Voters With Disabilities
More Polling Places Had No Potential Impediments Than in 2000, but Challenges Remain Gao ID: GAO-09-685 June 10, 2009Voting is fundamental to our democratic system, and federal law generally requires polling places to be accessible to all eligible voters, including those with disabilities. In response, states and localities have implemented provisions and practices addressing the accessibility of polling places. However, during the 2000 federal election, GAO found that only 16 percent of polling places had no potential impediments to access for people with disabilities. To address these and other issues, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which required polling places to have at least one voting system accessible for people with disabilities. However, the extent to which state and local practices have improved accessibility is unknown. To respond to this issue, GAO determined (1) the proportion of polling places that have features in the path to the voting area that might facilitate or impede access to voting for people with disabilities and how these results compare to our findings from the 2000 federal election and (2) the proportion of polling places that have features in the voting area that might facilitate or impede private and independent voting for people with disabilities. To do this work, GAO visited randomly selected polling places across the country, which were representative of polling places nationwide, on Election Day 2008 to observe features and voting methods that could impede access and to conduct short interviews with polling place officials. GAO also reviewed relevant laws and documentation.
We found that,comparedto 2000, the proportion of polling places withoutpotential impediments increased and the most significant reduction in potential impediments occurred at building entrances. We estimate that 27 percent of polling places had no features that might impede access to the voting area for people with disabilities--up from 16 percent in 2000; 45 percent of the polling places had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27 percent of polling places had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting. While the percent of polling places with multiple impediments decreased significantly from 2000, still a fair number--16 percent--had four or more potential impediments in 2008. The most significant reduction since 2000 was that potential impediments at building entrances--such as narrow doorways--decreased from 59 percent to 25 percent. Most polling places we visited on Election Day 2008 had features in the voting area to facilitate private and independent voting, while some had features that could pose challenges. Virtually all polling places had at least one voting system--typically an accessible voting machine in a voting station--to facilitate private and independent voting for people with disabilities. However, we found that 29 percent of the voting stations were not arranged to accommodate a wheelchair. Seventy-seven percent of polling places had voting stations with accessible machines that offered the same or more privacy than stations for other voters, while the remaining polling places had stations that offered less privacy. For example, some voting stations were not positioned to prevent others from seeing how voters using the accessible machines were marking their ballots.
GAO-09-685, Voters With Disabilities: More Polling Places Had No Potential Impediments Than in 2000, but Challenges Remain
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-685
entitled 'Voters With Disabilities: More Polling Places Had No
Potential Impediments Than in 2000, but Challenges Remain' which was
released on June 10, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2009:
Voters With Disabilities:
More Polling Places Had No Potential Impediments Than in 2000, but
Challenges Remain:
GAO-09-685:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-685, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Voting is fundamental to our democratic system, and federal law
generally requires polling places to be accessible to all eligible
voters, including those with disabilities. In response, states and
localities have implemented provisions and practices addressing the
accessibility of polling places. However, during the 2000 federal
election, GAO found that only 16 percent of polling places had no
potential impediments to access for people with disabilities. To
address these and other issues, Congress enacted the Help America Vote
Act of 2002, which required polling places to have at least one voting
system accessible for people with disabilities. However, the extent to
which state and local practices have improved accessibility is unknown.
To respond to this issue, GAO determined (1) the proportion of polling
places that have features in the path to the voting area that might
facilitate or impede access to voting for people with disabilities and
how these results compare to our findings from the 2000 federal
election and (2) the proportion of polling places that have features in
the voting area that might facilitate or impede private and independent
voting for people with disabilities. To do this work, GAO visited
randomly selected polling places across the country, which were
representative of polling places nationwide, on Election Day 2008 to
observe features and voting methods that could impede access and to
conduct short interviews with polling place officials. GAO also
reviewed relevant laws and documentation.
What GAO Found:
We found that, compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places
without potential impediments increased and the most significant
reduction in potential impediments occurred at building entrances. We
estimate that 27 percent of polling places had no features that might
impede access to the voting area for people with disabilities”up from
16 percent in 2000; 45 percent of the polling places had potential
impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27 percent
of polling places had potential impediments and did not offer curbside
voting. While the percent of polling places with multiple impediments
decreased significantly from 2000, still a fair number”16 percent”had
four or more potential impediments in 2008. The most significant
reduction since 2000 was that potential impediments at building
entrances”such as narrow doorways”decreased from 59 percent to 25
percent.
Most polling places we visited on Election Day 2008 had features in the
voting area to facilitate private and independent voting, while some
had features that could pose challenges. Virtually all polling places
had at least one voting system”typically an accessible voting machine
in a voting station”to facilitate private and independent voting for
people with disabilities. However, we found that 29 percent of the
voting stations were not arranged to accommodate a wheelchair. Seventy-
seven percent of polling places had voting stations with accessible
machines that offered the same or more privacy than stations for other
voters, while the remaining polling places had stations that offered
less privacy. For example, some voting stations were not positioned to
prevent others from seeing how voters using the accessible machines
were marking their ballots.
Figure: Proportion of Polling Places with Potential Impediments in the
Path to the Voting Area:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Number of potential impediments: 0;
2000: 16%;
2008: 27%.
Number of potential impediments: 1 or more;
2000: 84%;
2008: 73%.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 7,
2000 and November 4, 2008.
The difference between the 2000 and 2008 estimates are statistically
significant. For 0 impediments, the 95-percent confidence interval for
2000 data is 11.3 to 21.6 and for 2008 data is 21.9 to 32.7. For 1 or
more impediments, the 95-percent confidence interval for 2000 data is
78.4 to 88.7 and for 2008 data is 67.3 to 78.1.
[End of figure]
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-685] or key
components. For more information, contact Barbara Bovbjerg at (202) 512-
7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov; or William O. Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-8777
or jenkinswo@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Appendix I: Briefing for Congressional Requesters on Preliminary
Findings:
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix III: Alphabetical List of Counties Randomly Selected for Site
Visits on Election Day, November 4, 2008:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Abbreviations:
DCI: data collection instrument:
HAVA: Help America Vote Act of 2002:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548:
June 10, 2009:
Congressional Requesters:
Voting is fundamental to our democratic system, and federal law
generally requires federal election polling places to be accessible to
all eligible voters, including voters with 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 as determined
by the state. These requirements can present a challenge to state and
local election officials because achieving accessibility--which is
affected by a person's type of impairment, as well as 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. Faced with these challenges, states and localities have
implemented provisions and practices addressing the accessibility of
polling places for people with disabilities. However, a 1999 study
reported that people with disabilities were 10 percent less likely to
be registered to vote, after adjusting for differences in demographic
characteristics.[Footnote 1] Additionally, during the 2000 federal
election, we found that only 16 percent of polling places had no
potential impediments to voting access for people with disabilities--
although most polling places with potential impediments offered
curbside voting.[Footnote 2] As the proportion of older Americans
increases, the number of voters who may face challenges exercising
their right to vote due to mobility and other impairments could grow.
Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to address
these and other challenges raised during the 2000 federal election.
HAVA required each polling place to have at least one voting system for
use in federal elections that is accessible for people with
disabilities by January 1, 2006. This voting system can be a direct
recording electronic voting system (e.g., touch screen) or another
system to provide people with disabilities the same opportunity for
voting privately and independently as afforded to other voters. While
our work since the passage of HAVA has reported improvements in state
provisions and local practices to assure accessibility of polling
places, the extent to which these provisions and practices have
improved accessibility is unknown.[Footnote 3] To address this issue,
you asked us to examine voting access for people with disabilities at
polling places on Election Day--November 4, 2008. Specifically, this
report examines (1) what proportion of polling places have features in
the path to the voting area that might facilitate or impede access to
voting for people with disabilities and how these results compare to
our findings from the 2000 federal election and (2) what proportion of
polling places have features in the voting area that might facilitate
or impede private and independent voting for people with disabilities.
[Footnote 4] This study is part of a broader GAO study, which we are
also conducting at your request, designed to provide more detail about
the proportion of polling places with features that might facilitate or
impede voting for people with disabilities compared to 2000; describe
state actions to facilitate voting access for people with disabilities;
and identify the steps the Department of Justice has taken to enforce
HAVA voting access provisions.
To do this work, we visited randomly selected polling places across the
country on Election Day--November 4, 2008. We used a two-stage sampling
method that created a nationally representative sample of polling
places in the contiguous United States with the exception of those in
Oregon.[Footnote 5] The first stage involved selecting a random sample
of counties weighted by their total populations. We based the
probability of each county's selection on the size of its population so
that heavily populated counties, which tend to have more polling places
than less-populated counties, would have a greater chance of being
selected in the sample. This method allowed us to select a sample that
was representative of polling places across the country on Election
Day. In addition, the method we used allowed the possibility for
counties to be selected multiple times, resulting in a final selection
of 84 unique counties in 31 states (which was the equivalent of 100
counties). The second stage involved randomly selecting eight polling
places in each county for each time the county was selected. On
Election Day 2008, we visited a total of 730 polling places.[Footnote
6] At each polling place, we took measurements and made observations of
facility features and voting methods that could potentially impede
access--such as no accessible parking, high door thresholds, and ramps
that were too steep or narrow. We also (1) identified features that
could impede private and independent voting for people with
disabilities in the voting area such as voting stations that were not
properly configured for a wheelchair and (2) conducted short interviews
with chief polling place officials to identify other accommodations for
voters--such as curbside voting outside the polling place. We
documented our observations and interviews with poll workers on our
data collection instrument (DCI). The DCI was similar to the one used
in our 2000 study of polling places, but we updated the DCI based on
changes that have occurred in federal laws and guidance since 2000.
[Footnote 7] We conducted our work from April 2008 through April 2009
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
This study focused on features in the path leading to and within the
voting area that might facilitate or impede access to voting for people
with disabilities. 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 observed feature prevented access. Accordingly,
we did not categorize polling places as "accessible" or "inaccessible."
Moreover, we did not determine whether curbside or other accommodations
offered at polling places actually facilitated voting. Finally, we did
not assess polling places for legal compliance with HAVA accessible
voting system requirements.
On May 15, 2009, we provided a briefing on the results of our work to
your staff. With minor clarifications, this report formally conveys
information provided during that briefing, which is reproduced in
appendix I. We also provided additional information on our research
methodology in appendixes II and III.
In summary, we found that compared to 2000, the proportion of polling
places with no potential impediments increased and the most significant
reduction in potential impediments occurred at building entrances. We
estimate that 27 percent of polling places had no potential impediments
to the voting area for people with disabilities--up from 16 percent in
2000;[Footnote 8] 45 percent of polling places had potential
impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27 percent
of polling places had potential impediments and did not offer curbside
voting.[Footnote 9] While the percent of polling places with multiple
impediments decreased significantly from 2000, still a fair number--16
percent--had four or more potential impediments in 2008.[Footnote 10]
Over 50 percent of polling places had one or more potential impediments
on the path from the parking lot to the building entrance, while 14
percent had potential impediments from the building entrance to the
voting area.[Footnote 11] The most significant reduction since 2000 was
that potential impediments at building entrances--such as narrow
doorways or high door thresholds--decreased from 59 percent to 25
percent.[Footnote 12]
Most polling places we visited on Election Day 2008 had features in the
voting area to facilitate private and independent voting, while some
had features that could pose challenges. Virtually all polling places
we visited had at least one voting system--typically an accessible
machine in a voting station--to facilitate private and independent
voting for people with disabilities. However, we found that 29 percent
of the voting stations were not arranged to accommodate a voter in a
wheelchair.[Footnote 13] Seventy-seven percent of polling places had
voting stations with accessible machines that offered the same or more
privacy than stations for other voters, while the remaining polling
places had voting stations that offered less privacy.[Footnote 14] For
example, some voting stations were not positioned to prevent others
from seeing how voters using the accessible machine were marking their
ballot.
We provided officials at the Department of Justice and the Election
Assistance Commission an opportunity to provide technical comments on a
draft of this report. The Department of Justice provided a technical
comment, which we incorporated into our report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Department of Justice, the
Election Assistance Commission, the U.S. Access Board, relevant
congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition,
the report will be made available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact Barbara D. Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov, or
William O. Jenkins at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Barbara D. Bovbjerg:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Signed by:
William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable Herbert Kohl:
Chairman:
The Honorable Mel Martinez:
Ranking Member:
Special Committee on Aging:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Chairman:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Robert Bennett:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Rules and Administration:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
United States Senate:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing for Congressional Requesters on Preliminary
Findings:
Voters with Disabilities: More Polling Places Had No Potential
Impediments Than in 2000, but Challenges Remain:
Briefing for Congressional Requesters on Preliminary Findings:
May 15, 2009:
Overview:
* Introduction;
* Research Objectives;
* Summary of Findings;
* Background;
* Scope and Methodology;
* Findings;
* Next Steps;
Appendix I.
Introduction:
During the 2000 federal election, a GAO study[A] found that only 16
percent of polling places had no potential impediments to voting access
for people with disabilities, although most polling places with
potential impediments offered curbside voting.
While the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) is designed, in part, to
address these issues, questions remain about whether people with
disabilities encounter more challenges voting at polling places than
those without disabilities.
This briefing is part of a broader study to provide more detail on
whether voting access at polling places has improved since 2000,
identify state practices to facilitate access, and describe the
Department of Justice‘s (Justice) role in enforcing voting access under
HAVA.
[A] GAO, Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and
Alternative Voting Methods, GAO-02-107, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15,
2001).
[End of section]
Research Objectives:
1) Determine the proportion of polling places that have features in the
path to the voting area that might facilitate or impede access to
voting for people with disabilities and determine how these results
compare to our findings from the 2000 federal election.
2) Determine the proportion of polling places that have features in the
voting area that might facilitate or impede private and independent
voting for people with disabilities.
[End of section]
Summary of Findings:
Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential
impediments increased”from 16 percent to 27 percent in 2008.
Virtually all polling places had voting systems to facilitate private
and independent voting, although some had features that could pose
challenges.
[End of section]
Background:
Limited Federal Role in Election Administration:
Federal elections are generally administered under state laws and
policies, and primary responsibility for managing, planning, and
conducting elections typically resides at the local jurisdiction level.
Prior to 2002, several federal laws applied to voting, and some
provisions specifically addressed accessibility issues for people with
disabilities. These include:
* The Voting Rights Act of 1965;
* The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act;
* The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) Added New Requirements for
Voting Access:
HAVA requires each polling place to have at least one voting system for
use in federal elections that is accessible for voters with
disabilities, which can be a direct recording electronic (DRE) voting
system or other system equipped for people with disabilities.
HAVA also requires that the accessible voting system should provide the
same opportunity for people with disabilities to vote privately and
independently as afforded by voting systems available to other voters.
HAVA required states to comply with these requirements by January 1,
2006.
Department of Justice Oversees Compliance with Voting Access
Requirements of HAVA and ADA:
Justice enforces compliance with the voting access requirements of HAVA
by pursuing litigation, on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, Justice
oversees other voting legislation.
Justice issued the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for
Polling Places in February 2004 to help local voting officials
determine if polling places have basic accessibility features for
people with disabilities.
[Note: We will address the role of Justice in overseeing HAVA voting
access compliance and enforcement in our broader voting access report
that we plan to issue in September 2009.]
[End of section]
Scope and Methodology:
Updated Data Collection Instrument Used During 2000 Federal Election:
* Reviewed relevant legislation, guidance, and other documentation.
* Interviewed officials at Justice and the Election Assistance
Commission.
* Received input from the U.S. Access Board, disability advocacy
groups, and national associations representing election officials.
* Pre-tested our data collection instrument (DCI) during the
presidential primary election in South Dakota in June 2008 and during
the congressional primary election in Wisconsin in September 2008.
Figure 1: DCI Designed to Collect Polling Place Information from
Parking Area to Voting Area[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
a) Parking area;
b) Route from parking area to building entrance;
c) Building entrance;
d) curbside voting;
e) Route from inside the building entrance to the voting room;
f) Voting area.
Sources: GAO and Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG).
[A] Voting area refers to the area within the polling place where
voters cast their ballot.
[End of figure]
Table: Selected a Nationwide Sample of Polling Places Using a Two-Stage
Approach and Visited Most Polling Places in Sample on Election Day[A]:
Stage I:
Selected random sample of counties;
* 84 unique counties across 31 states;
Requested access to visit polling places in selected counties;
* 79 counties granted GAO access.
Stage II:
Selected random sample of polling places;
* 746 possible polling places (8 polling places in most counties).
Election Day:
Conducted site visits;
* 730 polling places.
[A] See Appendix I for detailed sampling and polling place selection
methodology.
[End of table]
Objective One: Compared to 2000, More Polling Places Had No Potential
Impediments and the Most Significant Reduction Occurred at Building
Entrances:
Overview of Finding 1:
* The proportion of polling places without potential impediments in the
path to the voting area increased since 2000.
* The proportion of polling places with potential impediments that did
not offer curbside voting remained about the same.
* Polling places that had four or more potential impediments decreased.
* Potential impediments at building entrances dropped sharply.
Figure 2: 27 Percent of Polling Places Had No Potential Impediments in
the Path to the Voting Area–Up From 16 Percent in 2000:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Number of potential impediments: 0;
2000: 16%;
2008: 27%.
Number of potential impediments: 1 or more;
2000: 84%;
2008: 73%.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 7,
2000 and November 4, 2008.
The difference between the 2000 and 2008 estimates are statistically
significant. For 0 impediments, the 95-percent confidence interval for
2000 data is 11.3 to 21.6 and for 2008 data is 21.9 to 32.7. For 1 or
more impediments, the 95-percent confidence interval for 2000 data is
78.4 to 88.7 and for 2008 data is 67.3 to 78.1.
[End of figure]
Figure 3: The Proportion of Polling Places with Potential Impediments
That Did Not Offer Curbside Voting Remained about the Same:
[Refer to PDF for image: two pie charts]
2000:
Polling places with no potential impediments: 16%;
Polling places with one or more potential impediments that do offer
curbside voting: 56%;
Polling places with one or more potential impediments that do not offer
curbside voting: 28%.
2008:
Polling places with no potential impediments: 27%;
Polling places with one or more potential impediments that do offer
curbside voting: 45%;
Polling places with one or more potential impediments that do not offer
curbside voting: 27%.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data on November 7, 2000 and
November 4, 2008.
Note: The difference between the percentage of polling places with one
or more impediments that do not offer curbside voting in 2000 and 2007
data is not significant. The 2008 data is subject to sampling error of
plus or minus 8 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.
The 2008 pie chart only adds up to 99 percent because we rounded each
percentage point to the nearest whole percent.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: The Proportion of Polling Places That Had Four or More
Potential Impediments Decreased Significantly:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Number of potential impediments: 1;
2000: 20%;
2008: 23%.
Number of potential impediments: 2;
2000: 19%;
2008: 19%.
Number of potential impediments: 3;
2000: 15%;
2008: 14%.
Number of potential impediments: 4 or more[A];
2000: 29%;
2008: 16%.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 7,
2000 and November 4, 2008.
[A] The difference between 2000 and 2008 data is statistically
significant. The 95-percent confidence level for 2000 data is 22.8 to
36.2. The 95-percent confidence level for 2008 data is 12.2 to 21.1.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Potential Impediments at Building Entrances Have Dropped
Sharply Since 2000:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Area in polling place: Parking area;
2000: 33%;
2008: 36%.
Area in polling place: Path from parking area to building entrance;
2000: 57%;
2008: 50%.
Area in polling place: Building entrance[A];
2000: 59%;
2008: 25%.
Area in polling place: Path from building entrance to voting are[A]:
2000: 14%;
2008: 6%.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 7,
2000 and November 4, 2008.
[A] The difference between 2000 and 2008 data is statistically
significant. For the building entrance data, the 95-percent confidence
level for 2000 data is 16.7 to 34.2. For the path from building
entrance to voting area data, the 95-percent confidence level for 2000
data is 9.8 to 18.2 and for 2008 data is 3.7 to 8.0.
[End of figure]
[End of objective one]
Objective Two:
Most Polling Places Had Features in the Voting Area to Facilitate
Private and Independent Voting, While Some Had Features That Could Pose
Challenges:
Overview of Finding 2:
* Almost all polling places had at least one voting system to
facilitate private and independent voting for people with disabilities.
* Some voting systems had features that could pose challenges for
voters in wheelchairs.
* Most polling places offered people with disabilities the same or more
privacy for voting than offered to other voters.
Almost All Polling Places Had an Accessible Voting System:
All but one polling place we visited had an accessible voting system to
facilitate private and independent voting for people with disabilities.
* In all but a few polling places, the accessible voting system was a
voting machine.
- The accessible voting machines had special features for people with
disabilities, such as an audio function to allow voters to listen to
voting choices.
- The most common type of accessible voting machine at polling places
we visited was Automark, followed by Premier Accuvote.
* However, close to 5 percent of polling places had an accessible
voting machine that was not set up and powered on.[A]
Note: We did not assess polling places‘ legal compliance with HAVA
accessible voting system requirements.
[A] The 95-percent confidence interval for this estimate is 2.8 to 8.3.
29 Percent of Polling Places Had Voting Systems That Could Pose
Challenges for Voters in Wheelchairs:
While virtually all polling places had voting systems with accessible
machines, 29 percent of polling places had machines located in voting
stations that did not have the minimum height, width, or depth
dimensions to position a wheelchair within the station.[A]
* We did not ask GAO observers to determine if other accommodations
could be made to assist voters in wheelchairs.
[A] Based on ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities;
subject to a sampling error of plus or minus 11.4 percentage points at
the 95-percent confidence level. Access to the voting area was
restricted to GAO at 107 of 730 polling places, and therefore,
observations were not collected for those locations.
Figure 6: Most Polling Places Offered People with Disabilities the Same
or More Privacy for Voting Than Offered to Other Voters:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Same or more privacy at accessible machines than voting stations for
other voters: 77%;
Less privacy at accessible machines than voting stations for other
voters: 23%.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 4,
2008.
Note: Subject to sampling error of plus or minus 7.8 percentage points
at the 95-percent confidence level. This is based on our observations
of level of privacy and does not represent a legal evaluation of HAVA
compliance.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Next Steps:
These findings are part of our broader study designed to:
* provide additional detail on polling places with features that might
facilitate or impede voting for people with disabilities,
* identify states‘ actions to facilitate voting access for people with
disabilities, and;
* describe the steps Justice has taken to enforce HAVA voting access
provisions.
We plan to issue a report on this broader voting access study in late
September 2009.
We also plan to issue a report on voting practices for residents in
long-term care facilities in late November 2009.
[End of section]
Appendix I:
Selected a Nationwide Sample of Polling Places Using a Two-Stage
Approach: Stage One:
We selected a random sample of counties in the contiguous United States
with probability proportionate to their total population. We made 100
selections with replacement from the list of counties. We excluded
Alaska and Hawaii for cost and efficiency reasons and Oregon because
its voters exclusively use mail-in ballots.
This method allowed the possibility for counties to be selected more
than once and allowed us to select a sample that was representative of
polling places on Election Day. Out of 100 selections, we ended up with
a final selection of 84 unique counties across 31 states.
Selected a Nationwide Sample of Polling Places Using a Two-Stage
Approach: Stage Two:
We chose a random sample of 8 polling places from each county for each
time it was selected in stage one.[A] For example, we selected 8
polling places if a county was selected once, and 16 polling places if
it was selected twice.
Each set of 8 polling places was assigned to a team of two GAO staff.
[A] In two counties, less than 8 polling places were selected:one
county only had 3 polling places because it is located in a primarily
vote-by-mail state, and in another county, 1 of the 8 polling places
was a mail-in only location.
Arranged Access to Polling Places on Election Day:
We contacted state and local election officials to obtain permission to
visit polling places selected in our sample on Election Day.
* GAO received approval from 79 of the 84 unique counties in our
sample.[A]
* In several counties, state or county officials granted us access but
asked us not to enter the voting area or to wait to interview polling
place officials until after Election Day.
[A] One county where we did not gain access was selected twice in our
sample.
Conducted Polling Place Visits on Election Day 2008:
GAO teams (composed of two GAO staff) visited polling places on
Election Day”November 4, 2008”to take measurements, make observations,
and conduct a short interview with chief polling place officials. Some
of these measurements include:
* Slope of ramps or cut curbs are no steeper than 1:12;
* Surface is paved or has no abrupt change over ½ inch;
* Single-or double-door openings are 32 inches or wider.
GAO teams visited 730 of 746 (98 percent) of the polling places where
we had been granted access.
We performed our work from April 2008 to April 2009 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
This appendix provides more details about our methodology for selecting
our sample of polling places, conducting our 2008 Election Day site
visits, updating the data collection instrument (DCI), and analyzing
Election Day data.
Selection of Polling Places:
We used a two-stage sampling method to select the polling places that
we visited on Election Day--November 4, 2008. In stage one, we selected
a sample of counties. Each county we selected was treated as a
"cluster" of polling places. In stage two, we selected a sample of
polling places from within each county.
Since there is no central list of all of the polling places in the
United States, the first stage of our sampling method started with all
counties, because most elections are administered at the county level.
[Footnote 15] For cost and efficiency reasons, we confined our list of
counties to those in the contiguous United States, including the
District of Columbia, thus excluding Alaska and Hawaii. We also
excluded Oregon because eligible residents have voted almost
exclusively by mail since 1998. The total number of counties from which
we sampled was 3,074. The list of county population sizes was
constructed from 2005 American Community Survey data. We used
jurisdictions' total population size to define the probability of
selection in the first stage of sampling because these census data were
readily available for all counties and county equivalents. Although it
would have been useful to define the sample using national data on all
registered voters or all eligible voters, we did not use numbers of
registered voters because census data on registered voters were not
available at the county level nationwide. In addition, we did not use
numbers of eligible voters (individuals 18 years old and over) because
census data allowing us to exclude noncitizens and felons--groups that
are not eligible to vote--from the 18 years and over population were
also not available at the county level nationwide.
Because polling places were the unit of our analysis, we used a
sampling method known as probability proportionate to size with
replacement. In this method, the probability of selecting any county,
or cluster, varies with the size of the county, giving larger counties
a greater probability of selection and smaller counties a lower
probability. The measure of size is the population of the county
divided by the total population of all the states in our sample. Each
time a county was selected, we returned it to the sample universe,
which gave it an additional chance of being selected. Therefore, it was
possible that we could select any one county multiple times in the
sample. This method allowed us to select a sample that was
representative of polling places across the country on Election Day.
Using this sampling method, we selected a total of 84 unique counties
in 31 states, or the equivalent of 100 counties, with 12 counties being
selected more than once.[Footnote 16]
In the second stage, we selected a random sample of polling places in
each county selected in stage one. To do this, we searched the Internet
to see if each county posted a listing of its polling places. If so, we
downloaded the list.[Footnote 17] If not, we contacted county or state
officials to obtain a list of polling places. For each county list, we
selected a random sample of eight polling places for each time the
county was selected in our sample. For example, if a county was
selected once, we selected 8 polling places, and if a county was
selected two times, we selected 16 polling places. Election officials
in 79 of 84 unique counties (the equivalent of 94 of 100 counties) in
our sample granted us permission to visit on Election Day,[Footnote 18]
for a total of 746 polling places.[Footnote 19]
Description of Site Visits and the DCI:
On Election Day, November 4, 2008, GAO sent out teams of two GAO staff
to counties in our sample.[Footnote 20] Each team was equipped with a
DCI on which to record their observations and the necessary measurement
tools: the ADA Accessibility Stick IITM, a fish scale, and a tape
measure.[Footnote 21] GAO monitored the activities of the teams
throughout Election Day and provided assistance by telephone from our
Washington, D.C. headquarters.
To ensure uniform data collection across the country, we trained all
teams in how to:
* properly fill out each question on the DCI,
* use the necessary measurement tools, and:
* interview the chief poll worker in each polling place about the
accessible voting systems as well as accommodations for voters with
disabilities.
We also instructed teams on the appropriate times for visiting polling
places and not to approach voters or interfere with the voting process
in any way during their visits.
Each GAO team that visited a county on Election Day received a list of
up to eight polling places to visit.[Footnote 22] The first polling
place on their list was randomly determined. We then used geocoding
software and the address of the polling places to determine the
latitude and longitude coordinates for all of the polling places they
were scheduled to visit. The latitude and longitude coordinates were
used to determine the ordering after the first polling place, which
minimized the net travel distance. This geocoding of the addresses
allowed the GAO audit teams to minimize the travel distance between
their polling places on Election Day. 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.
In some cases, states or counties placed restrictions on our visits to
polling places. For example, laws in some states prohibit nonelection
officials from entering the voting room or voting area. Election
officials in several counties granted us access on the condition that
we not interview polling place officials on Election Day, and in
several polling places, officials were too busy assisting voters to be
interviewed.[Footnote 23] In these cases, we e-mailed and/or called
chief polling place officials after Election Day to complete the
interview. Polling place officials contacted after Election Day were
asked the same questions as the officials interviewed on Election Day.
Due to constraints of time and geography, some teams were not able to
visit all eight polling places, but overall, GAO teams were able to
visit 98 percent of randomly selected polling places, or 730 of 746
polling places in 79 counties across 31 states.
GAO teams used a DCI that was similar to the one used in our 2000 study
of polling places to record observations and measurements taken inside
and outside of the polling place and capture responses from our
interviews with chief polling place officials. However, we updated the
DCI based on changes that have occurred in federal laws and guidance
since 2000. The primary sources we used to determine the most current
requirements and standards for evaluating polling place accessibility
were the voting system requirements specified in the Help America Vote
Act of 2002 (HAVA)[Footnote 24] and polling place accessibility
guidance in the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for
Polling Places, issued by the Department of Justice in 2004.[Footnote
25] In addition, disability advocates and representatives of the U.S.
Access Board reviewed a draft version of our DCI, and we incorporated
their comments as appropriate. We also received input from officials of
the Department of Justice, Election Assistance Commission, and national
organizations that represented election officials. Finally, to ensure
that GAO teams could fill out the instrument in the field and complete
it in a reasonable amount of time, we pretested the DCI during the
presidential primary election in South Dakota in June 2008 and the
congressional primary election in Wisconsin in September 2008.
Analysis of Election Day Data:
In analyzing the data collected on Election Day, we first examined
features that might facilitate or impede access on the path to the
voting area.[Footnote 26] In doing so, we looked at features at four
different locations at the polling place: the parking area, the path
from the parking area to the building entrance, the building entrance,
and the path from the building entrance to the voting area. These
features included:
* Slope of ramps or cut curbs along the path are no steeper than 1:12.
* Surface is paved or has no abrupt changes over ½ inch.
* Doorway threshold does not exceed ½ inch in height.
* Single-or double-door openings are 32 inches or wider.
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 feature that might impede access to voting in any of
the four locations we examined and does not include potential
impediments associated with the voting area itself.
While features of the voting area were not included in our summary
measure of whether a polling place had a potential impediment, we did
look for features that might facilitate or impede private and
independent voting inside the voting area. We identified the types of
voting methods available to voters with and without disabilities and
took measurements of the voting station or table used by people with
disabilities to determine whether wheelchairs could fit inside the
station or under the table and whether equipment was within reach for
wheelchair users. We collected information on the accessible voting
systems required under HAVA to determine the extent to which the system
had features that might facilitate voting for people with disabilities
and allow them to vote privately and independently. We also briefly
interviewed chief poll workers at most of the polling places we visited
to find out whether curbside voting was available and how the poll
workers would handle voter requests for assistance from a friend,
relative, or election official.
Sampling Errors:
All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, which is the extent
to which the survey results differ from what would have been obtained
if the whole universe of polling places 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 range of possible values for a
given estimate, 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.
[End of briefing slides section]
Appendix III: Alphabetical List of Counties Randomly Selected for Site
Visits on Election Day, November 4, 2008:
Number of county selected: 1;
County: Allegany[A];
State: Maryland;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 2;
County: Allegheny;
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 3.
Number of county selected: 3;
County: Anderson;
State: Texas;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 4;
County: Anoka;
State: Minnesota;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 2.
Number of county selected: 5;
County: Ashland;
State: Ohio;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 6;
County: Bannock;
State: Idaho;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 7;
County: Berks[A];
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 2.
Number of county selected: 8;
County: Brazoria;
State: Texas;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 9;
County: Bristol;
State: Massachusetts;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 10;
County: Broward;
State: Florida;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 11;
County: Centre;
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 12;
County: Clarion;
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 13;
County: Columbiana;
State: Ohio;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 14;
County: Cumberland;
State: Maine;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 15;
County: Cuyahoga;
State: Ohio;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 16;
County: Dallas;
State: Texas;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 17;
County: Del Norte;
State: California;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 18;
County: Denton;
State: Texas;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 19;
County: Denver;
State: Colorado;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 20;
County: District of Columbia;
State: Washington, D.C.;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 21;
County: Douglas;
State: Colorado;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 22;
County: East Baton Rouge Parish;
State: Louisiana;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 23;
County: Elkhart;
State: Indiana;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 24;
County: Estill;
State: Kentucky;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 25;
County: Fairfax;
State: Virginia;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 26;
County: Franklin;
State: Ohio;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 27;
County: Franklin[A];
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 28;
County: Greenville;
State: South Carolina;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 29;
County: Gwinnett;
State: Georgia;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 2.
Number of county selected: 30;
County: Harris;
State: Texas;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 31;
County: Hillsborough;
State: Florida;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 32;
County: Howard;
State: Maryland;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 33;
County: Huntington;
State: Indiana;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 34;
County: Indiana;
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 35;
County: Lafayette;
State: Mississippi;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 36;
County: Lake;
State: Ohio;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 37;
County: Lancaster;
State: Nebraska;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 38;
County: Lancaster;
State: South Carolina;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 39;
County: Lauderdale;
State: Alabama;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 40;
County: Lincoln;
State: Kentucky;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 41;
County: Lincoln;
State: Maine;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 42;
County: Los Angeles;
State: California;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 2.
Number of county selected: 43;
County: Macon;
State: Illinois;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 44;
County: Madison;
State: Ohio;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 45;
County: Mahoning;
State: Ohio;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 46;
County: Maricopa;
State: Arizona;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 2.
Number of county selected: 47;
County: Marion;
State: Indiana;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 48;
County: McPherson;
State: Kansas;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 49;
County: Medina;
State: Ohio;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 50;
County: Miami-Dade;
State: Florida;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 2.
Number of county selected: 51;
County: Middlesex;
State: Massachusetts;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 52;
County: Mitchell;
State: Georgia;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 53;
County: Monmouth;
State: New Jersey;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 2.
Number of county selected: 54;
County: Monterey;
State: California;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 55;
County: Montgomery;
State: Maryland;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 56;
County: New York City[B];
State: New York;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 5.
Number of county selected: 57;
County: Newton;
State: Georgia;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 58;
County: Ocean;
State: New Jersey;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 59;
County: Philadelphia[A];
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 60;
County: Pima;
State: Arizona;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 61;
County: Pinellas;
State: Florida;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 2.
Number of county selected: 62;
County: Rice;
State: Minnesota;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 63;
County: Rockford City;
State: Illinois;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 64;
County: Russell;
State: Kansas;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 65;
County: Sacramento;
State: California;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 2.
Number of county selected: 66;
County: San Diego;
State: California;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 2.
Number of county selected: 67;
County: San Luis Obispo;
State: California;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 68;
County: Santa Clara;
State: California;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 69;
County: Saratoga;
State: New York;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 70;
County: Sherburne;
State: Minnesota;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 71;
County: Stafford;
State: Virginia;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 72;
County: Stark;
State: Ohio;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 73;
County: Sullivan[A];
State: New York;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 74;
County: Swisher;
State: Texas;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 75;
County: Travis;
State: Texas;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 76;
County: Tulsa;
State: Oklahoma;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 77;
County: Virginia Beach city;
State: Virginia;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 78;
County: Wake;
State: North Carolina;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 79;
County: Washington;
State: Utah;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 80;
County: Wayne;
State: Michigan;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 81;
County: Weber;
State: Utah;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 82;
County: Westmoreland;
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 83;
County: Will;
State: Illinois;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of county selected: 84;
County: Yakima;
State: Washington;
Number of times county selected in random sample: 1.
Number of times county selected in random sample: 100.
[End of table]
Notes: We selected counties and cities that are county-equivalents for
Census purposes.
[A] We were not granted permission to visit polling places in this
county on Election Day.
[B] Because New York City manages elections at the city level, we
treated it as one county when selecting our random sample.
Source: GAO.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Barbara D. Bovjberg, (202) 512-7215 or bovjbergb@gao.gov William O.
Jenkins, Jr., (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Brett Fallavollita, Assistant Director, and Laura Heald, Analyst-in-
Charge, managed this assignment. Carolyn Blocker, Katherine Bowman,
Ryan Siegel, and Amber Yancey-Carroll made significant contributions to
this report in all aspects of the work. Jason Palmer, Susan Pachikara,
Gretta Goodwin, and numerous staff from headquarters and field offices
provided assistance with Election Day data collection. Carl Barden,
George Quinn, and Walter Vance provided analytical assistance; Alex
Galuten provided legal support; Jessica Orr provided assistance on
report preparation; Mimi Nguyen developed the report's graphics; and
Kathy Peyman, Nancy Purvine, and Paul Wright verified our findings.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Elections: States, Territories, and the District Are Taking a Range of
Important Steps to Manage Their Varied Voting System Environments.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-874]. Washington, D.C.:
September 25, 2008.
Elections: 2007 Survey of State Voting System Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1147SP]. Washington, D.C.: September
25, 2008.
Elections: Federal Program for Certifying Voting Systems Needs to Be
Further Defined, Fully Implemented, and Expanded. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-814]. Washington, D.C.: September
16, 2008.
Election Assistance Commission--Availability of Funds for Purchase of
Replacement Voting Equipment. B-316107. Washington, D.C.: March 19,
2008.
Elderly Voters: Some Improvements in Voting Accessibility from 2000 to
2004 Elections, but Gaps in Policy and Implementation Remain.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-442T]. Washington, D.C.:
January 31, 2008.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic
Voting System Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-741T]. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2007.
Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected in the
November 2004 General Election. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-450]. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006.
Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of
Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be
Completed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-956].
Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005.
Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-975T].
Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
Elections: A Framework for Evaluating Reform Proposals. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-90]. Washington, D.C.: October 15,
2001.
Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative
Voting Methods. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-107].
Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See Douglas L. Kruse et al., A Study of the Political Behavior of
People with Disabilities, What Determines Voter Turnout, Executive
Summary, Empowerment Through Civic Participation, Final Report to the
Disability Research Consortium Bureau of Economic Research, Rutgers
University and New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council (April
1999).
[2] GAO, Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and
Alternative Voting Methods, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-107] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15,
2001).
[3] GAO, Elderly Voters: Some Improvements in Voting Accessibility from
2000 to 2004 Elections, but Gaps in Policy and Implementation Remain,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-442T] (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 31, 2008).
[4] 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, in-person absentee voting, or early voting.
[5] We excluded Alaska and Hawaii for cost and efficiency reasons and
Oregon because voters exclusively use mail-in ballots.
[6] The 730 polling places we visited on Election Day were located in
79 of the 84 counties we selected for our sample because 5 counties did
not grant GAO access to polling places on Election Day. In addition, in
several counties, state or county officials granted us access but
placed restrictions on our visits, such as preventing us from entering
the voting area.
[7] To update our DCI, we reviewed relevant laws such as HAVA and
documentation related to polling place accessibility, such as the
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights
Section, Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling
Places (Washington, D.C., February 2004).
[8] The 95-percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 11.3 to 21.6
and for 2008 data is 21.9 to 32.7. The difference between the 2000 and
2008 estimates are statistically significant.
[9] This data is subject to sampling error of plus or minus 8
percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.
[10] The 95-percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 22.8 to 36.2.
The 95-percent confidence interval for 2008 data is 12.2 to 21.1. The
difference between 2000 and 2008 data is statistically significant.
[11] This data is subject to sampling error of plus or minus 6.9
percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level.
[12] For the building entrance data, the 95-percent confidence interval
for 2000 data is 51.6 to 66.4 and for 2008 data is 16.7 to 34.2. The
difference between 2000 and 2008 data is statistically significant.
[13] Based on ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and
Facilities; subject to sampling error of plus or minus 11.4 percentage
points at the 95-percent confidence level. Access to the voting area
was restricted to GAO at 107 of 730 polling places, and therefore,
observations were not collected for those locations.
[14] This data is subject to sampling error of plus or minus 7.8
percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level. This is based on
our observations of level of privacy and does not represent a legal
evaluation of HAVA compliance.
[15] We selected counties and cities that are county-equivalents for
census purposes. In eight counties in our sample, officials at the
subcounty level, such as towns and cities, administer elections.
[16] See appendix III for a list of the counties we visited.
[17] In cases where we downloaded a list of polling places from the
Internet, we confirmed with county election officials that this was the
most current list. In counties where township or city officials
administered elections, we contacted all townships or cities within the
county and asked for their lists of polling places as well as their
permission to visit polling places in their jurisdiction.
[18] One county where we did not gain access was selected twice in our
sample.
[19] Two counties had less than eight polling places: One county only
had three polling places because it is in a primarily vote-by-mail
state, and in another county, one of the eight polling places was a
mail-in only location.
[20] Representatives of state or county election officials accompanied
GAO teams in six counties, but they did not participate in the team's
observations or interviews with polling place officials.
[21] The ADA Accessibility Stick IITM is a tool designed to measure
potential structural impediments in buildings and on walkways. It was
designed and manufactured by Access, Inc., Lawrence, Kan. The fish
scale was used to measure the force required to open a door and was
included in our study as a pilot measure.
[22] The types of buildings used for polling places varied widely but
typically included houses of worship, schools, libraries, courthouses,
police or fire stations, and community centers.
[23] State or county election officials restricted GAO teams from
interviewing polling place officials in 10 counties on Election Day,
although we were allowed to interview officials in all but 1 county
after Election Day.
[24] HAVA requires that each polling place have at least one voting
system for use in federal elections that is accessible for voters with
disabilities and provide the same opportunity for people with
disabilities to vote privately and independently as afforded by voting
systems available to other voters.
[25] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability
Rights Section, Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for
Polling Places (Washington, D.C., February 2004). This checklist is a
self-help survey that voting officials can use to determine whether a
polling place has basic accessible features needed by most voters with
disabilities.
[26] We did not assess polling places' legal compliance with HAVA
accessible voting system requirements.
[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 "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
