinnett Georgia 25 Richmond 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

    ( Continued From Previous Page)

    # County State

    36 Kenton Kentucky 37

    Hampshire b Massachusetts 38

    Norfolk b Massachusetts 39

    Suffolk Massachusetts 40

    Berrien Michigan 41

    Carlton Minnesota 42

    Morrison Minnesota 43

    Ramsey Minnesota 44

    Jackson Mississippi 45

    New Madrid a Missouri 46

    St. Louis City Missouri 47

    St. Louis a Missouri 48

    Clay Nebraska 49

    Washoe Nevada 50

    Bergen New Jersey 51

    Essex New Jersey 52 Morris 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 Saratoga New 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

    ( Continued From Previous Page)

    # County State

    73 Allegheny Pennsylvania 74 Bradford Pennsylvania 75 Bucks Pennsylvania 76
    Dauphin Pennsylvania 77 Mercer Pennsylvania 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)

    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/

    polling place polling place

    polling place should be

    accessibility accessibility

    accessibility State

    accessible a standards

    required required Alabama Policy Policy * *

    Alaska Policy Policy Policy * Arizona Policy ( n) Policy Policy * Arkansas
    Law ( n) Policy Law Law California Law Policy Policy Policy Colorado * b Law
    * * Connecticut Law Law Law Policy Delaware Law * * * District of Policy
    Policy * * Columbia

    Florida Law Law * * Georgia Law ( n) Law Law Law Hawaii * 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 * * Maryland 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 * * Nevada Law ( n) * Policy Policy New
    Hampshire Law ( n) Law * * New Jersey Law Law Law Law

    Voting booth areas and equipment Aids for visually impaired voters Voting
    systems must/ Voting areas must/

    should accommodate Braille ballot or

    should accommodate individuals with

    methods of voting Ballots with larger type

    Magnifying instruments wheelchairs

    disabilities must/ may be provided must/ may be provided 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) * Law * * * * * * * * *

    Polling place accessibility All polling State has Inspections of Reporting
    on places must/

    polling place polling place

    polling place should be

    accessibility accessibility

    accessibility State

    accessible a standards

    required required New Mexico Law f ( n) Policy Law *

    New York Law Law * Law North Carolina Policy Policy Policy Policy North
    Dakota Law ( n) Policy Policy * Ohio Law Law Law Policy Oklahoma Law ( n)
    Policy Policy Law Oregon g Law ( s) Law Law Law Pennsylvania * * * * Rhode
    Island Law Law Policy * South Carolina Law ( i s) * * * South D akota * * *
    * Tennessee Law Policy * * Texas Law ( n) Law Policy * Utah * * * * Vermont
    Law ( s) Law Law Law Virginia Law Policy Policy * Washington Law Law Law Law
    West Virginia Policy Policy * * Wisconsin Law j Policy Policy * Wyoming * *
    * *

    Voting booth areas and equipment Aids for visually impaired voters Voting
    systems must/ Voting areas must/

    should accommodate Braille ballot or

    should accommodate individuals with

    methods of voting Ballots with larger type

    Magnifying instruments wheelchairs

    disabilities must/ may be provided must/ may be provided 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) * Law * * * * 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.

    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 were 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.

    Table 10: State Provisions Concerning Alternative Voting Methods or
    Accommodations On or Before Election Day Ballot taken to voters residences
    Alternative and Notify voters of

    Curbside voting accessible inaccessible polling

    available on places available State

    places Election Day

    Election Day On Election Day Before Election 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 * *
    District 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 *

    Absentee voting a Ballot due before Election Day Ballot due on Election Day

    Permanent Mailed ballot absentee ballot 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) * * Law 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) Law * *
    Policy Policy * * Law * * Law * ( d) Law * Law * * Law Law ( d) * * Law

    Ballot taken to voters residences Alternative and Notify voters of

    Curbside voting accessible inaccessible polling

    available on places available State

    places Election Day

    Election Day On Election Day Before Election New H ampshire * * * * * New
    Jersey Law * Law * * New M exico * * * * * New York Law * Law * Law q North
    Carolina * Law Law * * North D akota * * * * * 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 D
    akota * * * * * 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 * * * * *

    Absentee voting a Ballot due before Election Day Ballot due on Election Day

    Permanent Mailed ballot absentee ballot 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) * Law Law( d) * * * * Law 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

    * * Law 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.

    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.

    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
    provisions that were 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.

    Selected Potential Impediments by Location Area

    Percentage of all polling places with impediments in the specified Location
    area and potential impediment

    location area

    Parking area 33% No parking designated for people with 32% disabilities

    No parking for any voters 1% Route from parking area to building entrance
    57%

    Unpaved or poor surface 23% Ramps with slopes greater than 1: 12 21%
    Sidewalk slope steeper than 1: 12 20% Unramped or uncut curb( s) 8% No
    sidewalk or pathway for part of the way 8% Ramps that measure more than 6
    inches from 6% the ground to their highest point and lack Steps have no
    handrails 5%

    Entrance to the building 59% Door thresholds greater than � - 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.

    Issues and Challenges Related to Voting Accommodations and Alternatives

    Accommodations and Advantages and alternatives for voters Challenges for
    election Curbside voting: Allow voters who Advantage Provide and train staff
    at each polling place cannot enter the polling place to Voters with
    disabilities may be able to vote ensure that voters who cannot enter the
    building vote at the curbside of their outside their neighborhood polling
    places on able to neighborhood polling place Election Day May require
    changing laws that prohibit using accommodation Disadvantages some 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 provide
    assistance or weather is inclement

    Reassignment: Allow voters to Advantage Identify polling places that may
    prevent access for use another polling place on Voters with disabilities
    have an accessible some voters and communicate this issue to them Election
    Day when their polling place for voting on Election Day that they can
    arrange neighborhood polling place is not Identify an accessible polling
    accessible Disadvantages voters with disabilities may Provide appropriate
    ballots at reassigned need to make an extra effort to

    place

    Become aware of accessibility problems and

    Train poll workers to handle a reassigned voter arrange reassignment with
    the election office

    Travel farther to vote than other voters in their precinct

    Superprecincts: Locate the Advantages Find an accessible facility that has
    sufficient 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 on Election Day Voters with disabilities are not required to

    travel farther than others Disadvantage

    Some voters may be required to travel outside of their neighborhood to vote

    ( Continued From Previous Page)

    Accommodations and Advantages and alternatives for voters Challenges for
    election Early voting: Allow voters to use Advantages

    Establish sites and provide staff and resources, one or more central sites

    Voters are provided with a more flexible time such as voting equipment and
    different ballot types

    sometimes for a week or more, period for voting

    Mitigate any increased opportunity for fraudulent just before Election Day

    Some voters with disabilities may find that voting

    these sites offer better access and voting equipment that allow them to vote
    independently

    Disadvantages

    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 prior to casting their ballot

    Less- restrictive absentee voting: Advantages

    Provide additional staff and other resources Allow less- restrictive use of

    Voters have the convenience of being able to necessary to accommodate the
    expansion of

    absentee ballots, such as not vote from home and greater flexibility in

    absentee voting, such as for mailing, receiving, and requiring a reason to
    use

    choosing when to vote counting additional absentee votes

    temporary absentee ballots or

    Develop procedures to maintain an accurate list of allowing permanent
    absentee

    Disadvantages absentee voters

    ballots

    Voters, especially those needing assistance,

    Balance providing voter convenience with fraud may have a greater potential
    for

    control experiencing inappropriate influence from other household members
    when voting

    Some voters with disabilities may find that requirements 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

    Universal vote- by- mail: Mail Advantages

    Assure uniformity of statewide system, if ballots to voters who can return

    Voters are allowed to vote from their own implemented at the state level

    them by mail or deposit them at home and within an expanded time frame

    Demonstrate reliability and security designated locations, with

    Voters are provided with uniform statewide

    Provide staff and other resources necessary for exceptions for those who are

    voting access that provides equal treatment maintaining an accurate list of
    voters and

    unable to vote without assistance for all

    addresses as well as mailing, receiving, verifying, and counting votes
    Disadvantages

    Rely upon postal service to provide timely delivery

    Voters who prefer using a polling place may of ballots

    resist this method

    Provide another option for those who cannot use

    Voters may have increased potential for this method without assistance, such
    as sending

    inappropriate influence from other staff to the residence of a voter with a
    disability

    household members

    ( Continued From Previous Page)

    Accommodations and Advantages and alternatives for voters Challenges for
    election Internet voting: Allow voters to Advantages

    Take steps ( for example, pilot testing and cast a ballot using the
    Internet;

    Voters are provided greater flexibility to vote certification) to ensure
    that the system is secure,

    implementation may be in several when they want and from convenient

    reliable, cost effective, and accessible to disabled phases, starting at
    polling places

    locations, if remote Internet voting is allowed voters and that it allows
    voters to cast a secret

    and potentially expanding to

    Blind individuals may be able to vote ballot

    kiosks and other remote independently with special equipment and a

    Develop operational procedures and train workers locations, such a voter s
    home or

    web site that has been designed to provide to ensure sufficient technical
    support to maintain

    office universal access, per federal standards

    equipment and assist voters

    Educate public on security features and use of Disadvantages

    system

    Voters who are accustomed to traditional

    Wait for technological improvements to ensure voter methods may resist this
    method

    identity, secrecy, and integrity of the votes, if remote

    Voters who lack a convenient connection to access is allowed

    the Internet may not have equal access to

    Protect equipment from vandalism or tampering, if voting

    public kiosks are used

    Blind voters may need special equipment to

    Ensure widespread availability of Internet access, if allow them to use the
    Internet

    remote access is allowed Source: GAO analysis of comments by officials of
    organizations that represent the interests of election officials and people
    with disabilities.

    GAO Contacts and Staff GAO Barbara D. Bovbjerg, ( 202) 512- 7215 Carol Dawn
    Petersen, ( 202) 512- 7215 Staff 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. ( )

    A

    Report to Congressional October 2001 VOTERS WITH Access to Polling Places
    and Alternative Voting Methods

    A fully accessible version of this report is available at: http: / / www.
    gao. gov/ special. pubs/ d02107. txt GAO- 02-

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO

    a

    Page i GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Contents

    Page ii GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 1 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities United States General
    Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

    Page 1 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 2 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 3 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 4 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 5 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 6 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 7 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 8 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 9 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 10 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 11 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 12 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 13 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 14 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 15 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 16 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 17 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 18 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 19 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 20 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 21 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 22 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 23 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 24 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 25 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 26 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 27 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 28 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 29 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 30 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 31 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 32 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 33 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 34 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 35 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 36 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 37 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 38 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Page 39 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix I

    Page 40 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix I Scope and Methods

    Page 41 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix I Scope and Methods

    Page 42 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix I Scope and Methods

    Page 43 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix I Scope and Methods

    Page 44 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix I Scope and Methods

    Page 45 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix I Scope and Methods

    Page 46 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix I Scope and Methods

    Page 47 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix I Scope and Methods

    Page 48 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix I Scope and Methods

    Page 49 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II

    Page 50 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 51 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 52 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 53 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 54 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 55 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 56 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 57 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 58 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 59 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 60 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 61 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 62 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix II Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

    Page 63 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix III

    Page 64 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix III People and Counties Contacted During Our Review

    Page 65 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix III People and Counties Contacted During Our Review

    Page 66 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix III People and Counties Contacted During Our Review

    Page 67 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix III People and Counties Contacted During Our Review

    Page 68 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix III People and Counties Contacted During Our Review

    Page 69 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix III People and Counties Contacted During Our Review Page 70 GAO-
    02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix III People and Counties Contacted During Our Review Page 71 GAO-
    02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix III People and Counties Contacted During Our Review Page 72 GAO-
    02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix III People and Counties Contacted During Our Review Page 73 GAO-
    02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV

    Page 74 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

    Page 75 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

    Page 76 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

    Page 77 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

    Page 78 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility Page 79 GAO-
    02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

    Page 80 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

    Page 81 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

    Page 82 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

    Page 83 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

    Page 84 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix IV State Provisions Concerning Voting Accessibility

    Page 85 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix V

    Page 86 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix VI

    Page 87 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix VI Issues and Challenges Related to Voting Accommodations and
    Alternatives

    Page 88 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix VI Issues and Challenges Related to Voting Accommodations and
    Alternatives

    Page 89 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Appendix VII

    Page 90 GAO- 02- 107 Voters With Disabilities

    Ordering 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. General Accounting Office P. O.
    Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

    Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
    U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

    Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports 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 information 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 visit 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
    *** End of document. ***