Voters with Disabilities
Additional Monitoring of Polling Places Could Further Improve Accessibility Gao ID: GAO-09-941 September 30, 2009Voting is fundamental to our democracy, and federal law generally requires polling places to be accessible to all eligible voters for federal elections, including voters with disabilities. 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 (HAVA), which required each polling place to have an accessible voting system. We examined (1) the proportion of polling places during the 2008 federal election with features that might facilitate or impede access for voters with disabilities compared to our findings from 2000; (2) actions states are taking to facilitate voting access; and (3) steps the Department of Justice (Justice) has taken to enforce HAVA voting access provisions. GAO visited 730 randomly selected polling places across the country, representing polling places nationwide, on Election Day 2008. GAO also surveyed states and interviewed federal officials.
Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible voting system. In 2008, based upon our survey of polling places, we estimate that 27.3 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path from the parking to the voting area--up from16 percent in 2000; 45.3 percent had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27.4 percent had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting. All but one polling place we visited had an accessible voting system--typically, an electronic machine in a voting station--to facilitate private and independent voting for people with disabilities. However, 46 percent of polling places had an accessible voting system that could pose a challenge to certain voters with disabilities, such as voting stations that were not arranged to accommodate voters using wheelchairs. Most states have established accessibility requirements and funded improvements to help facilitate accessible voting, and all states reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting methods. In 2008, 43 states reported that they required accessibility standards for polling places, up from 23 states in 2000. Additionally, most states reported that they used federal HAVA funds to improve the physical accessibility of polling places. Further, all states reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting methods, such as absentee voting. At the same time, 31 states reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was challenging. Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility and conducted an initial assessment of states' compliance with HAVA's January 2006 deadline for accessible voting systems. Since then, Justice's oversight of HAVA's access requirements is part of two other enforcement efforts, but gaps remain. While Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility, this guidance does not address accessibility of the voting area itself. Justice currently conducts polling place observations for federal elections that identifies whether an accessible voting system is in place, but it does not systematically assess the physical accessibility of polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided to voters with disabilities. Justice also conducts a small number of annual community assessments of Americans with Disabilities Act compliance of public buildings, which includes buildings designated as polling places. However, these assessments do not provide a national perspective on polling place accessibility or assess any special features of the voting area and the accessible voting system that are set up only on Election Day.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-941, Voters with Disabilities: Additional Monitoring of Polling Places Could Further Improve Accessibility
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-941
entitled 'Voters With Disabilities: Additional Monitoring of Polling
Places Could Further Improve Accessibility' which was released on
October 27, 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:
September 2009:
Voters With Disabilities:
Additional Monitoring of Polling Places Could Further Improve
Accessibility:
GAO-09-941:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-941, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Voting is fundamental to our democracy, and federal law generally
requires polling places to be accessible to all eligible voters for
federal elections, including voters with disabilities. 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 (HAVA), which required each polling place
to have an accessible voting system. We examined (1) the proportion of
polling places during the 2008 federal election with features that
might facilitate or impede access for voters with disabilities compared
to our findings from 2000; (2) actions states are taking to facilitate
voting access; and (3) steps the Department of Justice (Justice) has
taken to enforce HAVA voting access provisions. GAO visited 730
randomly selected polling places across the country, representing
polling places nationwide, on Election Day 2008. GAO also surveyed
states and interviewed federal officials.
What GAO Found:
Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential
impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible
voting system. In 2008, based upon our survey of polling places, we
estimate that 27.3 percent of polling places had no potential
impediments in the path from the parking to the voting area”up from16
percent in 2000; 45.3 percent had potential impediments but offered
curbside voting; and the remaining 27.4 percent had potential
impediments and did not offer curbside voting. All but one polling
place we visited had an accessible voting system”typically, an
electronic machine in a voting station”to facilitate private and
independent voting for people with disabilities. However, 46 percent of
polling places had an accessible voting system that could pose a
challenge to certain voters with disabilities, such as voting stations
that were not arranged to accommodate voters using wheelchairs.
Most states have established accessibility requirements and funded
improvements to help facilitate accessible voting, and all states
reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative
voting methods. In 2008, 43 states reported that they required
accessibility standards for polling places, up from 23 states in 2000.
Additionally, most states reported that they used federal HAVA funds to
improve the physical accessibility of polling places. Further, all
states reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer
alternative voting methods, such as absentee voting. At the same time,
31 states reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was
challenging.
Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility and conducted
an initial assessment of states‘ compliance with HAVA‘s January 2006
deadline for accessible voting systems. Since then, Justice‘s oversight
of HAVA‘s access requirements is part of two other enforcement efforts,
but gaps remain. While Justice provided guidance on polling place
accessibility, this guidance does not address accessibility of the
voting area itself. Justice currently conducts polling place
observations for federal elections that identifies whether an
accessible voting system is in place, but it does not systematically
assess the physical accessibility of polling places or the level of
privacy and independence provided to voters with disabilities. Justice
also conducts a small number of annual community assessments of
Americans with Disabilities Act compliance of public buildings, which
includes buildings designated as polling places. However, these
assessments do not provide a national perspective on polling place
accessibility or assess any special features of the voting area and the
accessible voting system that are set up only on Election Day.
Figure: Two photographs:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Sign marking accessible voting route; Accessible voting machine.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Justice expand its monitoring and oversight of
polling place accessibility. Justice generally agreed with this
recommendation, but had concerns about expanding the scope of Election
Day observations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-941] 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]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The Proportion of Polling Places Without Potential Impediments
Increased Since 2000:
Most States Have Established Requirements and Funded Improvements to
Help Facilitate Voter Accessibility:
Justice Assessed States' Implementation of HAVA Requirements for The
2006 Deadline, But Its Current Oversight Has Some Gaps:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: List of Counties Randomly Selected for Site Visits on
Election Day, November 4, 2008:
Appendix III: Summary Of Justice Voting Section's Internal Process For
Handling HAVA-Related Matters And Cases:
Appendix IV: List of Potential Features That Might Impede Access to
Voting in a Polling Place:
Appendix V: State Requirements for Accessibility of Polling Places,
Alternative Voting Methods, and Accommodations to Facilitate Voting:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Justice:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Election Assistance Commission:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Comparison of Specific Features from the Parking Area to the
Voting Area of Polling Places That Might Impede Voting Access in 2000
and 2008:
Table 2: Type of Assistance That Polling Place Officials Would Provide
to Help People with Disabilities Operate or Overcome Difficulties While
Voting on the Accessible Machine:
Table 3: Extent to Which Voting System Features to Facilitate Private
and Independent Voting at Polling Places Were Not Met:
Table 4: State Challenges in Implementing Various Aspects of HAVA:
Table 5: Examples of Reasons That Some States Permitted for Absentee
Voting:
Table 6: Summary of Changes in State Requirements Concerning
Accessibility of Polling Places from the 2000 to the 2008 General
Elections:
Table 7: State Provisions Concerning Accessibility of Polling Places
and Accommodations for Individuals with Disabilities as of the November
2004 and 2008 Federal Elections:
Table 8: Changes in State Requirements Concerning Alternative Voting
Methods from the 2000 to the 2008 General Elections:
Figures:
Figure 1: Example of DRE Instructions and Equipment:
Figure 2: Ballot Marking Device:
Figure 3: Vote-by-Phone System:
Figure 4: Comparison in Prevalence of Potential Impediments in 2000 and
2008:
Figure 5: Key Polling Place Features That We Examined:
Figure 6: Key Locations of One or More Potential Impediments at Polling
Places in 2000 and 2008:
Figure 7: Example of a Polling Place with Inadequately Marked Parking
for People with Disabilities and Unramped and Uncut Curb:
Figure 8: Comparison of the Proportion of Polling Places That Had One
or More Potential Impediments in 2000 and 2008:
Figure 9: Type of Accessible Voting Machines:
Figure 10: Example of Voting Station for People with Disabilities:
Figure 11: State Requirements Concerning the Accessibility of Polling
Places, as of Election Days 2000 and 2008:
Figure 12: Example of State Guidance for Setting Up the Voting Room in
the Polling Place and for Placement of the Accessible Voting Machine:
Figure 13: Accommodations That States Required Local Jurisdictions to
Offer to Voters with Disabilities, as of Election Days 2000 and 2008:
Figure 14: Examples of Some Measurements and Items for Observation That
Were Used to Train GAO Teams for Election Day Visits:
Abbreviations:
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990:
DCI: data collection instrument:
DRE: direct recording electronic:
EAC: Election Assistance Commission:
HAVA: Help America Vote Act of 2002:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
VAEHA: Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 30, 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 the elderly and voters with
disabilities. In particular, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly
and Handicapped Act (VAEHA) requires that, with a few exceptions,
political subdivisions responsible for conducting elections ensure that
polling places used in federal elections are accessible to voters with
disabilities. 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 by various
barriers posed by polling place facilities and voting methods--is part
of a larger set of challenges these officials face in administering
elections on a periodic basis. In fact, 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 1] The number of voters who may face
difficulties exercising their right to vote due to mobility and other
impairments could grow as the proportion of the population age 65 and
older is expected to grow from 12 percent of the population in 2003 to
more than 20 percent of the population by 2030. 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 2]
Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to address
these and other challenges encountered 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 that, according to HAVA, must provide people with disabilities
the same opportunity for voting privately and independently as is
afforded to other voters. In addition, HAVA created the Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) to serve, among other purposes, as a
clearinghouse and information resource for election officials with
respect to the administration of federal elections. HAVA also required
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide annual
grants to state and local governments to improve the accessibility of
voting systems and polling places, and a total of $79.5 million has
been appropriated for this purpose since 2003.[Footnote 3] While our
work since the passage of HAVA has reported improvements in state
provisions and local practices to ensure accessibility of polling
places, the extent to which these provisions and practices have
improved accessibility nationally is unknown.[Footnote 4] To address
these issues, 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) the proportion of polling places
that have features 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; (2) the actions states are taking to
facilitate voting for people with disabilities; and (3) the steps the
Department of Justice (Justice) has taken to enforce HAVA voting access
provisions. We provided some preliminary findings on the proportion of
polling places that had features 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 in a report that we issued
earlier this year.[Footnote 5] We also plan to issue a report on voting
practices in long-term care facilities later this year.
To estimate the proportion of polling places with features that might
facilitate or impede access to voting for people with disabilities, 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 6] 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.
Each time a county was selected, we returned it to the sample universe,
which gave it an additional chance of being selected. Therefore, some
counties with large populations were selected multiple times, resulting
in a final selection of 84 unique counties in 31 states (which was the
equivalent of 100 counties). This method allowed us to select a sample
that was representative of polling places across the country on
Election Day. The second stage involved randomly selecting 8 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
7] At each polling place, we took measurements and made observations of
facility features that could facilitate access to the voting area--such
as accessible parking and door thresholds that do not exceed ½ inch in
height. We also identified voting methods and features that could
facilitate or impede private and independent voting for people with
disabilities in the voting area, such as voting stations that were
properly configured for a wheelchair.[Footnote 8] In addition, we
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 in a data collection instrument (DCI) we
developed. The DCI was similar to the one used in our 2000 study of
polling places, but we updated it to incorporate changes that have
occurred in federal laws and guidance since 2000.[Footnote 9]
This study focused on features in the path leading from the parking
area to the voting area that might facilitate or impede access to
voting for people with disabilities, as well as challenges to private
and independent voting in the voting area. 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 or other
federal laws, and we did not test the accessible capabilities of these
voting systems.
To address our second and third objectives, we administered a Web-based
survey of election officials in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands)[Footnote 10] between December 2008 and
February 2009. We received a 100 percent response rate. We also
searched state election Web sites to better understand and illustrate
states' actions to facilitate voting for people with disabilities, and
obtained and reviewed relevant documentation for selected states. The
scope of this work did not include contacting election officials from
each state and local jurisdiction to verify survey responses or other
information provided by state officials. Also, we did not analyze
states' laws to determine their voting access requirements, but instead
relied on the states' responses to our survey.
To determine what actions Justice has taken to enforce HAVA voting
access provisions, we interviewed Justice officials and reviewed
relevant federal laws, guidance, and other documentation. We also
reviewed citizen complaints from Election Day 2008 that Justice
provided to us, and all three complaints containing a HAVA voting
access claim that Justice filed against states or election
jurisdictions since HAVA was enacted in 2002. In addition, we
interviewed officials from EAC, HHS, national organizations that
represented election officials, and disability advocacy organizations.
We conducted our work from April 2008 through September 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. See appendix I for
additional information on our scope and methodology, and appendix II
for a list of counties that we randomly selected for site visits on
Election Day.
Background:
Holding federal elections in the United States is a massive enterprise,
administered primarily at the local level. On federal Election Day,
millions of voters across the country visit polling places, which are
located in schools, recreation centers, churches, various government
buildings, and even private homes.[Footnote 11] For the 2008 federal
election, state and local election officials recruited and trained
about 2 million poll workers across the country. Generally, each of the
50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories also play a
role in elections, by establishing election laws and policies for their
respective election jurisdictions. While federal elections are
generally conducted under state laws and policies, several federal laws
apply to voting and some provisions specifically address accessibility
issues for voters with disabilities. These federal laws collectively
address two issues that are essential to ensuring that voters with
disabilities can go to polling places and cast their ballots
independently and privately as do nondisabled voters. These two issues
are physical access and voting systems that enable people with
disabilities to cast a private and independent vote.
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act:
In 1984, Congress enacted VAEHA, which required political subdivisions
responsible for conducting elections to ensure that all polling places
for federal elections are accessible to elderly voters and voters with
disabilities, with limited exceptions. One such exception occurs when
the chief election officer of the state determines that no accessible
polling places are available in a political subdivision, and that
officer ensures that any elderly voter or voter with a disability
assigned to an inaccessible polling place will, upon advance request,
either be assigned to an accessible polling place or will be provided
with an alternative means to cast a ballot on the day of the election.
Under the VAEHA, the definition of "accessible" is determined under
guidelines established by the state's chief election officer, but the
law does not specify standards or minimum requirements for those
guidelines. Additionally, states are required to make available voting
aids for elderly voters and voters with disabilities, including
instructions printed in large type at each polling place and
information by telecommunications devices for the deaf.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990:
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) also
contains provisions that help increase the accessibility of voting for
individuals with disabilities. Specifically, title II and its
implementing regulations require that people with disabilities have
access to basic public services, including the right to vote. Although
the ADA does not strictly require all polling places to be accessible,
public entities must make reasonable modifications in policies,
practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination against people with
disabilities. Moreover, no person with a disability may, by reason of
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 redesigning equipment, reassigning services to
accessible buildings or alternative accessible sites, or altering
existing facilities or constructing new ones.[Footnote 12] However,
state and local governments are not required to take actions that would
threaten the historical significance of a historic property,
fundamentally alter the nature of a service, or impose any undue
financial and administrative burdens. Moreover, a public entity is not
required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other
methods are effective in achieving compliance.
Title III of the ADA covers commercial facilities and places of public
accommodation, such as private schools and privately operated
recreational centers that may also be used as polling places.[Footnote
13] Public accommodations must make reasonable modifications in
policies, practices, or procedures to facilitate access for people with
disabilities. These facilities are also required to remove physical
barriers in existing buildings when it is "readily achievable" to do
so, that is, when the removal can be done without much difficulty or
expense, given the entity's resources. When the removal of an
architectural barrier cannot be accomplished easily, the entity may
take alternative measures to facilitate accessibility. All buildings
newly constructed by public accommodations and commercial facilities
must be readily accessible, and any alterations to an existing building
are required, to the maximum extent feasible, to be readily accessible
to people with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs.
[Footnote 14]
The Voting Rights Act of 1965:
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, provides for voter
assistance in the voting room. Specifically, the Voting Rights Act,
among other things, authorizes voting assistance for blind, disabled,
or illiterate persons. Voters who require assistance to vote by reason
of blindness, disability, or the 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.
Help America Vote Act of 2002:
Most recently, Congress passed HAVA, which contains a number of
provisions to help increase the accessibility of voting for people with
disabilities. In particular, section 301(a) of HAVA outlines minimum
standards for voting systems used in federal elections. This section
specifically states that the voting system must be accessible for
people with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the
blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same
opportunity for access and participation as is provided for other
voters. To satisfy this requirement, each polling place must have at
least one direct recording electronic or other voting system equipped
for people with disabilities.
HAVA established the EAC as an agency with wide-ranging duties to help
improve state and local administration of federal elections. Among
other things, the EAC is responsible for (1) providing voluntary
guidance to states implementing certain HAVA provisions; (2) serving as
a national clearinghouse of election-related information and a resource
for information with respect to the administration of federal
elections; (3) providing for the certification of voting systems; and
(4) periodically conducting and making publicly available studies
regarding methods of ensuring accessibility of voting, polling places,
and voting equipment to all voters, including people with disabilities.
The EAC also makes grants for the research and development of new
voting equipment and technologies and the improvement of voting
systems. Furthermore, HAVA requires the Secretary of HHS to make yearly
payments to each eligible state and unit of local government to be used
for (1) making polling places accessible for people with disabilities
and (2) providing people with disabilities with information on
accessible polling places.
HAVA vests enforcement authority with the U.S. Attorney General to
bring a civil action against any state or jurisdiction as may be
necessary to carry out specified uniform and nondiscriminatory election
technology and administration requirements under HAVA. These
requirements pertain to HAVA voting system standards, provisional
voting and voting information,[Footnote 15] the computerized statewide
voter registration list, and voter registration by mail. The Voting
Section, within Justice's Civil Rights Division, is responsible for
enforcement of civil provisions of federal voting laws, such as HAVA.
The Voting Section's internal process for initiating HAVA-related
matters and cases consists of four phases: initiation, investigation,
complaint justification, and litigation. See appendix III for an
overview of this internal process. The Disability Rights Section, also
within the Civil Rights Division, is primarily responsible for
protecting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA, which
includes ensuring that people with disabilities have access to basic
services, such as voting.
Accessible Voting Systems for People with Disabilities:
Providing an accessible voting system encompasses both the voting
method and the operation of the system. In terms of the voting method,
HAVA specifically identifies direct recording electronic systems to
facilitate voting for people with disabilities or other voting systems
equipped for people with disabilities. For the most part, these systems
are electronic machines or devices equipped with features to assist
voters with disabilities. A brief description of these types of systems
follows.
Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Devices. DRE devices capture votes
electronically (see figure 1). These devices come in two basic models:
push button or touch screen. DRE ballots are marked by a voter pressing
a button or touching a screen that highlights the selected candidate's
name or an issue. Voters can change their selections until they select
the final "vote" button or screen, which casts their vote. These
devices can be equipped with such features as an audio ballot and audio
voting instructions for the blind.
Figure 1: Example of DRE Instructions and Equipment:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph and instructions]
Photograph: DRE voting unit;
Instructions: DRE voting instructions.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Ballot Marking Devices. These devices use electronic technology to mark
an optical scan ballot at voter direction, interpret the ballot
selections, communicate the interpretation for voter verification, and
then print a voter-verified ballot. A ballot marking device integrates
components such as an optical scanner, printer, touch-screen monitor,
and a navigational keypad (see figure 2). Voters use the device's
accessible interface to record their choices on a paper or digital
ballot. For example, voters with visual impairments will use an audio
interface as well as a Braille keypad to make a selection. Voters who
prefer to vote in an alternate language can also utilize the audio
interface. Voters with disabilities can make their selection using a
foot-pedal or a sip-and-puff device.[Footnote 16]
Figure 2: Ballot Marking Device:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Source: Election Systems & Software.
[End of figure]
Vote-by-Phone. Vote-by-phone systems use electronic technology to mark
paper ballots. This system is made up of a standard touch-tone
telephone and a printer (see figure 3). When voters call from a polling
place to connect to the system, the ballot is read to the voters who
then make choices using the telephone keypad. The system then prints
out a paper ballot at either a central location (central print) or a
polling site (fax print). Central print ballots are read back to the
voter over the telephone for verification, after which the voter can
decide to cast the ballot or discard it and revote. Fax print ballots
produce a physical ballot at the polling place for the voter to review,
verify, and cast in a ballot box.
Figure 3: Vote-by-Phone System:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: Maine, Department of the Secretary of State, Division of
Elections.
[End of figure]
Regarding accessible voting system operation, HAVA specifies that the
voting system must be accessible for people with disabilities, in a
manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation
as is provided for other voters. The operation of the voting system is
the responsibility of local election officials at individual polling
places. For the voting system to be accessible,[Footnote 17] the system
should be turned on, equipped with special features such as ear phones,
set up to accommodate voters using wheelchairs, and positioned in a way
to provide the same level of privacy as is afforded to other voters.
Also, poll workers should be knowledgeable of the operation of the
voting system to provide assistance, if needed.
Alternative Voting Methods:
As we have previously mentioned, the VAEHA requires that any elderly
voter or voter with a disability who is 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. However, states generally
regulate absentee voting and other alternative voting method
provisions, which provide voters with disabilities with additional
voting options.[Footnote 18] Alternative voting methods may include
curbside voting; taking a ballot 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 19]
The Proportion of Polling Places Without Potential Impediments
Increased Since 2000:
Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential
impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible
voting system. In 2008, based upon our survey of polling places, we
estimate that 27.3 percent of polling places had no potential
impediments in the path from the parking area to the voting area--up
from 16 percent in 2000; 45.3 percent had potential impediments but
offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27.4 percent had potential
impediments and did not offer curbside voting. All but one polling
place we visited had an accessible voting system to facilitate private
and independent voting for people with disabilities. However, 46
percent of polling places had an accessible voting system that could
pose a challenge to certain voters with disabilities, such as voting
stations that were not arranged to accommodate voters using
wheelchairs.
While Polling Places Without Potential Impediments Increased, Most Had
Potential Impediments Outside of or at Building Entrances:
In 2008, we estimate that 27 percent of polling places had no potential
impediments in the path from the parking area to the voting area--up
from 16 percent in 2000 (see figure 4).[Footnote 20] Potential
impediments included a lack of accessible parking and obstacles en
route from the parking area to the voting area.
Figure 4: Comparison in Prevalence of Potential Impediments in 2000 and
2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Number of potential impediments: 0;
Percentage of polling places, 2000: 16%;
Percentage of polling places, 2008: 27%.
Number of potential impediments: 1 or more;
Percentage of polling places, 2000: 84%;
Percentage of polling places, 2008: 73%.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 7,
2000, and November 4, 2008.
Note: 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 5 shows some key polling place features that we examined, and
appendix IV contains a complete list of potential impediments. These
features primarily affect individuals with mobility impairments, in
particular voters using wheelchairs.[Footnote 21]
Figure 5: Key Polling Place Features That We Examined:
[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 system.
Sources: Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines; GAO
and Art Explosion (images).
[End of figure]
Many of the polling places that had potential impediments offered
curbside voting or other accommodations to assist voters who may have
had difficulty getting to or making their way through a polling place.
For all polling places, we found that 45.3 percent had one or more
potential impediments and offered curbside voting, 27.4 percent had
potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting, and 27.3
percent had no potential impediments.[Footnote 22] Some polling places
provided assistance to voters by bringing a paper ballot or provisional
ballot to a voter in a vehicle. In addition to curbside voting,
officials we interviewed at most polling places said they would provide
assistance to help people with disabilities vote in the polling place.
For example, some polling places had wheelchairs available, if needed.
Similar to our findings in 2000, the majority of potential impediments
at polling places in 2008 occurred outside of or at the building
entrance, although improvements were made in some areas. Fifty percent
of polling places had one or more potential impediments in the path
from the parking area to the building entrance (see figure 6).[Footnote
23] At the same time, the percentage of polling places with potential
impediments at the building entrance dropped sharply--from 59 percent
in 2000 to 25 percent in 2008.[Footnote 24] As shown in table 1, the
most common potential impediments in 2008 were steep ramps or curb cuts
in the parking area, unpaved or poor surfaces in the path from the
parking lot or route to the building entrance, and door thresholds
exceeding ½ inch in height. Figure 7 shows an example of a polling
place with two potential impediments from the parking area to the
building entrance. It is important to note that our assessment of
polling places in 2000 did not include measurements of ramps or curb
cuts in the parking area.[Footnote 25] With this additional
accessibility indicator, we did not see a reduction of potential
impediments in the parking area overall. However, polling places made
significant gains in providing designated parking for people with
disabilities, which decreased from 32 percent with no designated
parking in 2000 to only 3 percent in 2008.[Footnote 26]
Figure 6: Key Locations of One or More Potential Impediments at Polling
Places in 2000 and 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Area at polling place: Parking area;
Potential Impediments at Polling Places in 2000: 33%;
Potential Impediments at Polling Places in 2008: 36%.
Area at polling place: Path from parking area to building entrance;
Potential Impediments at Polling Places in 2000: 57%.
Potential Impediments at Polling Places in 2008: 50%.
Area at polling place: Building entrance;
Potential Impediments at Polling Places in 2000: 59%;
Potential Impediments at Polling Places in 2008: 25%.
Area at polling place: Path from building entrance to voting area[A];
Potential Impediments at Polling Places in 2000: 14%;
Potential Impediments at Polling Places in 2008: 6%.
Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 7,
2000, and November 4, 2008.
Note: For parking area data, the 95-percent confidence interval for
2000 data is 24.7 to 41.3 and for 2008 data is 29.2 to 42.5. For the
path from the parking area to the building entrance data, the 95-
percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 50.2 to 63.9 and for 2008
is 44.4 to 54.9.
[A] The difference between 2000 and 2008 data is statistically
significant. 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. For the path from the building entrance to the voting area, the
95-percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 9.8 to 18.2 and for
2008 data is 3.7 to 8.0.
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Example of a Polling Place with Inadequately Marked Parking
for People with Disabilities and Unramped and Uncut Curb:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Noted on the photograph:
* Sign designating parking for people with disabilities not located
near parking area;
* Curb without a curb cut or ramp.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Table 1: Comparison of Specific Features from the Parking Area to the
Voting Area of Polling Places That Might Impede Voting Access in 2000
and 2008:
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Parking area; One or more ramps or cut curbs is steeper than
1:12;
2000 percentage: [A];
2008 percentage: 24.0%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Parking area; No designated parking for people with
disabilities[B];
2000 percentage: 32.2%;
2008 percentage: 3.3%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Parking area; One or more unramped or uncut curbs[B,C];
2000 percentage: 8.1%;
2008 percentage: 2.6%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Parking area; No parking for any voters;
2000 percentage: 1.2%;
2008 percentage: 0.6%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Parking area; Other potential impediments in parking lot;
2000 percentage: 4.1%;
2008 percentage: 8.2%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; Unpaved or poor
surface in parking lot or route to building entrance;
2000 percentage: 23.2%;
2008 percentage: 23.5%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; Ramp in path from
parking area to building entrance is steeper than 1:12[B];
2000 percentage: 21.5%;
2008 percentage: 16.4%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; Sidewalk/path is
steeper than 1:12[D];
2000 percentage: 19.6%;
2008 percentage: 12.0%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; Improper or no
handrails on ramp;
2000 percentage: 5.8%;
2008 percentage: 8.2%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; No sidewalk/path
from parking area to building entrance;
2000 percentage: 8.2%;
2008 percentage: 4.2%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; Ramps in path from
parking area to building entrance do not have a level landing at the
top and bottom of each section that is at least 60 inches long;
2000 percentage: [A];
2008 percentage: 4.0%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; Leaves, snow, or
litter in path from parking area to building entrance;
2000 percentage: 1.5%;
2008 percentage: 2.0%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; Sidewalk/path from
parking area to building entrance < 36 inches wide[B];
2000 percentage: 1.4%;
2008 percentage: 1.5%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; Ramps in path from
parking area to building entrance is < 36 inches wide;
2000 percentage: 0.5%;
2008 percentage: 1.4%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; Steps required in
path from parking area to building entrance[B];
2000 percentage: 7.1%;
2008 percentage: 1.3%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from parking area to building entrance; Other potential
impediments in the path from parking area to building entrance;
2000 percentage: 9.8%;
2008 percentage: 6.4%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Building entrance; Doorway threshold exceeds ½ inch in height;
2000 percentage: 37.4%;
2008 percentage: 23.3%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Building entrance; Single doorway opening is < 32 inches wide;
2000 percentage: 9.6%;
2008 percentage: 6.5%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Building entrance; Doors that would be difficult for a person in
a wheelchair to open[B];
2000 percentage: 25.7%;
2008 percentage: 6.3%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Building entrance; Double door opening is < 32 inches wide,
including situations in which one of the doors cannot be opened;
2000 percentage: 5.0%;
2008 percentage: 3.4%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Building entrance; Other potential impediments at the building
entrance;
2000 percentage: 6.1%;
2008 percentage: 4.7%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from building entrance to voting area; Doorway threshold
exceeds ½ inch in height;
2000 percentage: 2.3%;
2008 percentage: 3.7%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from building entrance to voting area; Single doorway
opening is < 32 inches wide;
2000 percentage: 4.8%;
2008 percentage: 3.6%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from building entrance to voting area; Corridors that do
not provide an unimpeded width of at least 36 inches or can go down to
32 inches for 2 feet;
2000 percentage: 0.9%;
2008 percentage: 2.7%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from building entrance to voting area; Ramp is steeper than
1:12;
2000 percentage: 2.4%;
2008 percentage: 2.7%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from building entrance to voting area; Improper or no
handrails on ramp;
2000 percentage: 0.7%;
2008 percentage: 1.8%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from building entrance to voting area; Doors that would be
difficult for a person using a wheelchair to open;
2000 percentage: 3.2%;
2008 percentage: 0.5%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from building entrance to voting area; Steps are required
to gain access to voting area;
2000 percentage: 2.1%;
2008 percentage: 0.5%.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling
place: Path from building entrance to voting area; Double door opening
is
