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
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Voter Suppression Incidents
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Article: Despite Laws, Disabled Voters Face Barriers at Polls
News Article:
Despite Laws, Disabled Voters Face Barriers at Pollsby Catherine Komp Voters with disabilities warn that despite anti-discrimination laws, many still face barriers when they try to go to the polls. Oct. 27, 2006 – As a black woman, Anita Cameron said she takes voting seriously, participating in every election since she was eligible to vote. But the first time the 42-year-old voted privately and independently was just two years ago in Washington, DC after the city implemented voting machines accessible to people with disabilities.
"It?s empowering," said Cameron, who has limited vision and uses a wheelchair. "I can?t even begin to tell you how empowering it was for me ? how good I felt; you know, I felt like a real person. Like wow, I really did it."
In previous elections using paper ballots, Cameron said she either reluctantly asked poll workers for help or struggled to fill out the ballot, which could take 30 minutes depending on the number of races. But voting-machine access, said Cameron, a long-time disability-rights activist who has also served as a poll worker and election judge, is just one of the obstacles to voting.
As Election Day fast approaches, groups are concerned that despite federal regulations requiring states to provide accessible polling places and voting machines, many people will still meet barriers at the polls.
According to 2002 data from the US Census Bureau, about 51.2 million people have disabilities, and of that number, 32.5 million reported the disability was "severe."
Over the last year, people with disabilities and their advocates, a state attorney general, and the Department of Justice have filed numerous lawsuits, including in California, New York, Arizona and Alabama, alleging violations of the disability access provisions of the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The Act requires states to provide at least one voting machine accessible to voters with disabilities in each polling place by January 1, 2006 and provides funds to improve access at polling stations.
Disability-rights groups allege that several California counties? choices of machines violate HAVA because voters with visual and mobility impairments will not be able to vote independently. The Paralyzed Veterans of America, the American Association of People with Disabilities and other groups in August filed a federal lawsuit in California against Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and local elections officials.
The controversial devices include Election System and Software AutoMARK machines, Hart optical-scan voting equipment and direct-recording electronic machines with voter-verified paper audit trail equipment. Plaintiffs say a person with impairments cannot use these machines without third-party assistance, risking that votes will be revealed, influenced or improperly cast.
Last March, the US Department of Justice filed suit against the state of New York for several violations of HAVA, including failing to "adopt voting systems that are fully accessible by disabled voters." While the suit is pending, the state board of elections office developed an interim measure under consultation with federal officials.
Board of Elections spokesperson Lee Daghlian told TNS the state has implemented a measure called "Plan B," in which local precincts are installing "ballot marking devices" accessible to people with disabilities in one or more locations in each county. The devices allow a person to mark optical-scan paper ballots using a touch-screen interface for those with visual impairments; a "sip and puff" interface for quadriplegic voters; and audio for those with visual impairments or those who speak other languages.
But Beata Karpinska-Prehn, director of advocacy at ARISE, the independent living center in Onondaga County, said even this interim measure is flawed. Officials chose one site ? the local convention center in Syracuse ? to set up the accessible voting systems, which Karpinska-Prehn said is an ill-suited location with little parking.
"It raises issues with transportation, of course," Karpinska-Prehn said. "Most people would like to be able to vote on accessible machines in their own polling sites."
In Massachusetts, Secretary of State spokesperson Brian McNiff told TNS the state will only have fully accessible voting systems in several hundred precincts out of more than 2000. None of those machines, which the state is leasing, were in place for the September primary, McNiff said.
In addition to HAVA, the 1984 Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act and the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, also require states to ensure voting access to people with disabilities.
In spite of federal law, disability rights advocates say, there is a range of problems people still encounter when trying to vote at polling centers: doors that are too heavy or have handles that are difficult to use, accessible entrances that are locked or not clearly marked, inaccessible positioning of the voting equipment, and inadequate training of poll workers.
"The basic requirement of having the polling place itself be accessible ? in other words you can get into it in a wheel chair, that?s been part of [federal law] for some time now," said Brenda Wright, managing attorney with the National Voting Rights Institute. "Although? it?s not been fully complied with everywhere, so it?s an ongoing struggle to achieve full compliance with these laws that are out there to provide these protections."
Though all states have laws requiring accessibility at the polls, a General Accountability Office study in 2001 found that 84 percent of polling places had one or more impediments that could hinder a person with a mobility impairment from casting their ballot inside the polling station.
Cameron said in her experiences as a poll worker and election judge, she has also observed disrespect and intimidation of people with disabilities trying to vote.
"I witnessed personally an election judge coerce a person with a disability to change their vote," Cameron told TNS. "I?ve witnessed an election judge speak loudly and comment about the choice a person with a disability made."
Another problem, according to a report from the DC-based University Legal Services, is precincts that encourage people with disabilities to use curbside voting. The disability rights legal organization called this "an excuse not to make polling places accessible."
"Too often the rights of people with disabilities are just trampled upon, not even thought of," said Cameron. "It?s definitely an issue that I?m going to keep working on and working on until? we don?t have to walk into a polling place and be afraid that we?re going to be treated with disrespect, or be afraid that somebody?s not going to mark our ballot as we wish if we require help, or that we?re going to be able to use the electronic voting machine."
Cameron does acknowledge the current rift between disability rights activists, who are pushing for electronic voting machines because it makes voting easier, and some of the many groups concerned about accuracy and security of those machines, many of which have been found to have security flaws.
She explained that the machines requiring a voter-verified paper audit trail are inaccessible to some people with mobility and visual impairments because they require a person to touch a piece of paper and to read it to make sure the vote was recorded accurately. Cameron suggested that machines could also have an audio verification for those with impairments.
Addressing this conflict between prioritizing accessibility and prioritizing security, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University?s School of Law released a 190-page 2-year long study earlier this month examining voting-system security, accessibility, usability and cost. The report concluded "there is not yet any perfect voting system or set of procedures" that combines accessibility, affordability and security.
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
Despite Laws, Disabled Voters Face Barriers at Pollsby Catherine Komp Voters with disabilities warn that despite anti-discrimination laws, many still face barriers when they try to go to the polls. Oct. 27, 2006 – As a black woman, Anita Cameron said she takes voting seriously, participating in every election since she was eligible to vote. But the first time the 42-year-old voted privately and independently was just two years ago in Washington, DC after the city implemented voting machines accessible to people with disabilities.
"It?s empowering," said Cameron, who has limited vision and uses a wheelchair. "I can?t even begin to tell you how empowering it was for me ? how good I felt; you know, I felt like a real person. Like wow, I really did it."
In previous elections using paper ballots, Cameron said she either reluctantly asked poll workers for help or struggled to fill out the ballot, which could take 30 minutes depending on the number of races. But voting-machine access, said Cameron, a long-time disability-rights activist who has also served as a poll worker and election judge, is just one of the obstacles to voting.
As Election Day fast approaches, groups are concerned that despite federal regulations requiring states to provide accessible polling places and voting machines, many people will still meet barriers at the polls.
According to 2002 data from the US Census Bureau, about 51.2 million people have disabilities, and of that number, 32.5 million reported the disability was "severe."
Over the last year, people with disabilities and their advocates, a state attorney general, and the Department of Justice have filed numerous lawsuits, including in California, New York, Arizona and Alabama, alleging violations of the disability access provisions of the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The Act requires states to provide at least one voting machine accessible to voters with disabilities in each polling place by January 1, 2006 and provides funds to improve access at polling stations.
Disability-rights groups allege that several California counties? choices of machines violate HAVA because voters with visual and mobility impairments will not be able to vote independently. The Paralyzed Veterans of America, the American Association of People with Disabilities and other groups in August filed a federal lawsuit in California against Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and local elections officials.
The controversial devices include Election System and Software AutoMARK machines, Hart optical-scan voting equipment and direct-recording electronic machines with voter-verified paper audit trail equipment. Plaintiffs say a person with impairments cannot use these machines without third-party assistance, risking that votes will be revealed, influenced or improperly cast.
Last March, the US Department of Justice filed suit against the state of New York for several violations of HAVA, including failing to "adopt voting systems that are fully accessible by disabled voters." While the suit is pending, the state board of elections office developed an interim measure under consultation with federal officials.
Board of Elections spokesperson Lee Daghlian told TNS the state has implemented a measure called "Plan B," in which local precincts are installing "ballot marking devices" accessible to people with disabilities in one or more locations in each county. The devices allow a person to mark optical-scan paper ballots using a touch-screen interface for those with visual impairments; a "sip and puff" interface for quadriplegic voters; and audio for those with visual impairments or those who speak other languages.
But Beata Karpinska-Prehn, director of advocacy at ARISE, the independent living center in Onondaga County, said even this interim measure is flawed. Officials chose one site ? the local convention center in Syracuse ? to set up the accessible voting systems, which Karpinska-Prehn said is an ill-suited location with little parking.
"It raises issues with transportation, of course," Karpinska-Prehn said. "Most people would like to be able to vote on accessible machines in their own polling sites."
In Massachusetts, Secretary of State spokesperson Brian McNiff told TNS the state will only have fully accessible voting systems in several hundred precincts out of more than 2000. None of those machines, which the state is leasing, were in place for the September primary, McNiff said.
In addition to HAVA, the 1984 Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act and the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, also require states to ensure voting access to people with disabilities.
In spite of federal law, disability rights advocates say, there is a range of problems people still encounter when trying to vote at polling centers: doors that are too heavy or have handles that are difficult to use, accessible entrances that are locked or not clearly marked, inaccessible positioning of the voting equipment, and inadequate training of poll workers.
"The basic requirement of having the polling place itself be accessible ? in other words you can get into it in a wheel chair, that?s been part of [federal law] for some time now," said Brenda Wright, managing attorney with the National Voting Rights Institute. "Although? it?s not been fully complied with everywhere, so it?s an ongoing struggle to achieve full compliance with these laws that are out there to provide these protections."
Though all states have laws requiring accessibility at the polls, a General Accountability Office study in 2001 found that 84 percent of polling places had one or more impediments that could hinder a person with a mobility impairment from casting their ballot inside the polling station.
Cameron said in her experiences as a poll worker and election judge, she has also observed disrespect and intimidation of people with disabilities trying to vote.
"I witnessed personally an election judge coerce a person with a disability to change their vote," Cameron told TNS. "I?ve witnessed an election judge speak loudly and comment about the choice a person with a disability made."
Another problem, according to a report from the DC-based University Legal Services, is precincts that encourage people with disabilities to use curbside voting. The disability rights legal organization called this "an excuse not to make polling places accessible."
"Too often the rights of people with disabilities are just trampled upon, not even thought of," said Cameron. "It?s definitely an issue that I?m going to keep working on and working on until? we don?t have to walk into a polling place and be afraid that we?re going to be treated with disrespect, or be afraid that somebody?s not going to mark our ballot as we wish if we require help, or that we?re going to be able to use the electronic voting machine."
Cameron does acknowledge the current rift between disability rights activists, who are pushing for electronic voting machines because it makes voting easier, and some of the many groups concerned about accuracy and security of those machines, many of which have been found to have security flaws.
She explained that the machines requiring a voter-verified paper audit trail are inaccessible to some people with mobility and visual impairments because they require a person to touch a piece of paper and to read it to make sure the vote was recorded accurately. Cameron suggested that machines could also have an audio verification for those with impairments.
Addressing this conflict between prioritizing accessibility and prioritizing security, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University?s School of Law released a 190-page 2-year long study earlier this month examining voting-system security, accessibility, usability and cost. The report concluded "there is not yet any perfect voting system or set of procedures" that combines accessibility, affordability and security.
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
Statistics About Voters with Disabilities
(As of the 2004 election):
• There are 54 million Americans with disabilities.
• 35 million Americans with disabilities are of voting age.
• 17.5 million voting-aged Americans with disabilities have a severe disability.
• People with disabilities register to vote at a rate that is 16 percentage points lower than the general population.
• There are more than 16 million people with disabilities across the country who are not registered to vote.
• If Americans with disabilities voted at the same rate as the rest of the population, there would have been four million more votes cast in the 2000 presidential election.
• In 2000, 41% of Americans with disabilities voted compared to 51% of all adults.
• Despite the National Voter Registration Act, 75 percent of people with disabilities report they have never been asked to register to vote by a service provider.
Source: http://www.sedbtac.org/ada/ada_in_action/ada_in_actionTemplate.php?ref=28&ptitle=286
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
• There are 54 million Americans with disabilities.
• 35 million Americans with disabilities are of voting age.
• 17.5 million voting-aged Americans with disabilities have a severe disability.
• People with disabilities register to vote at a rate that is 16 percentage points lower than the general population.
• There are more than 16 million people with disabilities across the country who are not registered to vote.
• If Americans with disabilities voted at the same rate as the rest of the population, there would have been four million more votes cast in the 2000 presidential election.
• In 2000, 41% of Americans with disabilities voted compared to 51% of all adults.
• Despite the National Voter Registration Act, 75 percent of people with disabilities report they have never been asked to register to vote by a service provider.
Source: http://www.sedbtac.org/ada/ada_in_action/ada_in_actionTemplate.php?ref=28&ptitle=286
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
Article: Voting Rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act:Are People with Intellectual or Psychiatric Disabilities Protected?
Article
Authored by:
Michael J. King*
Roufeda Ebrahim
Updated: December 2007
Prepared for:
Shelley Kaplan, Director
DBTAC: Southeast ADA Center
http://www.sedbtac.org/
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
Authored by:
Michael J. King*
Roufeda Ebrahim
Updated: December 2007
Prepared for:
Shelley Kaplan, Director
DBTAC: Southeast ADA Center
http://www.sedbtac.org/
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
FLORIDA’S TRANSITION FROM TOUCH SCREENS TO OP SCAN PAPER BALLOTS FOR EARLY VOTING
"This report examines the challenge counties in Florida now face due to the recent change in state law that requires conducting in-person early voting before Election Day with optical scan paper ballots (op scan) instead of using direct record electronic (DRE) touch screens as was past practice in Florida and remains the norm across the U.S. In recent years, many states, including Florida, have experienced an explosive growth in the popularity of in-person early voting. Providing the option of early voting at a limited
number of locations over multiple days or weeks has been linked almost exclusively to the use of DRE voting equipment. This is due to the capacity of DREs to produce multiple types of ballots virtually instantaneously to accommodate the hundreds or even
thousands of different ballot types that are needed, especially in large urban jurisdictions....." (Continued)
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
number of locations over multiple days or weeks has been linked almost exclusively to the use of DRE voting equipment. This is due to the capacity of DREs to produce multiple types of ballots virtually instantaneously to accommodate the hundreds or even
thousands of different ballot types that are needed, especially in large urban jurisdictions....." (Continued)
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Letter to Supervisors of Election in Florida Regarding Obligations Toward Voters with Disabilities
Note: I sent the same letter, by email,to each of the 67 Supervisors of Election in Florida. --Marc
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Supervisor of Elections - Miami-Dade County
Dear Supervisor of Elections:
I am an attorney in Florida, and I am writing to ask you to ensure that your staff allows people with disabilities to move ahead of others in lines to vote, as required by title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In some communities in Florida, reports have already come to my attention that voters with disabilities have been forced to wait in long lines, resulting in some voters with disabilities leaving without voting, in violation of their federal civil rights. Many people with disabilities cannot endure the heat, or, as a result of diuretics and other medicines, must use the bathroom more frequently than other voters. Title II of the ADA requires state and local governments to engage in reasonable modifications of policies so as to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, including allowing voters with disabilities to advance in line ahead of voters without disabilities. Just as restaurants that are prohibited by state law from admitting animals are required by the ADA to admit people with disabilities accompanied by a service animal, as a reasonable modification of policy, so too must Supervisors of Elections modify the policy concerning a voter’s place in line to allow a person with a disability to not wait in line, and advance to the front of the line, absent proof that such a modification would result in an undue financial or administrative burden.
Many counties throughout the United States have recognized the reasonableness of this policy modification and trained their staff to assist voters with disabilities to move to the front of the line to vote. I urge you to speak to your staff to ensure that they do so as well.
By way of background, I served as a Senior Trial Attorney at the Justice Department from 1992-2005, in the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, in Washington, D.C. In that capacity, I was responsible for nationwide enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of the United States. I am confident that your office seeks to ensure access to the right to vote for all of your county’s citizens, including those with disabilities, and I respectfully urge you to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that your staff understands their legal obligations under the ADA.
Please feel free to contact me at 305-896-3000 or by email at mdubin@pobox.com if I can be of any assistance.
Thank you.
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Supervisor of Elections - Miami-Dade County
Dear Supervisor of Elections:
I am an attorney in Florida, and I am writing to ask you to ensure that your staff allows people with disabilities to move ahead of others in lines to vote, as required by title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In some communities in Florida, reports have already come to my attention that voters with disabilities have been forced to wait in long lines, resulting in some voters with disabilities leaving without voting, in violation of their federal civil rights. Many people with disabilities cannot endure the heat, or, as a result of diuretics and other medicines, must use the bathroom more frequently than other voters. Title II of the ADA requires state and local governments to engage in reasonable modifications of policies so as to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, including allowing voters with disabilities to advance in line ahead of voters without disabilities. Just as restaurants that are prohibited by state law from admitting animals are required by the ADA to admit people with disabilities accompanied by a service animal, as a reasonable modification of policy, so too must Supervisors of Elections modify the policy concerning a voter’s place in line to allow a person with a disability to not wait in line, and advance to the front of the line, absent proof that such a modification would result in an undue financial or administrative burden.
Many counties throughout the United States have recognized the reasonableness of this policy modification and trained their staff to assist voters with disabilities to move to the front of the line to vote. I urge you to speak to your staff to ensure that they do so as well.
By way of background, I served as a Senior Trial Attorney at the Justice Department from 1992-2005, in the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, in Washington, D.C. In that capacity, I was responsible for nationwide enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of the United States. I am confident that your office seeks to ensure access to the right to vote for all of your county’s citizens, including those with disabilities, and I respectfully urge you to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that your staff understands their legal obligations under the ADA.
Please feel free to contact me at 305-896-3000 or by email at mdubin@pobox.com if I can be of any assistance.
Thank you.
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
From October 2007: Senator Barack Obama Press Release: Justice Department Must Fire Voting Rights Official
Obama: Justice Department Must Fire Voting Rights Official
By Senator Barack Obama Press Release
October 19, 2007
Comments about minority voters offensive, dangerous
source: http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2612&Itemid=26
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today sent the following letter to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler calling on him to immediately replace John Tanner, the chief of the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, for offensive and erroneous comments he made about minorities
On October 5, 2007, Tanner argued that photo identification requirements for voting cause problems for the elderly. However, he argued that such requirements do not disenfranchise minority voters because "Our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do; they die first." Video of Tanner's comments are here.
Earlier this week, Obama called on Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey to address how he would reverse the Bush Administration's failure to enforce civil rights, for example, in the cases of the Jena 6 and the Georgia voter photo identification requirement. A copy of that letter is here .
Senator Obama has been working in the Senate to pass legislation he authored to protect voting rights and prevent deceptive and intimidating practices, and has been an outspoken critic of onerous photo identification requirements that disproportionately disenfranchise poor, minority, and disabled voters.
The text of Obama's letter is below:
October 19, 2007
The Honorable Peter D. Keisler
Acting Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Keisler:
On October 5, 2007, at the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles, John Tanner, the chief of the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division, spoke on a panel regarding minority voters. During the course of that discussion, which focused on recent state laws requiring photo identification for voting, Mr. Tanner said that such photo ID requirements disadvantage the elderly "[a]nd that's a shame." He explained: "You know, creating problems for elderly persons just is not good under any circumstance."
However, according to Mr. Tanner, such requirements do not disenfranchise minorities, and in fact, they actually benefit minorities. He said: "Our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do; they die first. There are inequities in health care. There are a variety of inequities in this country. And so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities; just the math is such as that."
Such comments are patently erroneous, offensive, and dangerous, and they are especially troubling coming from the federal official charged with protecting voting rights in this country. Mr. Tanner has already demonstrated questionable judgment in overruling the decision of Justice Department lawyers that the Georgia photo ID requirement would disproportionately discriminate against African Americans. For Mr. Tanner to now suggest, in an effort to defend his erroneous decision, that photo identification are not necessary for minority voters because "they die first" shows just how far the Justice Department has fallen. This is a disgrace and yet another reason why the next Attorney General must demonstrate a strong commitment to civil rights.
But, until the next Attorney General is confirmed, you are in charge of the Department, and you are in charge of ensuring that our laws are enforced and that the civil rights of all Americans are protected. Through his inexcusable comments, Mr. Tanner has clearly demonstrated that he possesses neither the character nor the judgment to be heading the Voting Rights Section. For that reason, I respectfully request that you remove him from his position.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
By Senator Barack Obama Press Release
October 19, 2007
Comments about minority voters offensive, dangerous
source: http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2612&Itemid=26
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today sent the following letter to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler calling on him to immediately replace John Tanner, the chief of the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, for offensive and erroneous comments he made about minorities
On October 5, 2007, Tanner argued that photo identification requirements for voting cause problems for the elderly. However, he argued that such requirements do not disenfranchise minority voters because "Our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do; they die first." Video of Tanner's comments are here.
Earlier this week, Obama called on Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey to address how he would reverse the Bush Administration's failure to enforce civil rights, for example, in the cases of the Jena 6 and the Georgia voter photo identification requirement. A copy of that letter is here .
Senator Obama has been working in the Senate to pass legislation he authored to protect voting rights and prevent deceptive and intimidating practices, and has been an outspoken critic of onerous photo identification requirements that disproportionately disenfranchise poor, minority, and disabled voters.
The text of Obama's letter is below:
October 19, 2007
The Honorable Peter D. Keisler
Acting Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Keisler:
On October 5, 2007, at the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles, John Tanner, the chief of the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division, spoke on a panel regarding minority voters. During the course of that discussion, which focused on recent state laws requiring photo identification for voting, Mr. Tanner said that such photo ID requirements disadvantage the elderly "[a]nd that's a shame." He explained: "You know, creating problems for elderly persons just is not good under any circumstance."
However, according to Mr. Tanner, such requirements do not disenfranchise minorities, and in fact, they actually benefit minorities. He said: "Our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do; they die first. There are inequities in health care. There are a variety of inequities in this country. And so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities; just the math is such as that."
Such comments are patently erroneous, offensive, and dangerous, and they are especially troubling coming from the federal official charged with protecting voting rights in this country. Mr. Tanner has already demonstrated questionable judgment in overruling the decision of Justice Department lawyers that the Georgia photo ID requirement would disproportionately discriminate against African Americans. For Mr. Tanner to now suggest, in an effort to defend his erroneous decision, that photo identification are not necessary for minority voters because "they die first" shows just how far the Justice Department has fallen. This is a disgrace and yet another reason why the next Attorney General must demonstrate a strong commitment to civil rights.
But, until the next Attorney General is confirmed, you are in charge of the Department, and you are in charge of ensuring that our laws are enforced and that the civil rights of all Americans are protected. Through his inexcusable comments, Mr. Tanner has clearly demonstrated that he possesses neither the character nor the judgment to be heading the Voting Rights Section. For that reason, I respectfully request that you remove him from his position.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Please visit www.AmericansWithDisabilitiesVote.org
Welcome to Our Blog About Voters with Disabilities
Thank you for visiting our Blog. Voters with disabilities may be the largest voting bloc in the nation - over 54 million people in the United States have disabilities, and span all age groups, ethnicities, races, and genders. More voters with disabilities registered to vote in the 2008 election than ever before.
This Blog has several purposes:
- To share information and resources with our audience, designed to educate voters and Supervisors of Election about the role title II of the ADA plays in elections;
- To identify problems experienced by voters with disabilities, and to propose solutions (send information to mdubin@pobox.com);
- To identify other groups and organizations addressing voter protection, and to create collaborations with them;
- To provide a place where voters with disabilities can communicate with one another about their concerns and experiences;
- To create a central repository of information concerning voters with disabilities.
We welcome your input,participation, and insights.
This Blog has several purposes:
- To share information and resources with our audience, designed to educate voters and Supervisors of Election about the role title II of the ADA plays in elections;
- To identify problems experienced by voters with disabilities, and to propose solutions (send information to mdubin@pobox.com);
- To identify other groups and organizations addressing voter protection, and to create collaborations with them;
- To provide a place where voters with disabilities can communicate with one another about their concerns and experiences;
- To create a central repository of information concerning voters with disabilities.
We welcome your input,participation, and insights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
