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. ***