**The problems make the news**

Every election year, voting problems plague the news:

-   Too many voters cast votes improperly, and/or not as they intended.

-   Poll workers operate the polls improperly, give the wrong
    information, or make mistakes that have election-changing
    consequences.

-   Election officials wrestle with recounts and lawsuits and the
    unforgiving scrutiny of the media.

Entire contests hang in the balance, yet many of these problems have a
single root cause: poor communication in the polls. Poor language on
ballots, in the instructions for voters, and in materials used by poll
workers confuses voters and poll workers alike.

**We ask much of voters and poll workers**

We ask much of our voters and our poll workers. Elections increase
stress for everyone. Literate voters have busy lives into which they
must interject this occasional and intimidating civic exercise. They
come into an unfamiliar place, ready to wrestle with an arcane system in
order to exercise a constitutional right that may carry great emotional
weight.

Polling places may be less than ideal environments for reading and
concentrating, with poor lighting, noise, temperature, and comfort
challenges. Poll workers work long hours for low pay and with training
we hope is enough to operate difficult machinery or handle ballots
properly.

Until recently, our understanding of access for varying ability meant
that poll workers met someone in their vehicle outside, or helped them
vote a ballot -- even going so far as marking the ballot on the voter's
behalf. And for persons with ability difference, the stress that a
normal voter may feel might also be compounded further by poor balloting
materials and assistance.

Isn't it imperative that we make elections easier by communicating in
understandable language on election day? Voting is hard. Plain language
makes it easier.

The Usability Professionals' Association's Voting and Usability Project,
with the support of the Society of Technical Communication, strongly
advocates the use of plain language for the instructions for using
voting systems, on ballots, and for voter education, polling materials,
and poll worker training documents. Using plain language helps bring
clarity to an inherently complex activity.

**What is plain language?**

Linguistics expert Dr. Janice Redish defines a plain language document:
\"Plain language is all about knowing your audiences and creating the
document that works for those audiences -- creating the document in
which they can

-   find what they need,

-   understand what they find, and

-   act appropriately on that understanding.\" (Redish, Webinar: Why
    Plain Language is Critical for Standards, 2007)

Health Canada's Web site definition of plain language speaks directly to
the challenge: "(Plain language is) ...language that is simple, clear,
direct and uses common words. The intent of plain language is to make
information accessible, especially to those who have low literacy
skills, or low proficiency in a second language." (Health Canada, 2001)
Yet the language most understood by those with low literacy, with
cognitive differences or low proficiency also happens to be understood
best by the stressed-out, distracted voter who waits two hours in line
after work to cast a vote.

Pioneer Prof. Robert Eagleson explains the importance of plain language:
\"Plain English is clear, straightforward expression, using only as many
words as are necessary. It is language that avoids obscurity, inflated
vocabulary and convoluted sentence construction. It is not baby talk,
nor is it a simplified version of the English language. Writers of plain
English let their audience concentrate on the message instead of being
distracted by complicated language. They make sure that their audience
understands the message easily.\" (Eagleson)

**Plain language helps everyone**

The language that is most simple and clear also provides the optimum
experience for those who have cognitive differences, low literacy, or
whose native language is not the language of the polls. As Dr. Redish
noted to the United States Access Board,

> "People with cognitive disabilities need simple, straightforward text.
> ...
>
> "...People who listen to information scan with their ears just as
> sighted people scan with their eyes. Good headings, logical order,
> information broken into manageable pieces, short sentences, and
> bulleted lists all help people who are scanning -- with their ears or
> their eyes.\" (Redish, Webinar: Why Plain Language is Critical for
> Standards, 2007)

Just as important, plain language supports all voters who need to
perform a complex action with clarity in less than ideal conditions.

**More than ballots**

The Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines address the processes of marking
and casting ballots, but elections involve far more communication than
the ballot alone. We strongly urge the EAC to address voter education,
instructions, poll worker and election procedural information, and any
material used by voters or poll workers. It's not just "voting" but
everything to do with elections.

We understand the scope of the problem in casting a ballot from Dr
Redish when she reviewed the gap between best practice and current
practice for NIST in 2006. She noted fundamental problems with
instructions for voters and poll workers:

-   Instructions do not consider voters\' likely mistakes.

-   They do not cover all important situations.

-   They may use words that many voters may not know.

-   They may name buttons with nouns or verbs that may not be explicit
    enough.

-   They may give voters the signal to vote before they have completed
    the ballot.

-   They may warn users when it may be too late to heed the warning.

-   They often put the action before the context, causing voters to act
    before instructions are fully communicated.

Messages and warnings, especially on Direct Recording Electronic (DRE)
machines, may use jargon, may not provide adequate information, and may
intimidate or blame voters. Even the venerable paper ballot makes
information design errors that may lead to voting errors, including
concentrating complicated instructions far from where the instruction is
needed and using obscure language in an illogical order. (Redish, Review
of the gap between instructions for voting and best practice in
providing instructions, 2006)

We encourage the EAC to continue to monitor this gap and expand efforts
to document the gap for other polling material as well. It is our great
hope that we witness the closure of the gap through the employment of
plain language standards and guidelines.

**We know how to fix the problem**

For her report for the Technical Guidelines Development Committee and
NIST, Dr. Redish recommended 20 guidelines for plain ballot language,
including placement, order, sentence, word, and topic guidelines that
allow voters to get the right information in an accessible manner.
(Redish, Guidelines for Writing Clear Instructions and Messages for
Voters and Poll Workers, 2006)

**We've seen success in action**

The success of the Design for Democracy projects to improve ballot
design and other election materials in Cook County, Illinois, as well as
in the states of Oregon and Nebraska and other locations demonstrates
how clear design and simple language marry to communicate messages
succinctly to improve voter success. For the EAC, the AIGA conducted
exhaustive research, field observations, and iterative usability
evaluations in order to develop ballot and polling place design
guidelines for federal elections. (AIGA and US Election Assistance
Commission, 2007).

Their research provides an easy to use blueprint that can be applied to
state and local elections as well.

**We understand many of the obstacles**

Election requirements are complicated. Couple those complex requirements
with the problems noted by Dr. Redish, and errors abound.

For example, an open primary means that voters must understand that they
need to confine their vote to one portion of a multiple party ballot.
This requirement is not easily understood. As a former state election
official, this author's own experience tells the tale: For years in
Michigan, voters cast paper or punch card ballots in their open
primaries without incident. When precinct count optical scan systems
were introduced, the state Election Bureau phones lit up: our electorate
had received a message that they had to confine their vote to one party.
When had the law changed? (It had not.) Voters had never had immediate
ballot feedback before. For years, these voters had been crossing party
lines in our open primaries, unaware that their ballots would not be
counted. "Well, I guess I've been voting wrong for 50 years," one voter
glumly noted.

Election law may dictate arcane, difficult language often written a
century ago or more. We need to be working to change laws when they
dictate practices that make it harder for voters -- particularly voters
with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities -- to participate.

**Polling materials need plain language, too**

News stories tell horror stories about poll workers who operate
machinery or handle ballots improperly or give the voters wrong
information. The League of Women Voters calls poll workers the largest
one-day workforce in the world, and mobilizing that workforce is a
challenge made more complex by changing systems, rules, and laws. Often
workers receive little training before the election. For that reason,
training materials and precinct information must be simple and precise,
well organized, and easy to use to help these workers avoid election-day
disaster.

**What we need to do next**

We support continued research into voters\' needs. We encourage the EAC
to continue their support of voter research, language research, design
research, and voter assistance. We advocate that every state and local
jurisdiction have the opportunity to review and adopt the guidelines and
put best practices into their practice. We strongly encourage the EAC to
expand their focus beyond the ballot to include the entire polling
experience, including polling materials aimed at both voters and poll
workers and to poll worker training materials.

We reiterate that the best language practice for those with a broad
range of disabilities is the language that works best for all voters:
plain language. We look forward to making polling truly accessible for
all abilities by making the language of polling clear, easy to use, and
understandable.

# Works Cited

AIGA and US Election Assistance Commission. (2007, June). *EAC Effective
Election Design.* Retrieved March 2008, from AIGA Design for Democracy:
http://www.aiga.org/resources/content/4/2/8/3/documents/EAC_Effective_Election_Design.pdf

Eagleson, R. (n.d.). *Short Definition of Plain Language*. Retrieved
March 20, 2008, from Plain Language.gov:
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/definitions/eagleson.cfm

Health Canada. (2001). *Language Barriers to Accessing Health Care
Glossary*. Retrieved March 2008, from Health Canada Health Care
Accessibility:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/acces/2001-lang-acces/gloss_e.html#skipnav

Redish, J. (2006). *Guidelines for Writing Clear Instructions and
Messages for Voters and Poll Workers.* Retrieved March 2008, from
Vote.NIST.gov: http://vote.nist.gov/032906PlainLanguageRpt.pdf

Redish, J. (2006). *Review of the gap between instructions for voting
and best practice in providing instructions.* Retrieved March 2008, from
Vote.NIST.gov: http://vote.nist.gov/instructiongap.pdf

Redish, J. (2007, May 18). *Webinar: Why Plain Language is Critical for
Standards*. Retrieved March 2008, from TEITAC: United States Access
Board: Usability of the Standard:
http://teitac.org/wiki/Theme:Usability_of_the_Standard:Redish