Thursday, December 4, 2008

Looking for Partners to Address Issues Facing Voters with Disabilities

Thursday, December 04, 2008

The Center for Independent Living is working to address concerns of voters with disabilities, and is interested in hearing from others about problems experienced by voters with disabilities, initiatives to address concerns, and from individuals and organizations interested in partnering with us to address concerns.

Do you know of such efforts? Do you address voter protection/voter suppression issues in other contexts (racial, gender-based, other) and have an interest in expanding your efforts to address the concerns of voters with disabilities? We want to hear from you. Do you work for a Supervisor of Elections office, and want to improve services to voters with disabilities? We want to hear from you. Would you be interested in being interviewed about your experiences voting? We want to hear from you. Do you want to partner with us and write for our Blog (www.americanswithdisabilitiesvote.org)? We want to hear from you.

Do you want to work with us to address issues affecting voters with disabilities? For example:

Are polling places in your community accessible? Are the bathrooms at polling places accessible? Is there accessible parking? Is the path of travel accessible? Does the Supervisor of Elections in your community collaborate with the local Center for Independent Living and others, including partners from the mental health community and other members of the disability community? Is there a voter protection effort in your community, and does it address issues affecting voters with disabilities? What is the policy concerning voters with disabilities who are unable to stay in long lines, such as those on diuretics, or those with post traumatic stress disorder or other mental health disabilities? Does the Supervisor of Elections partner with the disability community to ensure compliance with the ADA when selecting polling sites? Are communities of faith involved, and what is their knowledge of disability issues? Are there disability advocates in your community working on voter protection issues? Would they be interested in working with us?

Please contact us at mdubin@pobox.com.
Please feel free to share this email with others.

Thank you.
Marc




Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Voting Material from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health law

Bazelon Center

"...The opportunity to participate in the democratic process is a fundamental right, yet many Americans with disabilities face barriers to exercising their rights as citizens. The Bazelon Center works to expand access to the polls for people with mental disabilities...."


Federal Laws Can Overcome Barriers to the Ballot

"...Two federal laws provide important tools for expanding access to the polls for people with mental disabilities: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), known as the "Motor-Voter Law." This page gives an overview of possible strategies for their application on behalf of voters with mental disabilities. A more detailed analysis offers approaches for challenging barriers to voting that face people with all kinds of disabilities...."

"...The effectiveness of the ADA has not yet been tested in several areas related to the voting rights of people with mental disabilities. The Doe case banned their improper exclusion from voting through vague or overbroad competency standards and the need for reasonable accommodations in the voting process. In addition, steps should be taken to ensure enforcement of the NVRA, which, among other things, requires the state to designate as voter registration agencies all offices that are primarily engaged in providing disability services and that receive state funds. Such agencies must make available to their clients voter registration forms and assistance in completing them, and must accept completed applications and transmit them to state officials...."

Help Is Available
The Bazelon Center would like to work with individuals and local advocates to ensure that people with mental disabilities have the opportunity to vote. If you have experienced or know of someone who has encountered any of the following problems, we are available to help determine what, if any, legal strategies may be pursued and to initiate litigation in a few appropriate cases.

Possible Strategies
Obtaining Accommodations. Individuals may need accommodations for a mental disability in registering to vote or casting a ballot. Such accommodations can include

an explanation of instructions in simpler language,
a friend or family member to accompany him or her into a voting booth, or assistance in casting a ballot.

Just as important as ensuring that election officials are prepared to provide accommodations is educating people with disabilities about their right to voting accommodations. It's also wise to ensure that requests for accommodations are submitted ahead of time to the extent possible.

Continued on site.


Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org

Voter Suppression Incidents

Reports


Source: Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org

Letter from DOJ of March 4, 2005 to the State of Mississippi regarding the accessibility of voting systems and polling places

Letter of March 4, 2005 to the State of Mississippi regarding the accessibility of voting systems and polling places.



Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org

The Help America Vote Act of 2002

The Help America Vote Act of 2002

Source: US Department of Justice

On October 29, 2002, President Bush signed the "Help America Vote Act of 2002," (HAVA), Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (2002) into law. The HAVA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 15301 to 15545. After the House of Representatives, on December 12, 2001, and the Senate on April 11, 2002, passed differing versions of H.R. 3295, joint conferees were named to reconcile the differences and adopted a conference report on October 8, 2002, which was then passed by the House and Senate without amendment.


The Help America Vote Act of 2002

The legislation aims to improve the administration of elections in the United States, primarily through three means:

creating a new federal agency to serve as a clearinghouse for election administration information;

providing funds to states to improve election administration and replace outdated voting systems; and

creating minimum standards for states to follow in several key areas of election administration.


Continued on site

Sample DOJ Settlements Regarding Voting

http://www.ada.gov/fajardo.htm

http://www.ada.gov/humbolt_pca/humboldt.htm

http://www.ada.gov/pike_co_pca/pike_co_sa.htm

Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org

Support for S. 3308, the "Veterans Voting Support Act"

Letter

September 11, 2008

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chair
Committee on Rules and Administration
United States Senate
305 Russell Building
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Support for S. 3308, the "Veterans Voting Support Act"

Dear Senator Feinstein:

We write to thank you for your leadership and continuing commitment to protecting veterans' voting rights. In large part because of your leadership on this issue, the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") recently issued a directive that modified its misguided policy barring voter registration activity in VA facilities. This is an important step in the right direction, but we are concerned that the VA's new directive is only a partial fix—not a complete one. Accordingly, we urge you to continue your efforts in support of S. 3308, the Veterans Voting Support Act. Passage of this important legislation will address many of the problems that remain unresolved under the VA's directive, and will ensure that the veterans who have fought in defense of the right to vote will not be hindered in their attempts to exercise that right.

We are concerned that the VA's recent directive will not be sufficient to protect the voting rights of the men and women served by the VA. Among our concerns are the following:

First, the directive imposes no affirmative obligation on VA facilities and agencies to register veterans, as would S. 3308, which would permit states to designate VA facilities as voter registration agencies under section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5 (the "NVRA"). Such a designation is important to ensure that all veterans served by VA facilities have sufficient access to voter registration materials. Indeed, although the NVRA requires that states designate state-funded facilities serving disabled citizens and citizens seeking other government benefits as voter registration agencies, the VA's directive stops short of permitting VA facilities to be so designated. It is impossible to justify making it harder for disabled veterans to register than it is for disabled citizens in analogous state-funded facilities, but this appears to be the inevitable result of the VA's directive.

Second, the VA's directive appears to make voter registration services available only to patients residing in VA facilities, and not to veterans availing themselves of VA services on an out-patient basis or otherwise obtaining services from the VA. Thus, the directive states that the VA policy is "to assist residents of our community living centers, domiciliaries, and patients with limited access to other voter registration and information resources." This differential treatment cannot be justified, and outpatients served by VA facilities should be permitted to avail themselves of voter registration services on the same basis as in-patients.

Third, under the VA's directive it is unclear whether and to what extent outside groups will actually be permitted to conduct voter registration activities. The directive provides that "[a]ny request by an outside organization to facilitate voter registration on VA property is [to be] forwarded to local Regional Counsel for review," and although the directive calls on facility directors to establish "[c]riteria for evaluating the time, place, and manner of voter registration and voter assistance activities," the absence of any substantive guidelines for evaluating requests creates a risk that the directive's apparent purpose—opening VA facilities to state and local election officials and non-partisan voter registration groups—may be severely undermined by the requirement that the efforts of these groups must be "coordinated with the facility."

Finally, we are concerned that the VA's directive will not guarantee prompt services sufficient to guarantee veterans are able to register and vote this November. The directive imposes no proactive duties on the VA; rather, it only suggests the VA will not unduly interfere with others' efforts to register veterans. And because the directive evidently vests each facility director with discretion (a) to determine whether groups attempting to register veterans are appropriately "non-partisan"; and (b) to dictate the time, place and manner of voter registration activities, the directive does not go sufficiently far to ensure that veterans will receive any meaningful assistance in this election cycle.

For all the foregoing reasons, we continue to urge the prompt passage of S. 3308. We also urge you to conduct immediate hearings on the VA's new policy, so that representatives of the VA may give on-the-record testimony regarding the concerns we have raised.

Many thanks again for your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,

The American Association for People with Disabilities
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Common Cause
Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action
The League of Women Voters



Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org

Testimony of MICHAEL WALDMAN, Executive Director, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law

"....The voting machines recently purchased by most jurisdictions in the United States offer the promise of much greater usability and accessibility than we have known in the past. We have eliminated many usability problems (think for instance, of the notorious “butterfly ballot” in Palm Beach County, Florida), and offered millions of disabled voters the opportunity to vote independently for the first time in their lives.
This does not mean that our voting systems are as usable or accessible as they should be. All too often, vendors have offered technological “fixes” that theoretically make voting easier, but, in fact, make casting a ballot far more difficult for most voters...." (continued on site)


Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org

Policy Brief on Restrictions on Voter Registration Drives

Article: Policy Brief on Restrictions on Voter Registration Drives

Source: Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

"....Voter registration drives help citizens who face the greatest barriers to voting. Many non-profit voter registration drives target groups like the elderly or disabled, who may find it difficult to travel to a government office to register to vote or to obtain a voter registration application online; low-income populations and minority communities who have been traditionally disenfranchised; and students who may find it difficult to establish residence and vote where they live. These groups have traditionally faced the greatest barriers to registration and voting...." (continued on site)

Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org

Policy Brief on Electronic Voting Systems

Policy Brief on Electronic Voting Systems

Source:Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Summary

* All three of the most commonly purchased electronic voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities.
* Few jurisdictions have implemented any of the key countermeasures that could make the least difficult attacks against voting systems much more difficult to execute.
* Millions of Americans with disabilities cannot vote independently and secretly on the voting machines in their precincts.
* The design of ballots and instructions has a large and demonstrable effect on loss of votes as a result of residual errors.
* The initial costs of a voting system are likely to be a small percentage of the total cost over its life-span.

All three of the most commonly purchased electronic voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state, and local elections. When the goal of an attack on voting systems is to change the outcome of a close statewide election, attacks that involve the insertion of corrupt software are the least difficult attacks. Voting machines that have wireless components are significantly more vulnerable to a wide array of attacks.

Few jurisdictions have implemented any of the key countermeasures that could make the least difficult attacks against voting systems much more difficult to execute. Of the 27 states that mandate voter-verified paper trails, only 13 require20regular audits. Current federal guidelines for voting systems do not ban wireless components; only two states, New York and Minnesota, ban wireless components in voting machines. Only four states conduct parallel testing statewide. After evaluating more than 120 possible attacks on voting systems for more than a year, the Brennan Center’s Task Force on Voting System Security recommends: (1) automatic routine audits of paper records; (2) parallel testing of voting machines; (3) banning of wireless components on all voting machines; (4) transparent and random selection procedures for parallel testing and audits; (5) decentralized programming and voting system administration; and (6) implementation of effective procedures for addressing evidence of fraud or error.

Millions of Americans with disabilities cannot vote independently and secretly on the voting machines in their precincts. According to the 2000 Census, at least 44.5 million adult residents (ages 21 and above) of the United States have some form of disability. Moreover, because many disabilities are associated with advanced age, a rapidly aging population stands to produce increases in the number of voters with disabilities. 19.1 million Americans have trouble seeing, while 30.8 million Americans have trouble hearing.

The design of ballots and instructions has a large and demonstrable effect on loss of votes as a result of residual errors. Several studies20indicate that “residual vote rates,” the difference between the number of ballots cast and the number of valid votes cast in a particular contest, are higher in low-income and minority communities. The failure of a voting system to protect against residual votes is likely to disproportionately harm low-income and minority voters. The Brennan Center’s usability recommendations include: (1) do not assume familiarity with technology; (2) provide mechanisms for recording and reviewing votes; (3) make clear when the voter has completed each step or task in the voting process; (4) ensure the voting system plainly notifies the voter of errors; and (5) make it easy for voters to correct their errors.

(Continued on site)

Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org