Elderly Voters: Some Improvements in Voting Accessibility from
2000 to 2004 Elections, but Gaps in Policy and Implementation
Remain (31-JAN-08, GAO-08-442T).
Voting is fundamental to our democratic system, and federal law
generally requires polling places for federal elections to be
accessible to older voters and voters with physical disabilities.
Following reports of problems encountered in the close 2000
presidential election with respect to voter registration lists,
absentee ballots, ballot counting, and antiquated voting systems,
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was enacted. Among other
provisions, HAVA includes requirements for the accessibility of
voting systems, effective January 1, 2006. In the past, GAO has
published several reports on issues related to voting access for
older voters. Our prior work, including on-site inspections of a
national sample of polling places in election year 2000, a
comprehensive review of the election system in 2004, and a review
of transportation issues facing seniors, has identified a number
of potential barriers to voting for older Americans, as well as
accommodations and progress in a number of areas. Drawing from
prior work, GAO's testimony will focus on (1) a variety of
factors that affect the ability of older voters to travel to
polling places, cast their votes in the voting room, or avail
themselves of alternative voting provisions and (2) trends and
changes regarding the accessibility of polling places and
alternative voting methods.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-442T
ACCNO: A80333
TITLE: Elderly Voters: Some Improvements in Voting Accessibility
from 2000 to 2004 Elections, but Gaps in Policy and
Implementation Remain
DATE: 01/31/2008
SUBJECT: Accessibility
Aid for the disabled
Data collection
Data integrity
Elderly persons
Elections
Federal/state relations
Performance measures
Persons with disabilities
Program evaluation
Systems evaluation
Voting
Voting systems
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** 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-08-442T
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:30 EST:
Thursday, January 31, 2008:
Elderly Voters:
Some Improvements in Voting Accessibility from 2000 to 2004 Elections,
but Gaps in Policy and Implementation Remain:
Statement of Barbara D. Bovbjerg:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, and:
William O. Jenkins:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
GAO-08-442T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-442T, a testimony before the U.S. Senate Special
Committee on Aging.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Voting is fundamental to our democratic system, and federal law
generally requires polling places for federal elections to be
accessible to older voters and voters with physical disabilities.
Following reports of problems encountered in the close 2000
presidential election with respect to voter registration lists,
absentee ballots, ballot counting, and antiquated voting systems, the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was enacted. Among other
provisions, HAVA includes requirements for the accessibility of voting
systems, effective January 1, 2006.
In the past, GAO has published several reports on issues related to
voting access for older voters. Our prior work, including on-site
inspections of a national sample of polling places in election year
2000, a comprehensive review of the election system in 2004, and a
review of transportation issues facing seniors, has identified a number
of potential barriers to voting for older Americans, as well as
accommodations and progress in a number of areas. Drawing from prior
work, GAO�s testimony will focus on (1) a variety of factors that
affect the ability of older voters to travel to polling places, cast
their votes in the voting room, or avail themselves of alternative
voting provisions and (2) trends and changes regarding the
accessibility of polling places and alternative voting methods.
What GAO Found:
Ensuring that older voters or other individuals with disabilities
successfully cast their votes in an election requires that policymakers
think broadly about access. This includes access with respect to
transportation, polling places, voting equipment, and alternative
voting methods. During the 2000 election, most polling places we
inspected had one or more potential impediments that might prevent
older voters and voters with disabilities from reaching voting rooms,
although curbside voting accommodations were often made available.
Additionally, our 2000 review of state provisions and practices related
to accessible voting systems and accommodations in the voting room
revealed that provisions to accommodate individuals with disabilities
varied from state to state and may vary widely in their implementation.
A 2004 GAO report also found transportation gaps in meeting the needs
of seniors, which may create a barrier to voting for many elderly
voters, and a lack of data on the extent of unmet needs.
Since the passage of HAVA and the subsequent 2004 election, we have
identified a number of reported efforts taken to improve voting access
for people with disabilities. In particular, our 2006 report on
election systems shows a marked increase in state provisions addressing
the accessibility of polling places, voting systems, and alternative
voting methods. However, the degree of change in accessibility is
difficult to determine, in part because thousands of jurisdictions have
primary responsibility for managing elections and ensuring an accurate
vote count, and the complexity of the election system does not ensure
that these provisions and reported practices are reflective of what
occurs at polling places on election day.
Understanding and addressing accessibility gaps represent enormous
tasks for state and local election officials who are challenged by the
multiplicity of responsibilities and requirements they must attend to
within resource constraints. At the same time, as the population ages
and the percentage of voters with disabilities expands, the expectation
of accommodation and assistance to participate in this basic civic
exercise will grow, making accessibility a key performance goal for our
election community.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-442T]. For more information, contact
Barbara D. Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or [email protected]; or William
O. Jenkins at (202) 512-8777 or [email protected].
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 31, 2008:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on
older Americans' access to voting. Voting is fundamental to our
democratic system, and federal law generally requires polling places
for federal elections to be accessible to all eligible voters,
including older voters and voters with physical disabilities. In
particular, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped
Act requires that, with a few exceptions, local election jurisdictions
assure that polling places used in federal elections are accessible, in
a manner as determined by the state, to the elderly and voters with
disabilities. These requirements can 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.
Following reports of problems encountered in the close 2000
presidential election with respect to voter registration lists,
absentee ballots, ballot counting, and antiquated voting systems, the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was enacted. Among others, HAVA
contains provisions to help facilitate voting for individuals with
disabilities, many of whom are also elderly, including requirements for
the accessibility of voting systems used in elections for federal
office, effective January 1, 2006, and authorizing the appropriation of
funding for payments to states to improve the accessibility of polling
places.
Our testimony today will focus on a number of factors that affect the
ability of older voters to travel to polling places, enter polling
places, and cast their vote once they arrive in the voting room; or to
avail themselves of alternative voting provisions, including absentee
and curbside voting. It will also describe trends and changes regarding
accessibility of polling places and alternative voting methods--as
manifested in state provisions or reported in surveys and discovered
during site visits--since the 2000 election. As agreed, our statement
will draw from the broad array of prior work that has a bearing on
voting access for older voters, including our 2001 report on
accessibility of polling places for election year 2000,[Footnote 1] our
2004 report on transportation-disadvantaged seniors,[Footnote 2] our
2006 report covering a range of election issues as of election year
2004,[Footnote 3] our 2007 testimony on electronic voting system
challenges,[Footnote 4] and our 2008 report on bilingual voting
assistance.[Footnote 5] The GAO reports on which this testimony is
based were conducted in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. The scope of this testimony will not cover
accessibility for older voters with cognitive impairments, nor will it
cover registration challenges for older voters.
Overall, our work prior to the 2004 general election--including on-site
inspections of a national sample of polling places in election year
2000 and a review of transportation issues facing seniors--has
identified a number of potential barriers to voting for older
Americans. We found transportation gaps in meeting the needs of seniors
and lack of data on the extent of unmet needs. Significantly, we found
that most polling places we inspected had one or more potential
impediments for people with mobility impairments--only 16 percent had
no impediments--although some provided for curbside voting. Since the
passage of HAVA, and after the 2004 election, we surveyed state and
local election jurisdictions and identified a number of reported
efforts taken to improve voting access for people with disabilities.
[Footnote 6] In particular, we found a marked increase in state
provisions addressing accessibility of polling places and voting
systems, and alternative voting methods, such as curbside and absentee
voting. However, achieving accessibility in the polling place and with
respect to voting systems is complicated by the fact that thousands of
jurisdictions have primary responsibility for managing and conducting
elections and ensuring an accurate vote count. We have not examined the
extent to which the improvements reported by state and local election
jurisdictions since November 2000 have been implemented and, thus, do
not know the extent to which they have yielded improved accessibility
of polling places and voting systems.
Background:
The proportion of older people in the United States who may face
challenges exercising the right to vote is growing. As of 2003, there
were almost 36 million individuals aged 65 or older (12 percent of the
population), and the majority have at least one chronic health
condition. By 2030, those aged 65 and over will grow to more than 20
percent of the population. Disability increases with age, and studies
have shown that with every 10 years after reaching the age of 65, the
risk of losing mobility doubles.[Footnote 7] In many ways, lack of
mobility and other types of impairments can diminish seniors' ability
to vote without some assistance or accommodation. With increased age,
seniors will become more limited in their ability to get to polling
places by driving, walking, or using public transportation. Once
seniors arrive at the polling places, they may face additional
challenges, depending on the availability of accessible parking areas,
accessibility of polling places, type and complexity of the voting
equipment, availability of alternative voting methods (such as absentee
voting), and the availability of voting assistance or aids.
Responsibility for holding elections and ensuring voter access
primarily rests with state and local governments. Each state sets the
requirements for conducting local, state, and federal elections within
the state. For example, states regulate such aspects of elections as
ballot access, absentee voting requirements, establishment of voting
places, provision of election day workers, and counting and certifying
the vote. The states, in turn have typically delegated responsibility
for administering and funding state election systems to the thousands
of local election jurisdictions--more than 10,000 nationwide--creating
even more variability among our nation's election systems.
Although state and local governments are responsible for running
elections, Congress has authority to affect the administration of
elections. Federal laws have been enacted in several major areas of the
voting process, including several that are designed to help ensure that
voting is accessible for the elderly and people with disabilities. Most
importantly, 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 (with limited exceptions). 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. Under the VAEHA, the definition of "accessible" is
determined under guidelines established by each state's chief election
officer, but the law does not specify what those guidelines shall
contain or the form those guidelines should take. Additionally, states
are required to make available voting aids for elderly and disabled
voters, including instructions printed in large type at each polling
place, and information by telecommunications devices for the deaf. The
VAEHA also contains a provision requiring public notice, calculated to
reach elderly and disabled voters, of absentee voting procedures.
HAVA also contains a number of provisions designed to help increase the
accessibility of voting for individuals with disabilities. For example,
under HAVA, voting systems for federal elections must be accessible for
individuals with disabilities in a manner that provides the same
opportunity for access and participation as for other voters. To
satisfy this requirement, each polling place must have at least one
voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities. In addition,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to make yearly
payments (in an amount of the Secretary's choosing) to each eligible
state and unit of local government, and such payments must be used for
(1) making polling places (including path of travel, entrances, exits,
and voting areas) accessible to individuals with disabilities, and (2)
providing individuals with disabilities with information about the
accessibility of polling places. The Act also created the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) to serve, among other things, as a
clearinghouse and information resource for election officials with
respect to the administration of federal elections. For example, the
EAC is to periodically conduct and make available to the public studies
regarding methods of ensuring accessibility of voting, polling places,
and voting equipment to all voters, including individuals with
disabilities. Under HAVA, the EAC is also to make grants for carrying
out both research and development to improve various aspects of voting
equipment and voting technology, and pilot programs to test new
technologies in voting systems. To be eligible for such grants, an
entity must certify that it will take into account the need to make
voting equipment fully accessible for individuals with disabilities.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), as amended, provides for voter
assistance in the voting room. Specifically, the VRA, among other
things, authorizes voting assistance for blind, disabled, or illiterate
persons. Voters who require 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, other than the voter's employer or agent
of that employer or officer or agent of the voter's union.
Other laws also help to ensure voting access for the elderly and people
with disabilities--albeit indirectly. For example, Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and its 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. 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. However, state and local
governments are not required to take actions that would threaten or
destroy the historic significance of a historic property, fundamentally
alter the nature of a service, or impose undue financial and
administrative burdens. 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.
Title III of the ADA covers commercial facilities and places of public
accommodation. 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. They must also ensure that no
individual with a disability is excluded or denied services because of
the absence of "auxiliary aids and services," which include both
effective methods of making aurally and visually delivered materials
available to individuals with impairments, and acquisition or
modification of equipment or devices. Public accommodations 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 or expense, given the entity's resources. In the event
that removal of an architectural barrier cannot be accomplished easily,
the accommodation may take alternative measures to facilitate
accessibility. 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.
Finally, the Older Americans Act of 1965 (OAA), as amended, supports a
wide range of social services and programs for older persons. The OAA
authorizes grants to agencies on aging to serve as advocates of, and
coordinate programs for, the older population. Such programs cover
areas such as caregiver support, nutrition services, and disease
prevention. Importantly, the OAA also provides assistance to improve
transportation services for older individuals.
Transportation Challenges Become More Acute with Aging and Can Limit
Seniors' Ability to Reach Polling Places:
For older adults who wish to vote at polling places, access to the
polls is highly affected by their ability to travel to the polling
place on election day. While most older adults drive, their physical,
visual, and cognitive abilities can deteriorate, making it more
difficult for them to drive safely. One study found that approximately
21 percent (6.8 million) of people aged 65 and older do not
drive,[Footnote 8] and another study found that more than 600,000
people aged 70 and older stop driving each year and become dependent on
others for transportation.[Footnote 9] According to senior
transportation experts, the "oldest of the old" (those aged 85 and
older) are especially likely to be dependent on others for rides,
particularly if they are also in poor health.
For those who do not or cannot drive, our previous work for this
committee on the mobility of older adults identified other options than
driving that are available; nevertheless, transportation gaps
remain.[Footnote 10] Consistent with the Older Americans Act and other
legislation, the federal government provides some transportation
assistance, but this is largely to provide older adults with access to
other federal program services--such as health and medical care or
employment. This has been done through partnerships with local
agencies, nonprofits, and other organizations that provide
transportation services and also contribute their own funds. Such
partnering efforts may afford the opportunity to transport seniors to
polling places as well. For example, the Montana Council on
Developmental Disabilities partners with other organizations, such as
AARP and the Montana Transit Association, to provide election day rides
to older adults and people with disabilities. Still, we generally found
that older adults in rural and suburban areas have more restricted
travel options than do those in urban areas. In addition, we have
reported that federally supported programs generally lacked data
identifying the extent to which older adults have unmet needs for
mobility. Consequently, we do not know to what extent older adults are
unable to find transportation to polling places.
To address this lack of data and improve transportation services, more
than 45 states had utilized the "Framework for Action" by
2005,[Footnote 11] a self-assessment tool created by the Federal
Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) for
states and communities to help them identify existing gaps in
transportation services for people with disabilities, older adults, and
individuals with lower incomes. According to the CCAM, communities
across the country are now using this tool as they establish
coordinated transportation plans at the local level. Voting access is
one need that might well be identified and better met through this
assessment process.
Physical Access to Polling Places Was Uneven during Election 2000, but
May Have Improved since HAVA Was Enacted in 2002:
Our on-site inspections of polling places in the 2000 general election
revealed many impediments that can limit access for older voters and
voters with disabilities. Through our mail survey of states and local
election jurisdictions conducted after the 2004 general election, we
learned of improvements to provisions and practices pertaining to
accessibility of polling places. We did not conduct on-site inspections
in the 2004 general election and therefore do not know the extent to
which such improvements took place at polling places.
An Estimated 16 Percent of Polling Places Used in the 2000 General
Election Had No Potential Impediments:
Once older voters reach the polling place, they generally must make
their way inside the building and into the voting room in order to cast
their votes. Prior to the 2000 election, very little was known about
the accessibility of polling places--and what was known was dated and
had significant limitations. To estimate the proportion of polling
places in the country with features that might either facilitate or
impede access for people with mobility, dexterity, or visual
impairments, we visited 496 randomly selected polling places in the
United States on Election Day 2000. Our random sample was drawn by
first selecting a random sample of counties--weighted by population--
and then randomly selecting some polling places within those counties.
At each polling place, using a survey based on federal and nonfederal
guidelines on accessibility, we took measurements and made observations
of features of the facility and voting methods that could impede
access.[Footnote 12] See figure 1 for the key areas at polling places
where we conducted our observations. We also interviewed poll workers
who were in charge of the polling place to identify any accommodations
offered.
Figure 1: Key Features at Polling Places:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of Key Features at Polling Places. There
are also smaller illustrations inset, where indicated. The following
data is depicted:
A. Parking Area:
A1. On or off-street parking is designated for persons with
disabilities.
B. Route from parking are to building entrance:
B1. Surface is paved or has no abrupt changes over 0ne-quarter 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 two feet);
B4. Slope of path or ramp along path is no steeper than 1:12;
B5. Steps have handrails that extend at least one foot beyond the
landing;
B6. Ramps have two handrails (one on each side) if highest point is
more than six inches off the ground.
C. Entrance to the building:
C1. Doorway threshold does not exceed on-half inch in height;
C2. Single or double-wide openings are 32 inches or more in width;
(included here is an illustration depicting the minimum width, as well
as a 24 inch maximum distance for minimum clearance);
C3. Closed door difficult for a person in a wheelchair to open.
D. Curbside voting:
D1. Voting available at curbside.
E. Route from inside the building entrance to the voting room:
E1. Doorway threshold does not exceed one-half inch in height;
E2. Single or double-wide openings are 32 inches or more in width;
E3. Steps are not required to reach the voting room;
E4. Corridors have clearances 36 inches or more wide (may narrow to 32
inches for no more than two feet);
E5. Slope of ramp is no steeper than 1:12 (included here is an
illustration depicting the 1:12 slope of a ramp from landing level to
landing level [also applies to B4]).
F. Voting stations:
F1. Voting stations configured for sitting can accommodate a wheelchair
(included here is an illustration indicating the minimum station height
is 27 inches, and the minimum station depth is 19 inches);
F2. Voting stations configured for standing have a forward reach no
lower than 15 inches and no higher than 48 inches (included here is an
illustration indicating the minimum and maximum reach distances);
F3. Voting stations configures for standing have side reach no lower
than 9 inches and no higher than 54 inches (included here is an
illustration indicating the minimum and maximum reach distances).
Source: GAO-02-107, pp 24-24.
[End of figure]
These on-site inspections during the 2000 election revealed that only
an estimated 16 percent of polling places were free of impediments that
might prevent elderly voters and voters with disabilities from reaching
voting rooms.[Footnote 13] The rest had one or more likely impediments
from the parking area to the voting room, although curbside voting was
often made available where permitted by the state (see fig. 2). These
were potential impediments primarily for individuals with mobility
impairments.
Figure 2: Prevalence of Potential Impediments at Polling Places and
Availability of Curbside Voting in November 2000 Election:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data:
Percentage of polling places with one or more potential impediments
that offer curbside voting: 56%;
Percentage of polling places with one or more potential impediments
that do not offer curbside voting: 28%;
Percentage of polling places with no potential impediments: 16%.
Source: GAO-02-107, p.8; GAO analysis of polling place data collected
on Nov. 7, 2000.
[End of figure]
Further, many polling places had more than one potential impediment in
2000. Impediments occurred at fairly high rates irrespective of the
type of building used as a polling place. About 70 percent of all
Election Day 2000 polling places were in the types of facilities that
are potentially subject to either Title II or III of the ADA--such as
schools, recreational/community centers, city/town halls, police/fire
stations, libraries, and courthouses.[Footnote 14] 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. Moreover, due to the number of possible
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, we cannot determine from our
data whether the potential impediments we found would constitute a
failure to meet ADA requirements.
In addition to inspecting polling places in 2000, we also reviewed
state provisions (in the form of statutes, regulations, or policies)
and surveyed state and county practices that affect voters' ability to
get into polling places and reach the voting room, and found
significant variations. While all states and the District of Columbia
had provisions concerning voting access for individuals with
disabilities, the extent and manner in which these provisions addressed
accessibility varied from state to state. For example, 43 states had
provisions that polling places must or should be accessible, but only
20 had provisions requiring that reporting by the counties to the state
on polling place accessibility. See table 1 in app. I for additional
state provisions concerning the accessibility of polling places in the
November 2000 election.
Our survey of election officials in each state and 100 counties also
revealed variation in practices for ensuring the accessibility of
polling places.[Footnote 15] For example, while 25 states reported
providing local governments with training and guidance for assuring
polling place accessibility, only 5 states reported helping finance
polling place modifications to improve access in 2000. At least an
estimated 27 percent of local election jurisdictions reported not using
accessibility in their criteria for selecting polling places. While at
least an estimated 68 percent of local jurisdictions reported that they
inspected all polling places, the frequency of such inspections varied
from once a year to only when a polling place is first selected or
following a complaint or remodeling.
New Provisions and Practices May Be Improving Access to Polling Places,
although the Degree of Change Is Difficult to Determine:
After the November 2004 general election, we found signs of improvement
in access to polling places when we surveyed each state and
representative sample of local election jurisdictions nationwide in
2005 about their state provisions and practices.[Footnote 16] While the
methods we used to collect data from states differed between the 2000
and 2004 elections, state provisions related to polling place
accessibility and accommodations nevertheless appear to have increased
over time. For example, 32 states told us in 2005 that they required
local jurisdictions to report on polling place accessibility to the
state, an increase from 20 states with such provisions in 2000. At the
same time, the number of states requiring polling place inspections
decreased by 1 from 2000 to 2004, although 16 in addition to the 28
requiring inspections had provisions in 2004 that allowed for polling
place inspections. See Table 2 in app. I for additional information on
state provisions concerning accessibility of polling places and
accommodations for individuals with disabilities for the November 2004
general election.
In addition to changes in state provisions, most states reported that
they had spent or obligated HAVA funds to improve the accessibility of
polling places, such as by providing access for voters with mobility or
visual impairments. Responding to our 2005 survey following the 2004
election, 46 states and the District of Columbia reported having spent
or obligated HAVA funds for this purpose. For example, election
officials in a local jurisdiction we visited in Colorado told us they
had used HAVA funds to improve the accessibility of polling places by
obtaining input from the disability community, surveying the
accessibility of their polling places, and reviewing voting equipment
with representatives of the blind community.
From our 2005 survey of local election jurisdictions nationwide, we
estimated 83 percent of local jurisdictions nationwide made use of
their state's provisions to determine the requirements for
accessibility at their polling places.[Footnote 17] During our site
visits to local jurisdictions in 2005, we asked election officials to
describe the steps or procedures they took to ensure that polling
places were accessible.[Footnote 18] Election officials in many of the
jurisdictions we visited told us that either local or state officials
inspect each polling location in their jurisdiction using a checklist
based on state or federal guidelines. For example, election officials
in the four jurisdictions we visited in Georgia and New Hampshire told
us that state inspectors conducted a survey of all polling locations.
Election officials in the two jurisdictions we visited in Florida told
us that they inspected all polling places using a survey developed by
the state.
Our information of provisions and practices related to polling place
accessibility in 2004 is based on self-reported data collected, and
site visits we conducted, in 2005. We did not observe polling places
during the 2004 election and therefore do not know the extent to which
increased state provisions and reported state and local practices
resulted in actual improvements to the accessibility of polling places
in the 2004 general election.
Election Officials Reported Challenges to Ensuring Voter Access That
Were Similar to Those Encountered in 2000:
In preparing for and conducting the November 2004 general election,
officials reported encountering many of the same challenges to ensuring
voter access that they had encountered in 2000, such as locating a
sufficient number of polling places that met requirements (such as
accessibility). According to our 2005 mail survey, while 75 percent of
small jurisdictions reported finding it easy or very easy to find
sufficient number of polling places, only 38 percent of large
jurisdictions did.[Footnote 19] Conversely, 1 percent of small
jurisdictions found it difficult or very difficult while 14 percent of
large jurisdictions did.[Footnote 20] Other challenges reported
included recruiting and training an adequate supply of skilled poll
workers, designing ballots that were clear to voters when there were
many candidates or issues (e.g., propositions, questions, or
referenda), having long lines at polling places, and handling the large
volume of telephone calls received from voters and poll workers on
election day. In general, officials in large and medium jurisdictions-
-those with over 10,000 people--reported encountering more challenges
than those in small jurisdictions.
Improving Accessibility of Voting Equipment and Assistance in Voting
Room May Prove Challenging:
Once inside the voting room, the type of voting method can pose
particular challenges to some elderly voters, and facilitating voting
may require further accommodation or assistance. For example, voters
with dexterity impairments may experience difficulty holding writing
instruments for paper ballots, pinpointing the stylus for punch card
ballots, manipulating levers, or pressing buttons for electronic voting
systems. Similarly, visually impaired voters may experience difficulty
reading the text on paper ballots and electronic voting systems, or
manipulating the handles to operate lever machines. All these voting
methods can challenge voters with disabilities, although some
electronic voting systems can be adapted to accommodate a range of
impairments.
Accessible Voting Systems in the November 2000 General Election:
During our on-site inspections of polling places in 2000, we identified
challenges posed by the voting systems used and by the configuration of
the voting booths, although some form of assistance was generally
provided in the voting room. With respect to voting systems, we found
that either traditional paper ballots or mark-sense ballots (a form of
optical scan paper ballots) were the most widespread--one or the other
were in use at an estimated 43 percent of polling places. This voting
method is challenging for voters with impaired dexterity who have
difficulty using a pen or pencil, and also for voters with visual
impairments who need to read the text on the ballots. Next in
prevalence were punch card ballots (21 percent), electronic voting
systems (19 percent), and lever machines (17 percent)--each of which
can be a challenge for voters with certain impairments. We also found
that many voting booths were not appropriately configured for
wheelchairs, either because voting stations configured for sitting did
not have the minimum dimensions for a wheelchair or those configured
for standing had one or more features that might pose an impediment to
a wheelchair. At the same time, nearly all polling places allowed
voters to be assisted either by a friend or a poll worker, which is a
right granted by the VRA. Moreover, about 51 percent provided voting
instructions or sample ballots in 18-point or larger type and about 47
percent provided a magnifying device.[Footnote 21] None of the polling
places provided ballots or voting equipment adapted with audio-tape or
Braille ballots for blind voters.
Our 2000 review of state provisions and practices related to accessible
voting systems and accommodations in the voting room revealed
significant gaps, insofar as 27 states lacked provisions that voting
systems should accommodate individuals with disabilities, 18 lacked
provisions for wheelchairs in voting booths, and many lacked provisions
to provide aides to the visually impaired; for example, 47 states
lacked a provision to provide a large type ballot, and 45 lacked a
provision to provide a Braille ballot. (See app. I, table 1.) On the
other hand, we found that state provisions were not necessarily
predictors of practice inside the polling place. For example, we found
that half the polling places we visited provided voting instructions or
sample ballots with large type even though only 3 of the 33 states
whose polling places we visited had provisions to do so. Conversely,
none of the polling places we visited provided for Braille ballots,
even though 5 of the 33 states we visited had provisions for doing so.
In addition to many states lacking provisions for voting room
accommodations, in only 11 states did election officials, in response
to our state survey, report financing improvements to accessibility by
helping to fund new voting systems.
Progress Made to Improve Accessibility of Voting Systems after 2000,
but Significant Challenges Remain:
Our 2005 survey of states also revealed an increase in state provisions
for accessible voting equipment, compared to what we found in our
review of state provisions in 2000. As of August 1, 2005, 41 states and
the District of Columbia reported having laws in place or having taken
executive action (through orders, directives, regulations, or policies)
to provide each polling location by January 1, 2006, with at least one
electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for
individuals with disabilities. Five of the 9 remaining states reported
plans to promulgate laws or executive action to provide each polling
location with at least one voting system equipped for individuals with
disabilities.[Footnote 22] This is an increase from 2000, when 24
states had (and 27 lacked) provisions that voting systems must or
should accommodate individuals with disabilities.
In response to our survey of local election jurisdictions in 2005, many
jurisdictions reported having at least one accessible voting machine
per polling place in the 2004 election, although this varied by
jurisdiction size. We estimated that 29 percent of all jurisdictions
provided at least one accessible voting machine at each polling place
during the 2004 general elections. In addition, more large and medium
local election jurisdictions reported using accessible voting machines
than small jurisdictions. In 2005, we estimated that 39 percent of
large jurisdictions, 38 percent of medium jurisdictions, and 25 percent
of small jurisdictions provided accessible voting machines at each
polling place.[Footnote 23]
These improvements may be the result of HAVA, which, as noted earlier,
requires each polling place to have at least one voting system equipped
for individuals with disabilities, including individuals who are blind
or visually impaired. To facilitate the adoption of technology, HAVA
authorized appropriations to provide funds to states to replace punch
card and lever voting equipment with other voting methods. Since HAVA's
enactment, the General Services Administration (GSA) reported in 2003
the distribution of an estimated $300 million to 30 states for funds to
replace old voting equipment and technology. In addition, states may
receive other HAVA funds that could be used for multiple purposes,
including replacement or upgrade of voting systems. In 2004, the EAC
reported that almost $344 million had been distributed to each of the
50 states and the District of Columbia under this multiple purpose
funding category.
HAVA notwithstanding, our surveys and site visits in 2004 indicated
that significant challenges remain for acquiring and implementing
accessible electronic voting systems. Touch screen direct recording
electronic (DRE) equipment--which can be adapted with audio and other
aids to accommodate a range of impairments--is generally more costly
than other types of systems due to software requirements and because
more units are required. Based on our mail surveys of local election
jurisdictions, the estimated percentages of predominant voting methods
used by local jurisdictions in the 2000 and 2004 general elections did
not change appreciably.[Footnote 24] As we noted earlier, more large
and medium local election jurisdictions reported using accessible
electronic voting machines than small jurisdictions. Some election
officials representing small jurisdictions expressed concerns to us
about the appropriateness of HAVA requirements for accessible voting
equipment for their jurisdictions and its implementation cost. In
addition, some elections officials have acted on concerns regarding the
reliability and security of electronic voting systems by, for instance,
decertifying systems previously approved for use within their states.
In 2007, we testified on the range of security and reliability concerns
that have been reported, and long-standing and emerging challenges
facing all levels of government, with respect to electronic voting
systems. For example, significant concerns have been raised about vague
or incomplete standards, weak security controls, system design flaws,
incorrect system configuration, poor security management, and
inadequate security testing, among other issues. Jurisdictions reported
that they did not consistently monitor the performance of their
systems, which is important for determining whether election needs,
requirements, and expectations are met and for taking corrective
actions when they are not. Finding remedies, however, is challenging,
given, for example, the distribution of responsibilities among various
organizations, and financing constraints and complexities. Given the
diffused and decentralized allocation of voting system roles and
responsibilities across all levels of government, addressing these
challenges will require the combined efforts of all levels of
government, under the leadership of the EAC.
States Have Increased Provisions for Voting Rooms Accommodations,
though the Extent of Such Improvements Is Unclear:
Our 2005 survey of state election officials revealed a marked increase
since the 2000 election in the number of state provisions related to
accommodations in the voting room. For example, the number of states
that reported having provisions for wheelchair accommodations in voting
areas was 43, compared to 33 in 2000. Further, the number of states
that reported having provisions to require or allow ballots with large-
type, magnifying instruments, and Braille ballot or voting methods
increased by 18, 20, and 8, respectively. At the same time, a few
states reported having provisions that prohibit certain accommodations,
such as ballots in Braille or large type.[Footnote 25] (See app. I,
table 2 for details on 2004 state provisions.) It is important to keep
in mind, however, our findings for the 2000 election--i.e., that state
provisions are not necessarily predictors or indicators of whether
these accommodations will be found at polling places.
Most recently, we reported on accommodations provided to bilingual
voters, including elderly bilingual voters.[Footnote 26] Under the VRA,
when the population of a "single language minority" with limited
English proficiency is large enough, voting materials (including
ballots, instructions, and assistance) must be provided in that
minority's language, in addition to English. Of the 14 election
jurisdictions we contacted, 13 reported providing similar assistance,
such as translated voter materials and bilingual poll workers. All 14
reported facing similar challenges, such as recruiting a sufficient
number of bilingual poll workers, effectively targeting where to
provide assistance, and designing and translating the bilingual
materials provided. However, GAO found little quantitative data on the
usefulness of various types of bilingual voting assistance.
Jurisdictions were challenged to assess the effectiveness of such
assistance, in part because jurisdictions may be prohibited from
collecting data on who used such assistance. Thus, it is difficult to
know the extent to which elderly voters use bilingual assistance and
what forms of assistance they find most useful.[Footnote 27]
State Provisions for Alternative Voting Methods and Accommodations
Generally Increased since 2000, but Implementation Practices May Vary:
As noted earlier, the VAEHA requires that 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. The VAEHA also contains provisions to make
absentee voting more accessible by prohibiting, with limited
exceptions, the requirement of a notary or medical certification of
disability in granting an absentee ballot. However, states generally
regulate absentee voting and other alternative voting method
provisions.[Footnote 28] Alternative voting methods may include advance
notice of an inaccessible polling place; curbside voting; taking
ballots to a voter's residence; allowing voters to use another, more
accessible polling location either on or before election day; voting in
person at early voting sites; or removing prerequisites by establishing
"no excuse" absentee voting or allowing absentee voting on a permanent
basis.[Footnote 29] Disability advocates have told us that while
alternative voting methods are important and needed options for some
voters with disabilities, they still do not provide an equal
opportunity to vote in the same manner as the general public and
therefore should not be viewed as permanent solutions to inaccessible
polling places.
Meanwhile, state provisions that allow for alternative voting methods
had, in 2004, generally increased from the 2000 election period.
Specifically, the number of state provisions permitting curbside voting
increased from 28 in the 2000 election to 30 in the 2004 election. The
number of states with provisions that provided for carrying ballots to
voters' residences on or before election day increased from 21 to 25.
Additionally, state provisions regarding notification of voters of
inaccessible polling places went up from 19 to 27. In addition, 21
states reported allowing voters to vote absentee without requiring a
reason or excuse--3 more than for the November 2000 election.
Although states may offer similar alternatives and accommodations, our
review of state provisions in 2000 indicated that there may be wide
variation in their implementation. For example, in accordance with the
VAEHA, as previously mentioned, all states allowed absentee voting for
voters with disabilities without notary or medical certification
requirements in 2000. However, the dates by which absentee ballots must
be received varied considerably, with some states requiring that, to be
counted, the ballot must be received before election day. In addition,
where states lacked provisions, or had provisions allowing but not
requiring accommodation or alternative method of voting, county and
local government implementation practices can vary. For example, in
2000, we found that in a number of states without formal provision for
curbside voting, some counties and local governments reported offering
curbside voting and some did not. Similarly, in a number of states that
lacked provisions for allowing voters to use an alternate voting place
on Election Day, our 2000 county survey data also showed that some
counties and local governments offered this alternative, while others
did not.
Expanding alternative voting methods or making special accommodations
can provide voters with additional options. Early voting, for example,
allows voters, including elderly voters, to choose a day without
inclement weather on which to vote. However, the implementation of
voting alternatives can also present election officials with legal,
administrative, and operational challenges. For example, expanding the
use of curbside voting requires having staff trained and available to
assist voters outside the polling place. In some states where it is not
authorized or in practice, policymakers would need to be convinced that
it would not increase the risk of fraud with ballots being taken out of
the polling place facility.[Footnote 30] Similarly, reassigning voters
to more accessible polling places requires officials to notify the
voter, train the poll workers, and provide an appropriate ballot at the
reassigned location. Election officials reported to us in 2001 that
establishing early voting sites and expanding the number of absentee
voters added to the cost and complexity of running an election. For
example, with early voting, election officials must set up and close
down the polling place daily, ensure that there are trained poll
workers at each early voting site, and update the voter registration
lists to be used on election day to indicate which voters have already
voted early. Absentee voting challenges include receipt of late
absentee voter applications and ballots; administrative issues
including workload demands and resource constraints; dealing with
potential voter error caused by unsigned or otherwise incomplete
absentee applications and ballot materials; as well as guarding against
fraud. Internet voting--an alternative that has been used only on a
limited basis to date--could offer voters the convenience of voting
from their homes or other remote locations, and help increase voter
participation. On the other hand, 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, studies by some task forces have suggested a phased-in approach
to Internet voting.
Conclusions:
Ensuring that seniors or individuals with disabilities successfully
cast their votes in an election requires government to think broadly
about access, including access to transportation, access into
buildings, access with respect to voting equipment, and access to
various alternative voting methods. The increase in state provisions
and reports of practices to improve the accessibility of the voting
process is encouraging. At the same time, the complexity of our
election systems is such that we cannot be assured that these
provisions and reported practices reflect what actually occurs at
polling places on election day. Understanding and addressing
accessibility gaps is an enormous task for our state and local election
officials who are challenged by the multiplicity of responsibilities
and requirements they must attend to within resource constraints. At
the same time, as our population ages, and with it the percent of
voters with disabilities swells, the expectation of accommodation and
assistance to participate in this basic civic exercise will grow,
making accessibility a key performance goal for our election community.
[End of section]
Appendix I: State Provisions for Accessibility of Polling Places and
Accommodations for the November 2000 and 2004 Elections:
Table 1: State Provisions Concerning Accessibility of Polling Places
for the November 2000 Election:
State provisions: Voting accessibility; Voting by people with
disabilities explicitly addressed;
Number of states with provisions: Statute or regulation: 51;
Number of states with provisions: Policy Only[A]: 0;
Number of states with no provision: 0.
State provisions: Polling place accessibility; All polling places
must/should be accessible;
Number of states with provisions: Statute or regulation: 36;
Number of states with provisions: Policy Only[A]: 7;
Number of states with no provision: 8.
State provisions: Polling place accessibility; State provisions contain
one or more polling place accessibility standards;
Number of states with provisions: Statute or regulation: 23;
Number of states with provisions: Policy Only[A]: 19;
Number of states with no provision: 9.
State provisions: Polling place accessibility; Inspection of polling
places to assess accessibility is required;
Number of states with provisions: Statute or regulation: 15;
Number of states with provisions: Policy Only[A]: 14;
Number of states with no provision: 22.
State provisions: Polling place accessibility; Reporting by counties to
state on polling place accessibility is required;
Number of states with provisions: Statute or regulation: 10;
Number of states with provisions: Policy Only[A]: 10;
Number of states with no provision: 31.
State provisions: Voting booth areas and equipment; Voting booth areas
must/should accommodate wheelchairs;
Number of states with provisions: Statute or regulation: 17;
Number of states with provisions: Policy Only[A]: 16;
Number of states with no provision: 18.
State provisions: Voting booth areas and equipment; Voting systems
must/should accommodate individuals with disabilities;
Number of states with provisions: Statute or regulation: 13;
Number of states with provisions: Policy Only[A]: 11;
Number of states with no provision: 27.
State provisions: Aids for visually impaired voters; Braille ballot or
methods of voting must/may be provided;
Number of states with provisions: Statute or regulation: 3;
Number of states with provisions: Policy Only[A]: 3;
Number of states with no provision: 45.
State provisions: Aids for visually impaired voters; Ballots with large
type must/may be provided;
Number of states with provisions: Statute or regulation: 2;
Number of states with provisions: Policy Only[A]: 2;
Number of states with no provision: 47.
State provisions: Aids for visually impaired voters; Magnifying
instruments must/may be provided;
Number of states with provisions: Statute or regulation: 7;
Number of states with provisions: Policy Only[A]: 15;
Number of states with no provision: 29.
Source: GAO-02-107, p. 17; 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.
[A] Policies for a particular provision were identified only if a state
did not have either a statute or regulation for that provision.
[End of table]
Table 2: State Provisions Concerning Accessibility of Polling Places
and Accommodations for Individuals with Disabilities for the November
2004 General Election:
Provision: Polling place accessibility standards[A];
Required: 41;
Allowed: 6;
Not allowed: 0;
Not addressed: 2;
Not applicable: 1[B];
Required or allowed: 47.
Provision: Inspections of polling place accessibility;
Required: 28;
Allowed: 16;
Not allowed: 0;
Not addressed: 6;
Not applicable: 1[B];
Required or allowed: 44.
Provision: Reporting by local jurisdictions to the state on polling
place accessibility;
Required: 32;
Allowed: 8;
Not allowed: 0;
Not addressed: 9;
Not applicable: 2[B];
Required or allowed: 40.
Provision: Accommodations of wheelchairs in voting areas; Required: 39;
Allowed: 4; Not allowed: 0; Not addressed: 7; Not applicable: 1[B];
Required or allowed: 43.
Provision: Provision of ballot or methods of voting in Braille[C];
Required: 1;
Allowed: 13;
Not allowed: 2;
Not addressed: 33;
Not applicable: 1;
Required or allowed: 14.
Provision: Provision of ballots with large type;
Required: 5;
Allowed: 17;
Not allowed: 3;
Not addressed: 26;
Not applicable: 0;
Required or allowed: 22.
Provision: Provision of magnifying instruments[C];
Required: 8;
Allowed: 34;
Not allowed: 0;
Not addressed: 7;
Not applicable: 1[B];
Required or allowed: 42.
Source: GAO-06-450, p. 507; GAO 2005 survey of state election
officials:
[A] Election officials in one state responded that they did not know.
[B] Oregon conducts voting by mail; thus, provisions for polling place
accessibility are not applicable.
[C] Election officials in one state did not respond to this question.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions' Strategies for
Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance. GAO-08-182. Washington,
D.C.: January 18, 2008.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic
Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-741T. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2007.
Older Driver Safety: Knowledge Sharing Should Help States Prepare for
Increase in Older Driver Population. GAO-07-413. Washington, D.C.:
April 11, 2007.
Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected in the
November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June 6,
2006.
Social Security Reform: Answers to Key Questions. GAO 05-193SP.
Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2005.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts to Enhance Senior
Mobility Could Benefit. from Additional Guidance and Information. GAO-
04-971. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2004:
Elections: A Framework for Evaluating Reform Proposals. GAO-02-90.
Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation.
GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative
Voting Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election
Administration. GAO-01-470. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and
Alternative Voting Methods, GAO-02-107 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15,
2001).
[2] GAO, Transportation-Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts to Enhance
Senior Mobility Could Benefit from Additional Guidance and Information,
GAO-04-971 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2004).
[3] GAO, Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected
in the November 2004 General Election, GAO-06-450 (Washington, D.C.:
June 6, 2006).
[4] GAO, Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address
Electronic Voting System Challenges, GAO-07-741T (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 18, 2007).
[5] GAO, Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions'
Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance, GAO-08-182
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18, 2008).
[6] Oregon has, since 1998, conducted its elections almost exclusively
by mail ballot; thus, it has no polling places.
[7] See Wan He, Manisha Sangupta, Victoria A. Velkoff, and Kimberly A.
DeBarros, 65+ in the United States: 2005, Current Population Reports
Special Studies, pp. 23-209(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2005).
[8] U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, 2001 National Household Travel Survey.
[9] Daniel J. Foley, MS, Harley K. Heimovitz, PhD, Jack M. Guralnik,
MD, PhD, and Dwight B. Brock, PhD, "Driving Life Expectancy of Persons
Aged 70 Years and Older in the United States," American Journal of
Public Health, vol. 92, no. 8 (2002).
[10] GAO-04-971.
[11] The Framework for Action was developed by what is now known as the
Federal Interagency Coordinating Council for Access and Mobility, a
body with senior leadership from 11 federal departments and agencies
that are charged with coordinating transportation services provided by
federal programs and promoting the maximum feasible coordination at the
state and local levels. In addition, the Department of Health and Human
Services' Administration on Aging and the Department of
Transportation's Federal Transportation Administration created a
toolkit for state and local planners to help them assess older adults'
transportation needs and to coordinate transportation services,
organized around the Framework for Action planning process.
[12] For additional details on our methods, see GAO-02-107, app I.
[13] Sampling errors for polling place data range from 3 to 10
percentage points, unless otherwise noted in this report.
[14] 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.
��12131-34). 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.
�12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)). 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. �12183(a)).
[15] Sampling errors for county survey data generally range from 4 to
25 percentage points. We generally presented the lower bound of the
estimate when the sampling error was large. For details, see GAO-02-
107, app I.
[16] For our 2005 local election jurisdiction survey, we used a
stratified random probability sample. For details, see GAO-06-450,
apps. III, IV and V.
[17] Unless otherwise noted, the maximum sampling error for estimates
of all local election jurisdictions from this survey is plus or minus 5
percentage points. For more details on this survey, see GAO-06-450,
apps. III and V.
[18] We visited 28 local election jurisdictions to collect information
about the election administration process and their experiences during
the November 2004 general election. For more details, see app. IV of
GAO-06-450.
[19] Unless otherwise noted, the maximum sampling error for estimates
for large population jurisdictions from this survey is plus or minus
seven percentage points, plus or minus 7 percentage points for medium
population jurisdictions, and 5 percentage points for small
jurisdictions.
[20] For this survey, large jurisdictions are defined as those with a
population over 100,000, medium jurisdictions have a population of over
10,000 to 100,000, and small jurisdictions have a population of 10,000
or less. In 2004, 7,627 of the nation's election jurisdictions had a
population of 10,000 or less. While small jurisdictions represent the
majority of local election jurisdictions, nearly all are in states that
contained a small portion of the U.S. population according to Census
2000. Local election jurisdictions with over 10,000 people comprised 27
percent of all election jurisdictions in the United States, but nearly
all were in states that comprised a large portion of the population.
[21] Sampling error of plus or minus 11 percentage points at the 95
percent confidence level.
[22] The 5 states that reported having plans were Kansas, Louisiana,
Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. The 4 remaining states that reported
having no plans or were uncertain about their plans were Delaware,
Massachusetts, Missouri, and Tennessee.
[23] The differences between both large and medium jurisdictions and
small jurisdictions are statistically significant.
[24] We defined the predominant voting method as one that processed the
largest number of ballots regardless of when the vote was cast: on
general Election Day, as a provisional vote, during absentee voting, or
during early voting. See GAO-06-450, pp 292-300 for additional details
on these results from our 2005 mail survey.
[25] Our information on state provisions in election 2004 was self-
reported. We did not independently review state laws or policies in
2004.
[26] GAO, Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions'
Strategies for Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance, GAO-08-182
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18, 2008)
[27] While did not specifically assess the extent to which older voters
use such assistance, election officials and community groups we
contacted provided examples of issues related to older workers. For
example, some jurisdictions reported that many elderly voters may need
extra time to review the translated materials and ballots, and thus may
prefer to vote absentee.
[28] In our 2001 report we define "alternative" voting methods as any
voting method other than traditional in-person voting at a polling
place on election day.
[29] No excuse" absentee voting is available to all voters--that is,
voters do not need to give a reason to vote absentee. In permanent
absentee voting, the voter may request that an absentee ballot be
automatically mailed to them, rather than applying separately, for each
election. Voters may need to periodically reapply for permanent
absentee ballot status.
[30] The number of state provisions prohibiting curbside voting went
from 4 in the 2000 election to 18 in the 2004 election.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: [email protected]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
*** End of document. ***