Experience of Voters with 

Disabilities in the 2012 

Election Cycle

National Council on Disability

October 24, 2013
National Council on Disability

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850

Washington, DC 20004

Experience of Voters with Disabilities in the 2012 Election Cycle

This report is also available in alternative formats on the National Council on Disability 

(NCD) Web Site (www.ncd.gov).

202-272-2004 Voice

202-272-2074 TTY

202-272-2022 Fax

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the 

Administration, as this and all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive 

Branch review process.
1 

National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress 

to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.

Letter of Transmittal

October 24, 2013

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is pleased to submit the enclosed report, 

“Experiences of Voters with Disabilities in the 2012 Election Cycle.”

The right to vote is a unique and singularly important indicator of citizenship in a 

democracy, in the United States and throughout the free world. For too long, people 

with disabilities have been in the shadows in exercising this basic civil right. The

causes of voter disenfranchisement are myriad, but they include physical inaccessibility, 

a failure to provide registration and voting materials in accessible formats, a lack of 

private and independent voting for many citizens, and the denial of the right to vote on 

the basis of erroneous assumptions about a person’s capability because of his or her 

disability.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA), enacted in 2002, mandated improvements to the 

electoral process by establishing minimum standards for uniform and nondiscriminatory 

election technology and administration requirements, including, for the first time, 

requirements that citizens with disabilities be able to vote independently and privately. 

HAVA joins existing voting rights laws to prohibit voter discrimination, suppression, 

intimidation, and denial of voting access for people with disabilities, coupled with the 

protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and building upon the mandate 

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As you said during your 2013 State of the Union address, “our most fundamental right 

as citizens: the right to vote. When any Americans ... are denied that right ... we are 

betraying our ideals.” The full participation of all citizens, including those with 

disabilities, in the electoral process is imperative. Voting is the very cornerstone of our 

great democracy. Registering to vote, accessing polling places, and casting a ballot are 

all part of a civil right that may not be compromised. Since 2002, HAVA has helped 

make voting an act of civic participation for people with disabilities; however, as this 

report demonstrates, much work remains to be done.

1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004

202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2074 TTY ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov
2 

The report documents the experiences of voters with disabilities during the 2012 

general election cycle and offers concrete policy and procedural recommendations to 

improve voter participation and accessibility for citizens with disabilities now and in 

future elections. Among other core points based on the findings of the report, NCD 

recommends that:

• States and localities must ensure that all voter service centers and polling 

precincts be fully accessible, in compliance with the ADA, Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, and HAVA.

• The Presidential Commission on Election Administration should recommend and 

the Election Assistance Commission should encourage state and local 

jurisdictions to ensure that universally designed, accessible voting machines are 

available, functioning, and situated to provide complete privacy for voters with 

disabilities.

• State and local election officials must invest in adequate training for all election 

personnel and volunteers. Such comprehensive training should include (1) the 

obligations and requirements of HAVA and other relevant federal and state 

statutes regarding the voting rights of people with disabilities, including the right

of voters to receive voting assistance from a person of their choosing; (2) the 

state and local voting process and election system; (3) how to set up, operate, 

and demonstrate the use of accessible voting machines; and (4) disability 

awareness and etiquette training.

NCD looks forward to working with the Administration in continuing to ensure that all 

Americans with disabilities are afforded the opportunity to cast a vote, independently 

and privately.

Respectfully,

Jeff Rosen

Chairperson
3 

National Council on Disability Members and Staff

Members

Jeff Rosen, Chair 

Kamilah Oni Martin-Proctor, Co-Vice Chair

Lynnae Ruttledge, Co-Vice Chair

Gary Blumenthal

Chester A. Finn

Sara Gelser

Matan Aryeh Koch

Captain Jonathan F. Kuniholm, USMC (Retired)

Stephanie Orlando

Ari Ne’eman

Janice Lehrer-Stein 

Clyde E. Terry

Fernando M. Torres-Gil, Ph.D.

Alice Wong

Pamela Young-Holmes 

Staff

Rebecca Cokley, Executive Director 

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor

Lawrence Carter-Long, Public Affairs Specialist

Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy

Geraldine-Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst

Sylvia Menifee, Director of Administration

Robyn Powell, Attorney Advisor

Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach
4 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The National Council on Disability (NCD) expresses its appreciation to the National 

Disability Rights Network (NDRN), the nonprofit membership association for the 

federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems and client assistant 

programs (CAPs); specifically, to Curtis L. Decker, executive director, Delores Scott, 

former senior attorney, and Janice Johnson Hunter, deputy executive director for legal 

services. NCD also thanks EIN SOF Communications, Inc., a strategic marketing firm 

specializing in disability-inclusive diversity and public policy—specifically, Tari Hartman 

Squire, CEO—for its assistance in researching, writing, and disseminating the 2012 

Voting Experience Questionnaire and this report. NCD recognizes the contributions of 

the nearly 900 voters with disabilities who responded to the questionnaire and shared 

their voting experiences and stories.
5 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter of Transmittal...................................................................................................... 1

National Council on Disability Members and Staff..................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 9

Key Findings and Recommendations .................................................... 9

FINDING 1: People with disabilities continue to face barriers in 

exercising their voting rights because of architectural 

and physical barriers at registration and polling sites.......... 9

FINDING 2: Voters with disabilities do not have equal access 

to voting systems because states and localities have 

not invested adequate resources, planning, and training 

to provide reliable, accessible voting technology. ............. 11

FINDING 3: Voters with disabilities face discrimination at voter 

registration and polling sites resulting from poorly 

trained election personnel and volunteers......................... 14

FINDING 4: The Federal Government plays a vital role in 

ensuring the integrity of the election process in the 

United States. ................................................................... 15

FINDING 5: The enforcement role of the Department of Justice 

is critical to compliance with federal statutes by states 

and localities. .................................................................... 19

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 23

Genesis of the Report.......................................................................... 29

CHAPTER 1. METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF THE REPORT ............................. 33

Process for Developing, Testing, and Distributing the Questionnaire.. 33

Response from Voters ......................................................................... 35

Analysis of Data................................................................................... 36

Scope of the Report............................................................................. 37

CHAPTER 2. THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT ...................................................... 39

HAVA Voting Systems and Accessibility Requirements ...................... 41

HAVA Section 261 and SOS Offices ................................................... 43

HAVA Section 291: Protection and Advocacy Systems....................... 46

Reporting Requirements...................................................................... 47

Challenges and Barriers ...................................................................... 49
6 

CHAPTER 3. OTHER FEDERAL LAWS THAT AFFECT VOTING RIGHTS OF 

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES............................................................ 51

Voting Rights Act ................................................................................. 52

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act.................... 53

Americans with Disabilities Act ............................................................ 54

National Voter Registration Act............................................................ 55

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIENCES OF VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES DURING THE 

2012 GENERAL ELECTION ............................................................... 57

Assistance with Voter Registration ...................................................... 57

Physical and Architectural Barriers to Entering the Polling Place ........ 58

Physical, Architectural, Technological, and Attitudinal Barriers 

Inside the Polling Place ............................................................... 60

Challenges to Competency and Eligibility of Voters with Disabilities ... 63

Voter Education and Training .............................................................. 65

Voter Photo Identification..................................................................... 66

Additional Comments........................................................................... 67

Impact of Hurricane Sandy .................................................................. 68

What Does This All Mean? .................................................................. 69

CHAPTER 5. POSTELECTION UNDERTAKINGS AT THE FEDERAL AND 

STATE LEVELS.................................................................................. 71

Presidential Commission on Election Administration........................... 71

NCD Policy Forum ............................................................................... 72

2013 Legislative Efforts That Promote Voter Disenfranchisement....... 79

CHAPTER 6. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................. 83

FINDING 1: People with disabilities continue to face barriers in 

exercising their voting rights because of architectural and 

physical barriers at registration and polling sites. ........................ 83

FINDING 2: Voters with disabilities do not have equal access to 

voting systems because states and localities have not invested 

adequate resources, planning, and training to provide reliable, 

accessible voting technology. ...................................................... 85

FINDING 3: Voters with disabilities face discrimination at voter 

registration and polling sites resulting from poorly trained 

election personnel and volunteers. .............................................. 88

FINDING 4: People with disabilities have limited access to voter 

education, despite its importance to understanding the election 

process and voting rights............................................................. 89

FINDING 5: The Federal Government plays a vital role in ensuring 

the integrity of the election process in the United States. ............ 92

FINDING 6: The enforcement role of the Department of Justice is 

critical to compliance with federal statutes by states and 

localities....................................................................................... 96
7 

FINDING 7: The enactment of laws requiring stricter identification at 

the polls, including voter photo IDs, will increase barriers to the 

voting process and further disenfranchise voters with 

disabilities. ................................................................................... 98

FINDING 8: People with disabilities who are under guardianship 

face increasing barriers to voting owing to state laws.................. 99

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX A. 2012 VOTER EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE ............................... 103

APPENDIX B. HAVA APPROPRIATIONS, 2003–2012 ............................................ 105

APPENDIX C. HAVA-FUNDED SECRETARY OF STATE OFFICE 261 

ACTIVITIES, 2003–2010 ................................................................... 107

APPENDIX D. HAVA-FUNDED P&A ACTIVITIES, 2003–2010 ................................. 111

ENDNOTES ........................................................................................................... 115
8 
9 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The voting controversy during the presidential election in 2000 created a long overdue 

rallying point to improve a broken electoral system in the United States. A joint study and 

2001 report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the California 

Institute of Technology (CIT) found that 4 to 6 million votes had been lost and uncounted 

as a result of registration, balloting, voting equipment, and polling place problems.1

HAVA joins existing voting rights laws to prohibit voter discrimination, suppression, 

intimidation, and denial of voting access for people with disabilities, coupled with the 

protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and building upon the mandate 

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This report examines the impact of HAVA through the 

experiences of voters with disabilities during the 2012 election cycle.

 The 

Help America Vote Act (HAVA), enacted by Congress in 2002, mandated improvements

to the electoral process by establishing minimum standards for uniform and 

nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements, including, for the 

first time, requirements that citizens with disabilities be able to vote independently and

privately. 

Key Findings and Recommendations

FINDING 1: People with disabilities continue to face barriers in exercising their 

voting rights because of architectural and physical barriers at registration and 

polling sites.

States and localities have not invested adequate resources, planning, or training to meet 

architectural and physical access compliance standards required to increase 

participation and improve the experience of voters with disabilities.

In written testimony submitted to NCD for its April 23, 2013, Policy Forum, Congressman 

Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who was the lead sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives of 
10

the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 2008 ADA Amendments Act, 

stated, “Congress has a responsibility to continue funding HAVA programs, including the 

grant program to make polling places accessible to all Americans.... We must approve a 

budget and appropriations bills that provide the resources to fund HAVA at levels that will 

treat all voters the same. To that end, I requested that the Labor, Health and Human 

Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee include $17 million toward the 

implementation of HAVA programs in next year’s [FY 2014] budget.”2

Other witnesses at the NCD Policy Forum also expressed the belief that adequate 

funding is crucial to improving access for voters with disabilities and that improvement in 

making polling places accessible is the result in large part to the power of federal grants. 

Recommendations

• States and localities must ensure that all voter service centers and polling 

precincts be fully accessible, in compliance with the ADA, Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act, and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

NCD recommends that state and local election officials ensure the architectural 

accessibility of all Voter Service Centers and polling precincts—in compliance with 

the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and HAVA—by conducting 

accessibility compliance reviews before the primary and general elections and 

making appropriate modifications. States and localities should use existing 

federal resources, including U.S. Election Assistance Committee (EAC) election 

management resources.

If the state is facing accessibility complaints, the Department of Justice Project 

Civic Access (PCA) compliance reviews should be used to facilitate and 

benchmark real change and address accessibility concerns across all areas to 

promote civic participation of people with disabilities. Additionally, state and local 

election boards should collaborate with Protection and Advocacy systems (P&As), 

the ADA National Network, disability rights groups, and self-advocates to survey 

registration and polling sites, using the Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA 
11

Checklist for Polling Places and other similar resources for accessible parking, 

curb cuts, sidewalk maintenance, accessible doors and entrances, paths of travel, 

restroom accessibility, and any other physical barriers, and to identify potential 

modifications. Accessibility should be determined before any new site is 

designated for voter registration or voting. 

• Local boards of elections must be provided with the fiscal resources to 

make modifications necessary to meet accessibility requirements under the 

ADA.

NCD recommends that state election entities, including secretary of state offices, 

help localities maximize the availability of adequate funding to provide the 

necessary planning, training, materials, and resources to make modifications 

necessary to meet accessibility requirements under the ADA and HAVA. 

• The Department of Justice must increase its enforcement of ADA 

compliance and pursue complaints raised by voters with disabilities.

NCD recommends that DOJ commit increasing resources, staff, and focus to 

ensure the physical, technological, and architectural accessibility of the voting 

process for people with disabilities through its enforcement of the ADA and 

Section 504 compliance. NCD further recommends that DOJ support enforcement 

actions brought by P&As and private litigators as enforcement partners.

FINDING 2: Voters with disabilities do not have equal access to voting systems 

because states and localities have not invested adequate resources, planning, and 

training to provide reliable, accessible voting technology.

Although all state jurisdictions have received HAVA funding to upgrade voting systems, 

including accessible voting machines, voters with disabilities were disenfranchised 

during the 2012 elections because of voting machines that malfunctioned, were broken, 

were unavailable for use, or that poll personnel were unable to demonstrate or operate. 

Voters with disabilities were denied an equal opportunity for voting access and the 

opportunity to cast a private and independent ballot.
12

At the NCD Policy Forum on April 23, 2013, a number of distinguished panelists testified 

about the need for continued HAVA funding to the states for voting technology. Mark 

Richert, director of public policy, American Federation for the Blind (AFB), noted, “I hope 

that over the course of this afternoon, we’ll make the connections to the extent we do not 

invest as adequately as I believe we need to in protecting/managing the most sacred 

right that we have in this country.”3 Mr. Richert said, “The funds that have been made 

available to make the equipment available have been effective,” but there is a lack of 

training on the part of polling officials. He added, “If our polling workers are not prepared 

to use the equipment, it’s worthless.”4

Recommendations

 

• The Presidential Commission on Election Administration should 

recommend and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) should 

encourage state and local jurisdictions to ensure that universally designed, 

accessible voting machines are available, functioning, and situated to 

provide complete privacy for voters with disabilities.

NCD recommends that the Presidential Commission on Election Administration 

and the EAC encourage state and local jurisdictions to maintain universally 

designed, accessible voting machines that are available, functioning, and situated 

to provide complete privacy for voters with disabilities. 

• Congress in its oversight capacity should direct and ensure continued 

research and create incentives for the development of universally designed 

electronic/digital voting technology and processes that preserve the privacy 

of the ballot and the independence of the voter while allowing verification of 

the vote and system reliability.

NCD recommends that Congress direct further research and create incentives for 

the development of universally designed electronic/digital voting technology to 

meet HAVA’s specific requirements for voting systems to be accessible to people 

with disabilities and to permit a voter to verify his or her vote on the ballot in a 
13

private and independent manner before the ballot is cast and counted. Many of 

the voting technologies currently in use, including direct recording electronic 

(DRE) and optical scan systems, have been fraught with problems as identified by 

voters; these problems undermine voter confidence. HAVA expressly mandates 

research and development to improve the quality, reliability, accuracy, 

accessibility, affordability, and security of voting equipment, election systems, and 

voting technology.

• Congress should appropriate funding for state secretary of state (SOS) 

offices to support the purchase, upgrading, and maintenance of electronic 

voting systems.

NCD recommends that Congress appropriate funding for SOS offices to support 

the purchase, upgrading, and maintenance of electronic voting systems. In the 

current world of technological advances and ever-changing electronic business 

methods, updating and improvement in voting systems is perhaps the most costly 

of HAVA’s innovation goals, but it holds the most promise for providing a barrierfree voting experience for voters with disabilities. 

• The DOJ Civil Rights Division’s Voting Rights, Disability Rights, and Federal 

Coordination and Compliance sections should work closely together to 

identify state and local jurisdictions that are failing to meet their legal 

obligations to provide accessible voting systems for voters with disabilities, 

and should provide targeted monitoring and require remediation. 

NCD recommends that the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s Voting Rights, Disability 

Rights, and Federal Coordination and Compliance sections work together to 

identify state and local jurisdictions that are failing to meet HAVA mandates. 

These DOJ sections can leverage their expertise and fortify their influence to 

ensure consistency and effective enforcement of voting rights statutes and the 

ADA across all federally mandated programs that may affect voting access for 

people with disabilities. 
14

NCD further recommends that DOJ, in conjunction with the Presidential 

Commission on Election Administration and the EAC, update and reissue 

guidance to the states on the legal obligation to provide accessible voting systems 

for voters with disabilities. The guidance should address requirements under 

HAVA, other relevant voting rights laws, and accessibility compliance under the 

ADA.

FINDING 3: Voters with disabilities face discrimination at voter registration and 

polling sites resulting from poorly trained election personnel and volunteers.

Voters with disabilities continue to encounter election system personnel who are 

condescending or rude or who demonstrate pejorative attitudes toward voters with 

disabilities, owing to lack of training and personal bias. State and local election 

personnel, including Election Day officials and volunteers, require extensive training on 

the voting rights of people with disabilities, the local voting system, and the requirement 

to provide all presenting voters with the opportunity to cast a private, independent ballot. 

Recommendations

• State and local election officials must invest in adequate training for all 

election personnel and volunteers. 

NCD recommends that state and local election officials invest in adequate training 

for all election personnel and volunteers. Such comprehensive training should 

include (1) the obligations and requirements of HAVA and other relevant federal 

and state statutes regarding the voting rights of people with disabilities, including 

the right of voters to receive voting assistance from a person of their choosing; (2) 

the state and local voting process and election system; (3) how to set up, operate, 

and demonstrate the use of accessible voting machines; and (4) disability 

awareness and etiquette training. Elections personnel, particularly election judges 

and supervisors, should employ heightened scrutiny during hours of operation to 

make sure that voters with a full spectrum of disabilities receive assistance, 

effective communication, and respect. NCD further recommends that, to achieve 
15

this training goal, states and localities collaborate with trusted local sources as 

well as national disability organizations and disability-related entities, such as the 

National Council on Independent Living, the National Disability Rights Network,

and the ADA National Network.

• State and local election officials must increase their efforts to hire people 

with disabilities for all election personnel and volunteer positions.

NCD recommends that state and local election officials increase their efforts to 

recruit and hire people with disabilities for all election personnel and volunteer 

positions. Such efforts will require focused outreach to the disability community.

FINDING 4: The Federal Government plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity of 

the election process in the United States.

While federal elections are administered under state laws and policies, Congress has 

enacted laws to ensure that every U.S. citizen has equal access to exercising the right to 

vote. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government play

important roles in protecting the election process and enforcing the right of all citizens to 

cast private and independent ballots. 

Recommendations

• The independent Election Assistance Commission established under HAVA 

must be fully reconstituted so it can meet its statutory mandates. 

The EAC was established under HAVA to serve as a national clearinghouse and 

resource for election administration information; provide funds to states to improve 

election administration; and create minimum standards for states in key areas of 

election administration. This four-member commission was without a quorum 

beginning December 2010; since December 2011, the EAC has had no 

commissioners, and both the executive director and general counsel resigned in 

late 2011. Without commissioners or a staff, the EAC cannot perform its 

mandated functions under HAVA. In a memo issued in early 2011, the general 
16

counsel and acting executive director suspended activity by the EAC-mandated 

advisory boards because there was no designated federal official appointed to 

conduct official business. 

Without commissioners, there can be no actions by the important EAC boards, 

including the 37-member Board of Advisors and the 110-member Standards 

Board, as well as the Technical Guidelines Development Committee. It is critical 

that these seats be filled and that the EAC be staffed immediately. Panelists at 

the NCD Policy Forum noted the lack of commissioners. Former Senator 

Christopher Dodd (D-CT) said: 

HAVA established a new commission to assist states in [meeting HAVA 

requirements]. The EAC, conceived and championed by my former 

colleague, Mitch McConnell, was a resource for election officials, a place to 

turn to for professional advice and counseling on topics from resources to 

systems in their states to guidelines for administering an election. 

Unfortunately, they are without any commissioners. One of the 

recommendations I would make to this group is that you insist these jobs 

be filled.5

• The Presidential Commission on Election Administration should draw on 

the reported experiences of voters with disabilities to improve the 

experience of all voters.

NCD recommends that the Presidential Commission on Election Administration 

use this and other recent reports that capture the experiences of voters with 

disabilities, along with a concerted effort to focus on disability voting concerns at 

their public meetings, to identify the challenges related to physical, architectural, 

technological, and attitudinal barriers to voting and to develop solutions to improve 

the experience, and protect and ensure the rights of voters with disabilities and all 

voters. 

 

Support for this recommendation was offered by former Senator Dodd at the NCD 
17

Policy Forum. When he was asked what specific advice NCD could give the 

presidential commission, he said, “Well, start with the basics. You have to be in 

the room and at the table...that ought to be fundamental. To talk about this and 

not be at the table.... I'm not suggesting one seat either. You can become 

advocates not only for your own community but for everyone else as well. So it 

ought not to be a seat physically designated for disability, but because you bring a 

wealth of knowledge for all Americans. So I would begin there.”6

• The Presidential Commission on Election Administration should identify 

and recommend promising practices related to voting processes that can 

enhance the experience of voters with disabilities while protecting their 

rights.

NCD recommends that the Presidential Commission on Election Administration 

identify, investigate, and report on promising practices related to voting processes 

that can be made available to protect the rights and enhance the experience of 

voters with disabilities, and eliminate barriers to the electoral process. Such 

practices might include vote-by-mail systems such as that currently used in 

Oregon and the permanent absentee ballot voter status recently introduced in 

Connecticut. 

Hurricane Sandy dealt a devastating blow to a number of precincts in the 

northeast corridor right before the 2012 general election, severely challenging the 

resources of state and local election officials and the ability of voters (including 

first responders) to get to the polls. NCD recommends that the commission work 

with state and local election officials and the National Association of Secretaries of 

State’s Task Force on Emergency Preparedness for Elections to devise effective 

emergency response procedures for elections to ensure that the requirements of 

voters with disabilities are considered as preparedness protocols are developed. 

Both the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) and the National Council on 

Independent Living (NCIL) have memorandums of understanding with the Federal 
18

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and those two entities should take an 

active leadership role in this process.

• Congress should restore and maintain full HAVA funding for the secretary 

of state offices and the P&As.

NCD recommends that Congress restore FY 2014 HAVA funding to the secretary 

of state (SOS) offices to help states comply with minimum HAVA provisions. 

Funding and oversight are crucial to ongoing improvement of the electoral 

process and its systems. Similarly, funding should be maintained for the P&A 

systems pursuant to Section 291. 

NCD further recommends that Congress require SOS offices to file their 

mandatory annual reports with the EAC and with the Administration on Intellectual 

and Developmental Disabilities of the Department of Health and Human Services 

(AIDD-HHS) so that AIDD-HHS can monitor state spending to ensure compliance 

with the HAVA disability goals. 

In a similar vein, NCD recommends that Congress request the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a field study during the 2016 general 

election to chart progress and establish a further point of comparison since their 

“Voters with Disabilities: Challenges to Voting Accessibility” surveys and reports in 

2000 and 2008. Additionally, Congress should request that GAO investigate the 

experiences of SOS offices in their use of HAVA funds to improve and reform 

voting systems for voters with disabilities. GAO witness Barbara Bovbjerg 

commented at the NCD Policy Forum, “Our work suggests that polling places 

have become somewhat more accessible...and, amazingly, that accessible voting 

systems were available to nearly everyone.... [Y]et polling places continue to 

have impediments and almost half haven’t thought through how to place the 

system so that voters can use it privately and independently.”7
19

FINDING 5: The enforcement role of the Department of Justice is critical to 

compliance with federal statutes by states and localities. 

DOJ has heightened its monitoring and enforcement of the voting rights statutes and the 

ADA. During the 2012 general election cycle, DOJ was a more visible, active 

enforcement partner with nonpartisan voter protection coalitions such as the P&A system 

and the Election Protection coalition led by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under 

Law. 

However, testimony at the NCD Policy Forum on HAVA suggested the need for more 

vigorous enforcement. DOJ must continue to increase its presence through monitoring 

and rigorous enforcement in states and localities where the rights of voters with 

disabilities have been abridged and voters disenfranchised. As discussed in this report, 

DOJ must use enforcement actions under HAVA, the ADA, and Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. 

Recommendations 

• DOJ should increase and expand its monitoring of polling sites for 

compliance with the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

NCD recommends that DOJ increase and expand its monitoring of polling sites for 

compliance with ADA Title II and Title III, and bring enforcement actions as 

necessary. NCD recommends the use of DOJ’s Project Civic Access to identify 

areas of noncompliance and required remediation. DOJ should include Project 

Civic Access compliance reviews in response to all voting access complaints 

under review. NCD also recommends that DOJ broadly publicize its voter 

complaint process and vigorously pursue all complaints received. 

 

Further, NCD recommends that DOJ use the local expertise of Protection and 

Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) programs and other voting advocacy entities 

in monitoring, identifying, and addressing noncompliance. This targeted attention 

on voting access compliance, particularly on Election Day, will continue to send a 
20

strong message to state and local jurisdictions that they can no longer 

discriminate against voters with disabilities.

• DOJ should be vigilant in enforcing the Voting Rights Act and remediating 

any violations of federal voting laws.

NCD recommends that DOJ remain vigilant in enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 

1965 related to any discriminatory election procedures, including voter 

identification laws that have the potential to disenfranchise voters with disabilities. 

It is an important enforcement tool, as has been proven with proposed voter photo 

ID requirements in Texas. 

NCD similarly recommends that DOJ intervene and pursue complaints to 

remediate any violations of federal voting laws, proposals, and practices that 

impinge on voter rights.

• DOJ should expand its monitoring and oversight of the accessibility of 

polling places for people with disabilities.

NCD recommends that DOJ expand its monitoring and oversight of the 

accessibility of polling places for people with disabilities, using the following 

suggestions offered by GAO in its 2009 report:

Working with states to use existing state oversight mechanisms and using 

other resources, such as organizations representing election officials and 

disability advocacy organizations, to help assess and monitor states’ progress 

in ensuring polling place accessibility, similar to the effort used to determine 

state compliance with HAVA voting system requirements. 

Expanding the scope of Election Day observations to include an assessment 

of the physical and technological access to the voting area and the level of 

privacy and independence being offered to voters with disabilities by 

accessible voting systems. 
21

Expanding the ADA Checklist for Polling Places to include additional 

information on the accessibility of the voting area and guidance on the 

configuration of the accessible voting system to provide voters with disabilities 

with the same level of privacy and independence as is afforded other voters.
22
23

INTRODUCTION

The right to vote is a unique and singularly important indicator of citizenship in a 

democracy, in the United States and throughout the free world. For too long, people with 

disabilities have been in the shadows in exercising this basic civil right. The causes of 

voter disenfranchisement are myriad, but they include physical inaccessibility, a failure to 

provide registration and voting materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, 

a lack of private and independent voting for many citizens, and the denial of the right to 

vote on the basis of erroneous assumptions about a person’s capability because of his or 

her disability.

Congress understands the importance of voting in a free society and has enacted laws to 

ensure that states conduct elections free of discrimination, suppression, intimidation, or 

fraud; that all voters have access to the process; and that the process itself is accessible 

and usable. These laws include the following: 

• Voting Rights Act of 19658

• Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 19849

• Americans with Disabilities Act of 199010

• National Voter Registration Act of 199311

• Help America Vote Act of 2002

 

12

As described in chapters 2 and 3, these voting rights laws prohibit discrimination on the 

basis of race, color, or membership in a minority language group; prohibit intimidation of 

voters; provide that voters who need assistance because of disability, aging, or illiteracy 

can obtain assistance from a person of their choice; require minority language election 

materials and assistance in certain jurisdictions; provide for accessible election machines 
24

for voters with disabilities; require provisional ballots for voters who assert that they are 

eligible but whose names do not appear on poll books; and require states to ensure that 

citizens can register to vote at state departments of motor vehicles, public assistance 

offices, and other state agencies, and through the U.S. mail; and include requirements 

regarding maintaining voter registration lists. 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, Voting Section enforces the 

civil provisions of federal laws that protect the right to vote.13 Representatives of the Civil 

Rights Division monitored select polling sites on the 2012 general Election Day. 

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA),14 signed into law on October 29, 2002, was enacted 

to make major improvements to voting systems across the country following the debacle 

of the 2000 elections. Most important, the enactment of HAVA acknowledged the unique 

obstacles faced by people with disabilities at the polls and throughout the voting process. 

Congressman Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives, 

in written comments to NCD dated April 23, 2013, described how HAVA addressed the 

needs of voters with disabilities:

First, it sought to make sure polling places are accessible by creating a grant 

program, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, to 

make polling places accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Second, it mandated in every polling place in the United States at least one 

machine that can provide all voters the ability to cast a ballot privately and 

independently. These two pillars may sound simple and straightforward, but they 

were anything but simple at the time HAVA was negotiated.

He continued:
25

HAVA was the product of almost two years of bipartisan, bicameral negotiation. 

Unbelievably, much of this time was focused on achieving these two provisions 

because of a lack of appreciation at the time for just how common it was for 

disabled voters to face physical obstacles gaining entry to polling places and, 

once in them, actually casting a ballot without the assistance of a poll worker, 

relative, or friend. It may be easy for some cynics to trivialize the discomfort a 

voter with a disability feels when he or she needs the help of someone else to 

cast a ballot. But the bottom line is that our democracy is based on the principle of 

the private ballot—the premise that the people’s will can only be accurately 

registered when their votes are freely and privately cast, without fear of 

recrimination or manipulation.15

HAVA, in conjunction with other federal voting and disability rights laws, is a potent agent 

for improving the election process for voters with disabilities. But what has been gained 

for voters with disabilities since its enactment? 

Reporting on its 2008 study of polling places, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) noted that “while improvements over the 2000 presidential election were 

significant, 73 percent of polling places were inaccessible in one or more ways during the 

2008 presidential election.”16 At the NCD Policy Forum on HAVA, Barbara Bovbjerg

(GAO’s managing director for education, workforce, and income security) discussed the 

GAO polling place accessibility studies, noting that “the proportion of polling places in 

2008 without potential impediments increased and almost all polling places had an 

accessible voting system as states and localities made various efforts to help facilitate 

accessible voting.” In summarizing the distinct changes observed in the field in 2008, six 

years after the passage of HAVA, Bovbjerg commented:

I think I would sum it up with there’s better awareness, but it’s still not really good. 

Twenty-seven percent without impediments still means that 73 percent have 

impediments. But I was very surprised to see the mere unanimity of the polling 

places in having the accessible voting system. I think that’s the power of federal 

grant money and I think it’s the power of the requirement. It’s a very clear 
26

requirement. Of course the question is can people get into the building to use it? 

Are people who are managing that system able to make it work? And have they 

placed it appropriately?17

Recent figures released by the U.S. Census show that Americans with disabilities 

comprise over 18 percent of our population, or 56.7 million Americans.18 Reports from 

the most recent elections have been emerging since November 2012, detailing a mix of 

successes and continuing challenges. 

Professors Lisa Schur and Douglas Kruse at the Rutgers (NJ) University School of 

Management and Labor Relations have followed the numbers and percentages of voters

with disabilities for several election cycles. 

According to a study by Schur and Kruse, 14.7 million people with disabilities voted In 

the November 2008 presidential election. Sixty-four percent of eligible people without 

disabilities voted, while just 57 percent of those with disabilities cast ballots.19 Also in 

2008, the voter registration rate for people with disabilities was 3 percent lower than the 

rate for people without disabilities. Schur and Kruse attributed the lower voter turnout to 

difficulty getting to the polling place, a lower level of income, a lower level of political 

recruitment, and a lower level of political efficacy.20

Two years later, following the November 2010 elections, Schur and Kruse reported 11 

million voters with disabilities, which was only 3 percentage points lower than the 

percentage of voters with no disability. During both election cycles, Schur and Kruse 

found no employment gap between voters with and without disabilities. This suggested 

to them that employment provides resources and social contacts that encourage 

voting.

 

21

The complete results of the 2012 Rutgers election study had not yet been released when 

this report was published; however, in a presentation before the Election Assistance 

Commission in May 2013, Schur and Kruse reported that voter turnout continues to be 

lower for people with disabilities and opined that inaccessible polling places play a major 

 
27

role “both by making voting more difficult and possibly sending the message that people 

with disabilities are not welcome in the political sphere.”22

This sampling of surveys and questionnaires looking at turnout for voters with disabilities 

in 2008, 2010, and 2012 suggests that the participation of people with disabilities in the 

electoral process is increasing, but significant barriers still exist. 

New Jersey Community Access Unlimited (CAU), a service provider for people with 

disabilities, released information in January 2013 demonstrating that its clients with 

disabilities participated in the November 2012 general election at a level that far 

exceeded the overall national level of voting. CAU reported that more than 84 percent of 

its clients cast a vote in the November 6, 2012, election. Some CAU clients responded to 

the NCD questionnaire following the election.23 These voters included a 50-year-old who 

was voting for the first time.24

The CAU clients reported barriers including a lack of wheelchair-accessible entrances, 

having their eligibility questioned by poll workers, and being treated harshly by poll 

workers. Nonetheless, the CAU information may signal an increase in the number of 

voters with disabilities.

The New York State Independent Living Council (NYSILC) in Albany conducted an 

online postelection survey of New York voters with disabilities following the November 

2012 election. In a sample of 112 voters, 99 percent indicated that they were registered 

and that they had voted on Election Day. While the majority (69 percent) reported no 

problems at the polls, 22 percent cited problems including physical barriers, broken 

accessible voting machines, and lack of sign language interpreters.25

Following the November 2012 election, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) 

conducted an online survey of voters who are blind or have low vision to assess their 

voting experiences at the poll. After surveying more than 500 voters, NFB concluded that 

its data indicated “a positive trend in the number of blind voters who cast their ballot 

privately and independently at the polls and who did so with an accessible voting 
28

machine. However, the results of these surveys also indicate a decrease in poll workers’ 

knowledge of how to operate the accessible voting machine, a decline in poll workers’ 

treatment of blind voters, and a decline in blind voters’ satisfaction with their voting 

experience.”26 NFB was rightfully concerned that these negative experiences might 

discourage participation in future elections and urged that poll worker training be 

improved to ensure that voters who are blind have the same positive voting experience 

as their sighted peers.

In testimony and a written statement to the NCD Policy Forum, Lou Ann Blake, director 

of outreach, Jernigan Institute, NFB, underscored the need for trained poll workers and 

improved technology whereby all voters use the same voting system: 

Blind voters who use accessible voting machines were able to cast a private and 

independent ballot. However, the data also indicates that a significant portion of 

blind voters were not able to cast a private and independent ballot due to poll 

workers who did not know how to operate the voting machines as well as 

technical issues related to the voting machine.... [M]achines that require a poll 

worker’s intervention to start the accessibility features are a problem, and if 

everybody voted on the same machine, a lot of these problems would be taken 

care of.27

The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law issued its 2012 Election Protection 

Report in February 2013.28 Election Protection coalition partners include leading civil, 

disability, and voting rights organizations, including NDRN and P&A programs. Coalition 

members played an active role—providing on-the-ground monitoring and responding to 

more than 423 Election Day disability-related complaints that filtered through the Election 

Protection hotline. Election Protection reported, “Voters with disabilities faced particular 

hurdles on Election Day, often as a consequence of the lack of polling place resources 

and long wait times.”29 Specific problems that resulted in disenfranchisement for voters 

with disabilities included polling places refusing to provide curbside voting, a lack of 

seating, voters being asked to provide proof of disability, and refusing voters assistance 

at the polls.30
29

The Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE) National Technical Assistance 

Center for Voting and Cognitive Access conducted Project Vote, partnering with selfadvocacy groups, the Ohio University Center for Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities , NDRN, and P&As in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

and 10 other states Surveying voters with disabilities regarding their experiences on 

Election Day, SABE found that while most voters with disabilities were able to vote 

successfully, problems were reported regarding entering the polling place, moving 

around the room once inside, and lack of privacy in casting a ballot owing to the location 

of the accessible voting equipment.31

Genesis of the Report

In the Fiscal Year 2012 Senate Labor–Health and Human Services Appropriations bill (S. 

1599), the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD)32 (which was then part of 

the Administration on Children and Families (ACF) in the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS)) was encouraged to consult with NCD “to monitor the 

implementation of the Help America Vote Act for voters with disabilities during the 2012 

general election cycle.”33 Although the bill passed the Senate, it was not included in the 

final appropriation bill. However, HHS wanted to meet the spirit of the Senate-passed bill. 

Accordingly, ACF responded to the Senate language by writing in its budget justification:

The Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) will work with the 

National Council on Disability (NCD) and other federal partners to assess 

the accessibility of the election process for people with disabilities during 

the 2012 general election. 

To achieve this goal, ADD partnered with NCD to assess the accessibility of the election 

process for people with disabilities during the 2012 general election.

This report provides a snapshot of architectural, attitudinal, technological, legislative, and

voting practice barriers that confronted voters with disabilities in the 2012 general 

election cycle, and provides an overview of the use of federal funds, activities, and 
30

outcomes under HAVA for people with disabilities over the past decade. Incorporating 

data from the 2012 NCD Voter Experience Questionnaire and stories and anecdotes 

from the voters themselves around the country, the report documents experiences and 

offers concrete policy and procedural recommendations to improve voter participation 

and accessibility for citizens with disabilities now and in future elections.

The full participation of all citizens, including those with disabilities, in the electoral 

process is imperative. Voting is the very cornerstone of our great democracy. Registering 

to vote, accessing polling places, and casting a ballot are all part of a civil right that may 

not be compromised. Since 2002, HAVA has helped make voting an act of civic 

participation for people with disabilities; however, as this report demonstrates, much

work remains to be done. 

The questionnaire responses demonstrate that while much has improved on the national 

voting stage since the grim hanging chad debacle of 2000, the 2012 election cycle 

reflected continuing challenges. So much so that, during his 2013 State of the Union 

address, President Barak Obama spoke about the long lines and wait time and 

announced the formation of a nonpartisan Presidential Commission on Election 

Administration to improve voting in America by emphasizing “our most fundamental right 

as citizens: the right to vote. When any Americans...are denied that right...we are 

betraying our ideals.”34

Moreover, the President recognized the impact on voters with disabilities. A fact sheet 

issued by the White House describing the new commission lists physical barriers and 

voters with disabilities among the issues to be addressed. 

NCD agrees with, and appreciates, the express inclusion of the barriers faced by voters 

with disabilities as a part of the presidential commission’s work. In a 2009 report, the 

GAO stated that, as recently as 2008, only 27 percent of polling places were barrierfree.35

 The Federal Election Commission confirmed that, in violation of state and federal laws, 
31

more than 20,000 polling places across the nation are inaccessible, depriving Americans 

with disabilities of their fundamental right to vote. People with disabilities and senior 

citizens are particularly disenfranchised by long lines at polling places and by constraints 

on—and in some places the discontinuation of—early voting.

To address this persistent disparity, NCD—in coordination and collaboration with NDRN 

and EIN SOF Communications—has collected the experiences of voters with disabilities 

across the nation in the November 2012 general election. This report summarizes the

findings from the NCD Voter Experience Questionnaire and its HAVA Policy Forum in 

April 2013, and offers recommendations to remove barriers to the voting experience for 

citizens with disabilities.

NCD urges the Presidential Commission on Election Administration to consider the 

findings in this report to address not only physical barriers but also technological and 

attitudinal barriers. 

The report provides a baseline of the current state of voting for citizens with disabilities 

and can serve as a blueprint for improvements, barrier removal, and procedural changes 

that can be measured between now and the 2016 primary and general elections. 
32
33

CHAPTER 1. METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF THE REPORT

Researchers at NDRN and EIN SOF developed, tested, promoted, and disseminated a 

questionnaire with eight open-ended questions to collect information on the experiences 

of voters with disabilities during the 2012 general election cycle, including Election Day

2012. 

The goal of this project was to assess the architectural, technological, attitudinal, 

legislative, and voting practice barriers that confronted voters with disabilities in the 2012 

general election cycle and provide an overview of the use of federal funds, activities, and 

outcomes under HAVA for people with disabilities over the past decade. 

The questionnaire was broadly distributed before and after the 2012 general election 

through P&As, Developmental Disability Councils, Centers for Independent Living, and 

University Centers of Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, as well as self-advocacy, 

ally, and grassroots organizations that are disability-specific and cross-disability in 

nature. Other disability-related nongovernment organizations (NGOs) also received the 

questionnaire, including service providers; local, state, and national entities; and allied 

organizations. It was distributed in both accessible electronic and hardcopy formats for 

collection, analysis, and reporting immediately following the 2012 election. 

The dissemination plan and communications strategy also included dissemination at 

disability-related events; to listservs and Web sites; and through social media such as 

Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. The questionnaire was launched with an editorial by 

NCD member Clyde Terry on the disability.gov blog, which boasts a 65,000-person

distribution list and participation by 27 federal agencies.

Process for Developing, Testing, and Distributing the Questionnaire 

The eight open-ended questions were targeted to collect information regarding physical 

and cognitive accessibility, privacy, voting technologies, intellectual disability issues, and 

attitudinal and other barriers. The questionnaire included a section for comments. The 
34

questions were developed on the basis of a number of factors, including the past 

experience of voters with disabilities and challenges identified in previous voting cycles; 

the issues identified across the country by P&As through their PAVA programs; issues 

raised at the 2012 National Forum on Disability Issues held in Columbus, Ohio, on 

September 28, 2012; and input from self-advocates, including Self-Advocates Becoming 

Empowered (SABE), a nonprofit advocacy organization operated by and for the benefit 

of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. SABE was instrumental in field 

testing the draft NCD questionnaire. 

The questionnaire was distributed in both electronic and hardcopy formats via listservs, 

Web sites, community gatherings, and social media before and then again immediately 

following the 2012 general election. Electronic and hard copy responses were submitted 

by voters for collection and analysis by researchers. Input was also sought through a 

postelection conference call with the National Disability Leadership Alliance (NDLA), a 

national cross-disability and disability-specific organizational membership coalition led by 

14 national self-advocacy organizations with identifiable grassroots constituencies 

around the country.

The questionnaire asked voters with disabilities to describe their experiences during the 

2012 election cycle related to the following: 

• Requesting assistance with the registration process. 

• Entering polling sites (e.g., availability of accessible parking, curb cuts, doorways 

and steps).

• Access inside the polling sites (e.g., steps, paths of travel, narrow hallways, space 

to maneuver wheelchairs).

• Casting a ballot (e.g., access to voting machines, availability of alternative 

formats, and privacy and independence during the voting experience).
35

• Proving eligibility to polling place personnel. 

• Receiving voter education and training. 

• Meeting requirements of state voter photo identification laws.

The Additional Comments option anticipated the collection of additional data of 

significance that might not have been addressed in the questions, including the impact of 

any temporary poll relocation resulting from Hurricane Sandy and emergency changes in 

the standard voting procedures that might have precluded voters with disabilities from 

exercising their fundamental right to vote. 

The research team also monitored “live time” on Election Day through all the U.S. time 

zones and noted irregularities, comments, barriers, and issues faced by voters, such as 

faulty voting technology and physical, architectural, and attitudinal barriers, including poll 

workers who were not responsive to citizens with disabilities who participated in curbside 

voting.

Some of these situations were also reported to DOJ representatives who were in the field 

monitoring voting sites.

Response from Voters

Responses from nearly 900 voters with disabilities were submitted to NDRN, online 

(784), by email (37), or via the U.S. Postal Service (27). If comments were posted online 

through social media, the research team forwarded the details to each other and 

encouraged voters with disabilities to complete the questionnaire immediately while 

issues were still fresh in their minds. In some situations, DOJ representatives were 

onsite at polling places to document the experiences of voters with disabilities. Data was 

also collected immediately following the November 2012 general election. 

Questionnaires were received from voters in 46 states and the District of Columbia.36 
36

Analysis of Data

In evaluating the responses to measure the participation of people with disabilities in the 

voting process and the ongoing challenges, the following preliminary issues were taken 

into consideration: 

1. Specific states, territories, and cities responding to the questionnaire. 

2. Number of disability organizations and entities participating in outreach. 

3. Number of voters with disabilities completing the questionnaire. 

4. Number and kinds of barriers identified, for example, 

• Architectural, 

• Technological,

• Attitudinal, and

• Transportation.

The effect of Hurricane Sandy on voters with disabilities in impacted states was also 

considered. 

The methodology included a desk review of recent articles in traditional print and 

electronic and social media, editorials, op-eds, blogs, GAO reports, research papers, and 

other postelection polls and questionnaires.
37

Scope of the Report

This report describes the use of federal funds, activities, and outcomes under HAVA for 

people with disabilities over the past decade and makes recommendations to improve 

voter participation and accessibility in the future. The report incorporates data from the 

Voter Experience Questionnaire and the NCD HAVA Policy Forum regarding 

accessibility during the 2012 general election; considers the past experiences of voters 

with disabilities and the challenges identified in previous voting cycles; considers issues 

identified across the country by P&As pursuant to their PAVA programs; and describes 

P&A and SOS activities under HAVA. 

The report also provides an overview of federal laws that affect participation of people 

with disabilities in the voting process; a description of the HAVA statute and its 

requirements; and HAVA and PAVA funding and reporting requirements. It identifies 

examples of SOS activities related to voting administration and P&A advocacy activities 

in fulfillment of the PAVA mandates; provides an analysis of the data collected from the 

Voter Experience Questionnaire; includes voter experiences on Election Day 2012; and 

makes recommendations for moving forward.
38
39

CHAPTER 2. THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT37

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA),38 the most recent federal voting rights legislation, 

was signed into law on October 29, 2002. HAVA seeks to improve voting access for

people with disabilities by:

• Making accessibility grants available to states and local units of government to 

improve the accessibility of polling places and the voting process.39

• Creating minimum standards for the accessibility of voting systems.

 

40

• Requiring states to include people with disabilities on the committee that creates 

the state plan for compliance with HAVA’s requirements.41

• Providing funds for research on accessible voting technology.42

• Establishing the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) program.43

• Establishing a state-based administrative complaint procedure to remedy any 

grievances covered by the provisions of HAVA.

 

44

HAVA requires each polling place to have at least one voting system for use in federal 

elections that is accessible and usable for voters with disabilities. This accessible voting 

system is required to provide the same opportunity for people with disabilities to vote 

privately and independently as afforded by the systems available to other voters.45

Other important provisions of HAVA include establishing the Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) to serve as a clearinghouse for election administration information, 

among other responsibilities;46 providing funds to states to improve election 

administration and to replace punchcard and lever-style voting systems;47 and creating 

minimum standards for states to follow in several key areas of election administration.
40

The EAC, in its FY 2012 Activities Report to Congress, explained that its focus was on 

“building upon its core mission work: developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, 

adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, serving as a national clearinghouse of 

information and finalizing human capital and records management handbooks.”48

However, the EAC had been without a quorum of commissioners since December 10, 

2010, and has had no commissioners since December 2011. Nor does the commission 

have an executive director or general counsel.49 With no commissioners, the EAC 

cannot issue advisory opinions to states on the use of HAVA funds or adopt any policies. 

In written testimony to the NCD Policy Forum on April 23, 2013, Congressman Steny 

Hoyer stated:

The biggest immediate challenge I believe voters face today, whether or not they are 

disabled, is the absence of a working Election Assistance Commission. HAVA 

established the EAC to help state and local election officials learn what works and 

what does not work when it comes to running elections and making sure every vote is 

counted. For reasons that frustrate me and every citizen who believes in HAVA, 

House and Senate Republican leaders have refused to recommend EAC nominees 

to the President and have blocked confirmation of nominations for the two 

Democratic seats on the Commission. I believe a fully functioning EAC can have a 

significant impact in helping states make their polling places accessible to all voters.50

Former Senator Christopher Dodd (author of HAVA), testifying at the Policy Forum, 

shared Congressman Hoyer’s concerns regarding the lack of commissioners: 

HAVA established a new commission to assist states in this process. The Election 

Assistance Commission, conceived and championed by my former colleague, 

Mitch McConnell, was a resource for election officials, a place to turn to for 

professional advice and counseling on topics from resources to systems in their 

states to guidelines for administering an election. Unfortunately, they are without 

any commissioners. One of the recommendations I would make to this group is 

that you insist these jobs be filled.51
41

States that receive funds under HAVA must establish an administrative grievance 

procedure for voting complaints. States that do not accept funds under the Act must 

either establish a grievance procedure or submit a compliance plan with the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ).52 DOJ is authorized to seek injunctive or declaratory relief 

for HAVA violations.53

Administration of the law’s disability provisions (Sections 261 and 291) was assigned to 

the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

 

54 who delegated 

the responsibility to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), who in turn 

delegated the responsibility to the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD). In 

2012, ADD was transferred into the newly organized Administration for Community 

Living (ACL), and ADD became the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities (AIDD), retaining jurisdiction over Sections 261 and 291. The EAC 

administers the other relevant HAVA sections, including Sections 101,55 102,56 and 

25157

HAVA programs are expressly designated to establish and improve participation in the 

election process for individuals within the full range of disabilities. HAVA state grantees 

make polling places accessible for people with disabilities (including paths of travel, 

entrances, exits, and voting areas); provide information on the location of accessible 

polling places; and adopt voting procedures that enable these people to vote privately 

and independently. Grantees also educate election officials, poll workers, and election 

volunteers on the rights of voters with disabilities and best practices in working with 

them.

requirements. 

58

HAVA Voting Systems and Accessibility Requirements

HAVA requires that “a voting system shall be accessible to people with disabilities, 

including non-visual accessibility for blind and low vision voters, in a manner that 

provides the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and 

independence) as for other voters.”59
42

All voting systems must permit the voter to verify (in a private and independent manner) 

the votes selected on the ballot before the ballot is cast and counted; provide the voter 

with the opportunity (in a private and independent manner) to change the ballot or 

correct any error before the ballot is cast and counted; and notify the voter of any votes 

for more than the maximum number of selections allowed in a contest (“over votes”) and 

give the voter a chance to correct these errors.60

A voting system is defined as the “total combination of mechanical, electromechanical, or 

electronic equipment and documentation required to program control and support 

equipment that is used (A) to define ballots; (B) to cast and count votes; (C) to report or 

display election results; and (D) to maintain and produce any audit trail information.”61

Many people are familiar with mechanical voting machines but, since the passage of 

HAVA, electronic voting machines are gradually becoming more prevalent. These

machines give rise to concerns about a verifiable paper trail.

This also includes the procedures and documents “used (A) to identify system 

components and versions of such components; (B) to test the system during its 

development and maintenance; (C) to maintain records of system errors or defects; (D) 

to determine specific changes made after initial certification; and (E) to make available 

any materials to the voter....”62

As a result of the passage of HAVA, all states and localities are provided with funding to 

upgrade their voting systems, including machines, the process for voter registration, and 

training for poll workers. Each state oversees the implementation of the upgrade of its

voting system, which results in various interpretations of the federal requirements under 

HAVA.

 

63 At least 39 states have voting systems that are certified using the 2005 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines.64

The infusion of federal dollars has been crucial to the ability of states and localities to 

meet HAVA requirements to improve voting processes and systems. Cost is cited most 

frequently as a factor in election officials’ decisions with regard to voting system 

technology.65
43

In 2010, the EAC announced the availability of $7 million in federal funds to support 

research and development to advance voting accessibility technology to enable citizens 

with disabilities to vote privately and independently pursuant to HAVA. This competitive 

Accessible Voting Technology Initiative awarded two 3-year grants in 2011, one to the 

Information Technology Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and the other to Clemson 

University, working in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST).66 In its FY 2012 Activities Report, EAC reported that Clemson— 

working with an extensive group of partners, including the Election Center, Rutgers 

University, and a diverse group of organizations from the elections community—had testpiloted a prototype voting machine. 

ITIF is also working with several organizations, including the National Federation of the 

Blind, to develop innovative voting system technologies and processes to improve the 

voting experience for people with disabilities.67

HAVA Section 261 and SOS Offices

Initially, under Section 261 of HAVA, funds were provided to the chief election officials in 

each state; namely, the office of the secretary of state (SOS). The funds were to be used 

to make polling places accessible, to inform people with disabilities about the location of 

accessible polling places, to train election officials and volunteers in how to interact 

appropriately with people with disabilities, and to acquire and adopt voting procedures 

that permit people with disabilities to vote privately and independently. 

Since 2002, the states and territories that have received Section 261 funding have made 

great strides in assisting voters with a full range of disabilities and improving 

accessibility. Approximately $94,197,018 has been awarded to the SOS programs (see 

table in appendix B for details). Awards are made through AIDD to each state, the 

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and 

the Virgin Islands. For examples of activities carried out by the SOS offices with Section 

261 funds, see appendix C.
44

Despite the improvements, there has been controversy regarding how states have used 

(or failed to use) HAVA appropriations. A June 27, 2011, report from the Congressional 

Research Service explains:

Altogether, more than $3.5 billion of federal funds was appropriated through 

FY2010 under HAVA: about $3.3 billion in election reform payments to states; 

$130 million for the EAC and its various programs; and another $130 million in 

accessibility payments to states, administered by the Department of Health and 

Human Services. For FY2011, the President’s budget request included $16.8 

million for the EAC but no funding for election reform payments to the states. The 

Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 111-238) and the House Financial 

Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee recommended 

similar amounts. However, the EAC has been operating at FY2010 funding levels 

since September 30, 2010, under a series of continuing resolutions. For FY2012, 

the Administration requested $13.7 million for the EAC, with no funding for 

election reform payments because large sums that were previously appropriated 

remain unexpended.68

The difficulty some states have had in spending HAVA funds has negatively affected the 

overall program. Some HAVA money has been returned to the U.S. Department of the

Treasury, because grant funds had not been expended by the end of the five-year time 

frame. In recent years, Congress has questioned the use of SOS HAVA funds, the 

rationale behind the spending trends for the grantees, and the viability of the program. 

Moreover, as reported by AIDD, grantees’ spending records have often differed from 

those of the federal grantor. The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) has 

raised concerns over what it describes as “misperceptions” about SOS use of HAVA 

funds; the association makes a case that the funds received thus far have been used to 

successfully implement HAVA and improve the electoral process.69

In March 2010, NASS—joined by state and local election officials, civil and disability 

rights advocates, and voter advocacy organizations—issued an open letter to Congress 

 
45

urging its continued support for full funding for HAVA to “[fulfill] the promise of election 

reform and to [provide] resources that will help state and local governments meet their 

long-term challenges.”70

One challenge is that the employee turnover rate in SOS offices is high—the same staff 

members responsible for HAVA efforts and reports may not work with the program from 

one fiscal year to the next, which affects continuity and effectiveness. This has proved to 

be a challenge in obtaining sufficient information to include in annual HAVA Section 261 

reports (see the reporting requirements below). AIDD puts a great deal of effort into

providing technical assistance to SOS grantee staff who are new to the program and 

following up with SOS grantees who have not submitted their annual reports.

In FY 2012, no funds were appropriated to support the efforts of 

the SOS offices; funding had not been restored as of the publication date of this report 

(see appendix B). 

71

In testimony at the NCD Policy Forum in April 2013, AIDD Commissioner Sharon Lewis 

cited as shortcomings of HAVA the lack of enforceability and accountability and the lack 

of resources available for training and technical assistance to the SOS grantees. Lewis 

said: 

We at HHS have very few monitoring opportunities [for] following up after the 

resources have been provided to the states. The states are required to report 

back to us under the statute, but we cannot withhold their funds should they not 

choose to provide a report. So our monitoring and enforcement really comes 

through our Network. The Protection and Advocacy agencies really are the onthe-ground eyes and ears that pay attention to whether or not states are doing the 

work of HAVA and utilizing the resources as intended.... [O]ne of the 

shortcomings of the current process is that while there is technical assistance 

available to the P&As, there are no resources available through our programs 

related to technical assistance to the states.

72
46

HAVA Section 291: Protection and Advocacy Systems

HAVA Section 29173 provides payments to the P&A of each state and territory as defined 

under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000.74 Under 

Section 291 funding, $42,135,941 has been awarded to the P&As since the inception of 

the HAVA program (see table in appendix B). 

Awards to the P&As are made through AIDD to each eligible state, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin 

Islands. For examples of activities carried out by the P&As with Section 291 funds, see 

appendix D.

Section 291 provides that funds be made available to the P&A system of each state and 

territory to ensure full participation in the electoral process for voters with disabilities, 

including registering to vote, casting a private and independent vote, and accessing 

polling places. Grant funds are expressly for the purpose of providing services to people 

with disabilities within the state, as well as education and advocacy to ensure the full 

participation of people with disabilities in the electoral process.75

According to Section 292(a),76 none of the HAVA funds granted to a P&A system may be 

used to initiate or otherwise participate in any litigation connected to election-related 

disability access, notwithstanding the general authorities that the P&As are otherwise 

afforded under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000. 

P&A systems have conducted a wide range of advocacy activities to build awareness 

and ensure the voting rights of people with disabilities.

P&As use their PAVA funds to provide education, training, and assistance to people with 

disabilities that will promote and encourage their participation in the electoral process. 

Activities include education about voter registration and their legal rights pertaining to 

voting, assistance with registering to vote, and assistance in accessing the polls on 

Election Day.

77 Education materials are made available in various formats and in

languages other than English. P&As also help people with disabilities file complaints 
47

under the state-based administrative grievance procedure required by HAVA78 and 

represent them in any hearings regarding the complaint. 

Grant funds allow P&As to participate in advocacy and education efforts revolving 

around HAVA implementation efforts in their state and local jurisdictions, including 

participation on the HAVA state planning committee or any subcommittees; participation 

in coalition efforts regarding the state plan; reviewing the work of the committee and

providing comments on the state plan; and participating in review, advocacy, and 

education with regard to the enactment of state HAVA legislation.

P&As play an active role in the development of training materials and the training and 

education of election officials, poll workers, and volunteers regarding the rights of voters 

with disabilities and best practices in working with people with disabilities. 

P&As also provide assistance to states and other government entities regarding the 

physical accessibility of polling places; for example, surveying polling places, identifying 

potential modifications to make a polling place accessible, and developing criteria to

identify accessible polling places. For examples of all these P&A activities, see appendix 

D.79

Finally, in each eligible state and territory, Section 291 of HAVA authorizes that 7 percent 

of HAVA funds be set aside for training and technical assistance to P&As related to 

PAVA activities.80 Eligible nonprofit organizations receive discretionary grants to help

P&As develop proficiency in the use of voting systems and technologies for people with 

disabilities and to demonstrate and evaluate the use of such systems and technologies. 

81 NDRN and NFB currently provide training and technical assistance to the P&As 

through a competitive one-year award process. 

Reporting Requirements

According to the requirements set forth under Section 265,82 each eligible state is 

required to submit a report no later than six months after the end of each fiscal year. The 
48

SOS offices submit an annual narrative report describing the use of funds with regard to 

the mandated areas of activities authorized under 42 U.S.C. 15421 of HAVA. 

The narrative report is written as a detailed summary of the HAVA activities, barriers, 

best practices, collaborations, and funds spent to carry out the activities during the fiscal 

year. The emphasis in the narrative report is on the state’s progress in addressing the 

four mandated areas: (1) making polling places accessible to people with disabilities; (2) 

providing them with an equal opportunity for access and participation in the electoral 

process; (3) training election officials, poll workers, and volunteers on how best to 

promote access and participation of voters with disabilities; and (4) providing information 

to people with disabilities about the accessibility of polling places.

Similarly, the annual narrative reports for the P&A systems describe activities carried out 

to address their seven mandated areas: (1) full participation of people with disabilities in 

the electoral process; (2) education, training, and assistance; (3) advocacy and 

education around HAVA implementation efforts; (4) training and education of election 

officials, poll workers and volunteers regarding best practices and the rights of voters 

with disabilities; (5) assistance to voters with disabilities in filing complaints under statebased administrative grievance procedures required by HAVA; (6) assistance to state 

and other government entities regarding the physical accessibility of polling places; and 

(7) obtaining training and technical assistance on voting issues.

AIDD program staff work closely with SOS and P&A grantees on the annual reports. 

They recommend that grantees consider a range of questions and statements to 

summarize the status of their efforts, including the activities completed during the fiscal 

year; the barriers hindering completion of activities; collaboration with other 

organizations, including the P&A system; and feedback from citizens regarding 

improvements or changes in voter accessibility. AIDD submits the format for the annual 

report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance and takes

appropriate steps to maintain the OMB clearance on the format. The annual reports are 

due to AIDD no later than December 31 of each year.
49

The data obtained through the submission of the annual narrative reports for the SOS 

and P&As is compiled to create a biannual report from the HHS secretary to the 

Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

on Rules and Administration of the Senate, as required by the statute.83

The EAC is required by HAVA to submit an annual report to the same committees. The 

report should include a detailed description of activities conducted under each program 

carried out by the commission (including Sections 101, 102, and 251); a copy of the 

reports submitted to the EAC by recipient SOS offices; and information on voluntary 

voting system guidelines adopted or modified pursuant to HAVA.

 

84

Challenges and Barriers

 

Many accomplishments can be attributed to HAVA, but challenges and significant 

barriers to voting for citizens with disabilities remain. A concentrated effort is needed to 

ensure accountability for and enforcement of HAVA. At the NCD Policy Forum, several 

panelists—including Barbara Bovbjerg from GAO—emphasized the necessity for 

increased accountability for and oversight of HAVA. Bovbjerg urged DOJ to “look for 

opportunities to expand its oversight [of HAVA] in cost-effective ways.”85 In written 

testimony, she noted that “Justice’s limited oversight of HAVA voting system 

requirements and polling place accessibility, by 2009, left gaps in ensuring voting 

accessibility for people with disabilities”86 and that increased oversight “could build upon 

Justice’s efforts to date in potentially reducing voting impediments and other challenges 

for voters with disabilities.87 
50
51

CHAPTER 3. OTHER FEDERAL LAWS THAT AFFECT VOTING RIGHTS OF 

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

When Congress passed HAVA in 2002, it recognized the barriers to vote for people with 

disabilities and provided funding to “ensure the full participation in the electoral process 

for individuals with disabilities, including registering to vote, casting a private and 

independent vote, and accessing polling places.”88

To the disability community, HAVA is more than an election reform statute; it is a civil 

rights law, providing people with disabilities what no other previous civil rights statute had 

given before: the right to participate equally in elections and to cast a private, verifiable, 

independent ballot. HAVA is one of five federal statutes enacted over the past 48 years 

to enable the full participation in the electoral process for disenfranchised Americans with 

and without disabilities.

 

While the right to vote is the very cornerstone of our democratic society, elections are 

generally administered pursuant to state laws and policies, with primary responsibility for 

planning and conducting elections typically residing at the local jurisdiction level. This 

state and local control has often led to legislation, rules, and practices that interfere with 

people’s exercise of the right to vote through outright discrimination against an individual 

or the creation of deterrents that suppress, inhibit, or prevent voting.

Congress has recognized the importance of voting in a free society and enacted federal 

laws to ensure that states are conducting elections free of discrimination, intimidation, or 

fraud; that all voters have access to the process; and that the process itself is accessible 

and usable. These enactments include:

• Voting Rights Act of 196589

• Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 198490

• Americans with Disabilities Act of 199091
52

• National Voter Registration Act of 199392

• Help America Vote Act of 2002

 

93

These voting rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or membership in a 

minority language group; prohibit intimidation of voters; provide that voters who need 

assistance in voting because of disability, age, or illiteracy can obtain assistance from a 

person of their choice; require minority language election materials and assistance in 

certain jurisdictions; provide for accessible voting machines for voters with disabilities; 

require provisional ballots for voters who say they are eligible but whose names do not 

appear on poll books; require states to ensure that citizens can register at state 

Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs), public assistance offices, other state agencies, 

and through the U.S. mail; and include requirements regarding maintaining voter 

registration lists. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, Voting 

Section enforces civil provisions of federal laws that protect the right to vote.94 

Representatives of the DOJ Civil Rights Division monitored select polling sites on the 

2012 general Election Day. 

Voting Rights Act

Enacted in 1965, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) outlaws discriminatory election 

procedures, requiring that any standard or test for determining whether someone is 

qualified to vote must be applied to all voters equally. Coupled with the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, the VRA allowed millions of African American citizens who were formerly 

disenfranchised to exercise their right to vote and established federal oversight of 

elections administration to enforce voting rights. The VRA (as amended) also guarantees 

the right of people with disabilities to have voting assistance from a person of their 

choosing, as long as that person is not their employer or an agent of their employer or 

union.95

Since its 1965 enactment, the VRA has been reauthorized, most recently in 2006.

However, the statute has not gone unchallenged. Specifically, Section 5 of the Act is 

 
53

under attack. Section 5 requires 16 states with a history of voting discrimination 

(primarily in the South), to have any proposed changes to election procedures cleared by 

the Department of Justice before they can be implemented. Shelby County, Alabama, 

challenged the constitutionality of this provision as being outdated and intruding on state 

sovereignty. On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that 

Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 

years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an 

impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty

of the states. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no 

jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new 

coverage formula.

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act

The 1984 Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA) requires 

that political subdivisions responsible for conducting elections ensure that all polling 

places for federal elections are accessible to elderly voters and voters with disabilities.96

The only two exceptions are (1) when an emergency is determined by the chief election 

officer of the state (e.g., Hurricane Sandy) and (2) when the chief election officer 

determines that all potential polling places have been surveyed and no such accessible 

place is available, nor is the political subdivision able to make one temporarily accessible 

in the area involved. 

This statute provides that any voter who is elderly or has a disability and is assigned to 

an inaccessible polling place must, upon their advance request, be assigned to an 

accessible polling place or be provided with an alternative means for casting a ballot on 

Election Day.

97 The definition of “accessible” is determined under guidelines established 

by the state’s chief election officer, but the law does not specify what those guidelines 

should contain or the form they should take. The VAEHA also contains provisions to 

make absentee voting more accessible and provides for voting aids at polling places.98
54

Americans with Disabilities Act

Rightly heralded as the civil rights act for people with disabilities, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) gives civil rights protections to people with disabilities 

similar to those provided to people on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, 

and religion, guaranteeing nondiscrimination on the basis of disability and equal 

opportunity in employment, state and local government services, transportation, public 

accommodations, and telecommunications.99

Of the federal laws addressing voting rights for people with disabilities, the ADA is the 

broadest in its intent. Its protections are intended to strike down discriminatory practices 

in all aspects of state and local government. In contrast, the other federal voting rights 

statutes are narrower in intent and effect—they affect only federal elections, specifically 

address only the manner by which people register to vote, or apply only to people with 

particular kinds of disabilities. Title II of the ADA requires that all state and local 

government entities make "reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices" to

ensure nondiscrimination in the programs, services, and activities of state and local 

governments.

The ADA also applies to voting. 

100

Unlike the other voting laws, which apply only to federal elections, the ADA applies to 

both state and federal elections; however, it does not strictly require that all polling place 

sites be accessible. Court decisions interpreting the ADA in the context of voting have 

found that Title II does not necessarily require every polling place be accessible to 

persons with mobility disabilities (architectural accessibility);

 

101 guarantee privacy to 

voters with disabilities;102 or guarantee voters who are blind the right to vote 

independently (program accessibility).103

Title III of the ADA covers commercial facilities and places of “public accommodation,” 

such as restaurants, parks, libraries, apartment complexes, hotels, private schools, 

shopping malls, and privately operated recreation centers.104 Such facilities may also be 

used as polling places, and reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures 

must be made to facilitate access for people with disabilities.105 They are also required to 
55

remove physical barriers in existing buildings when it is “readily achievable” to do so; that 

is, when it can be done without much difficulty, undue hardship, burden, or expense, 

given the public accommodation’s resources. 

The DOJ Civil Rights Division, Voting Section enforces civil provisions of federal laws 

that protect the right to vote. Although DOJ will take individual complaints, to leverage 

resources it is more likely to investigate systemic complaints that can have a broader 

impact on compliance. DOJ’s Disability Rights Section (DRS) enforces, among other 

things, accessible polling places and voting under Title II and Title III of the ADA. Its 

enforcement mechanism is primarily through the complaint process and a Project Civil 

Access (PCA) agreement. 

The DRS has an investigative unit that conducts onsite compliance reviews of all 

facilities and polling places identified by its PCA Review program. PCA ensures that 

people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in civic life. As part of the 

PCA initiative, DOJ investigators, attorneys, and architects survey state and local 

government facilities, services, and programs in communities across the country to 

identify the modifications needed for compliance with ADA requirements to eliminate 

physical and communication barriers that prevent people with disabilities from 

participating fully in community life.106

National Voter Registration Act

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) was enacted to increase the 

number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for federal office.107

Commonly known as the “Motor Voter Act,” the NVRA became effective nationwide on 

January 1, 1995. Section 7(a) of the NVRA requires each state to designate certain 

agencies to assist with the registration of voters.108 The NVRA also expressly 

encourages all entities of the executive branch of the federal government and all 

nongovernment entities to voluntarily provide these services. 
56

NVRA applies to all states and the District of Columbia but not to territories or the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. States that have "no voter registration requirements for 

any voter in the state with respect to an election for federal office [and where]...all voters 

in the state may register to vote at the polling place at the time of voting in a general 

election for federal office" are excluded from NVRA coverage.109

Each state is required to designate certain agencies to assist with the registration of 

voters, including "all offices in the State that provide State-funded programs primarily 

engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities."110 The NVRA's legislative 

history specifically states that this provision should apply to all P&As and client 

assistance programs (CAPs) that are housed in state government and receive state 

funds. Under the NVRA, states are also directed to designate additional federal, state, 

local, and private sector agencies as voter registration agencies; each state may decide

which additional agencies will be designated. In general, the law requires each state 

designee to provide voter registration application forms in standard and alternative 

formats and to distribute the forms with each application for assistance, recertification, 

renewal, or change of address;111 provide assistance to applicants in completing forms 

at the same level provided to applicants in filling out other similar forms;112 accept and 

transmit the forms to appropriate election officials not more than 10 days after 

acceptance;113 and, if an agency representative delivers services and assistance to a 

person in their home, voter registration forms and assistance with registration must be 

provided in the home to the same extent as with other agency forms.114

Despite the promise of the NVRA to increase voter registration and ultimately voter 

participation at the polls, a number of states have proposed and enacted restrictive 

voting legislation—including early voting restrictions, voter ID requirements, and 

restrictions on voter registration drives—that will make voter registration harder and 

defeat the promise of expanding citizen access to voter registration.115 
57

CHAPTER 4. EXPERIENCES OF VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES DURING THE 

2012 GENERAL ELECTION

The nearly 900 voters with disabilities who responded to NCD’s Voter Experience 

Questionnaire provided very personal accounts of the barriers they encountered in 

exercising their right to vote. Voters described physical, architectural, technological, and 

attitudinal barriers, including barriers and experiences related to requesting assistance 

with registration; architectural and physical barriers to entering polling sites; architectural 

and physical barriers to accessing the polling room; physical, technological, and 

attitudinal barriers to casting a ballot; problems related to proving eligibility and 

competency to polling place personnel; the availability of voter education and training; 

and problems related to meeting photo ID requirements. Their stories and experiences 

follow.

Assistance with Voter Registration

In Missouri, a voter with a disability telephoned the election board to find out whether an 

election worker would be available to help him cast his ballot. He was told “no.” 

Another voter in Missouri was told by the elections commissioner that because she had a 

disability she could not vote unless she brought someone to the polls with her.

Over a third of all respondents reported the need for assistance with registration. Of 

those needing assistance, close to half identified assistance as coming from family 

members or friends, closely followed by election staff or volunteers. Assistance was also 

provided by personal care attendants or service provider staff. 

Overall, among voters who required assistance, the comments suggested that the 

majority received the assistance they needed to complete voter registration. The Voting 

Rights Act of 1965 guarantees the right of people with disabilities to have voting 

assistance from a person of their choosing. 
58

Approximately 37 percent of respondents reported the need for assistance. Close to 47 

percent were assisted by family members or friends; 38 percent by poll personnel or 

volunteers; and 15 percent by a personal care attendant (PCA) or provider staff.

Several respondents commented on the ease of using an absentee ballot. However, one

New York voter reported that he confirmed that his voter registration ID was on file and 

requested an absentee ballot. He was told that the ballot had been mailed to his home, 

but he never received it and no one was willing to help him resolve the issue. His right to 

vote was lost. 

Physical and Architectural Barriers to Entering the Polling Place 

A voter in Indiana arrived at the poll—a fire station—to find no accessible parking. He 

was forced to park in a badly paved lot down a narrow street with no sidewalk; to get to 

the polling place, he had to maneuver his wheelchair along the street, dodging cars. 

When he finally arrived at the entrance, there was a step to get in the door. The voter 

pointed out to poll personnel that the step was a barrier to his entering the building; the 

poll workers offered to carry him into the building, which he refused. He was finally able 

to convince fire station personnel to open an overhead door, which created an 

accessible entry. 

Close to 40 percent of respondents to NCD’s Voter Experience Questionnaire 

encountered physical barriers at into their polling places, including a wide range of 

physical and architectural barriers. The following were the most common barriers:

• No or limited accessible parking.

• Inaccessible, locked, or separate entrances to the polling place.

• Long lines and excessive wait times with no chairs.

• Stairs.
59

• Poor signage and no or unclear directions to accessible entrances and

elevators.

• Doors that were heavy or hard to open, or had no automatic door openers.

• No curb cuts, poorly maintained sidewalks, and unimproved walkways.

• Narrow doorways.

• No ramp or a ramp that was too steep.

Fifty-five percent of respondents reported encountering no physical barriers leading into 

the polling place, while 38 percent reported that they encountered barriers. Another 7 

percent reported that they voted by mail.

The following were other barriers to entering a polling place:

• In Arizona, a voter who was unable to find accessible parking had to park 

illegally in front of the polling place. There was no curb cut or ramp, so she

had to use a handrail to get down the stairs, dragging her walker.

• In Massachusetts, voters reported that there was little or no accessible van 

parking. 

• Connecticut voters reported long lines crowding the accessible entrances. 

Also, if there was only one accessible door in the polling station, people 

with disabilities who needed to use this door had to go against the flow of 

voters to exit.

• Respondents in the District of Columbia described separate, locked, 

unmanned accessible entrances that required polling station staff to come 
60

to the entrance and let the voter in. Voters using these entrances had to 

ring a bell or knock and then wait for someone to let them into the poll.

• In Indiana, a voter reported that the doors did not open automatically and 

were extremely heavy. After making several attempts to enter, the voter 

called for help, but no one was available to assist. The voter waited until 

another voter arrived and opened the door. 

• In Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, and Oklahoma, voters with 

disabilities complained of having to wait outside in long lines with no 

seating available. 

Physical, Architectural, Technological, and Attitudinal Barriers Inside the Polling 

Place

In Massachusetts, poll workers did not notice that a voter had a visual disability, despite

the fact that she was accompanied by a guide dog. A poll worker responded irritably

when the voter did not take a sheet of paper that was being handed to her. When the 

voter explained that she was blind, the poll worker became “very confused and 

overwhelmed”; she offered to complete the voter’s ballot and suggested that the voting 

machine would not be helpful, unaware that it should be accessible.

In Idaho, a poll worker interrupted a voter twice while she was voting, assuming that she

needed help. The poll worker would not take no for an answer.

Nearly 54 percent of respondents encountered barriers inside the polling place. The 

primary barriers were inaccessible voting machines, a lack of training and awareness 

among poll workers on how to assist voters with disabilities, and limitations to the right to 

vote privately and independently. 
61

Various barriers were encountered with accessible voting machines. Machines were 

broken, malfunctioning, or unavailable for use; the precinct had failed to set up the 

machines; or the poll workers did not know how to operate them. For example:

• In California, an accessible voting machine had not been set up when the 

voter arrived 30 minutes after the polls opened. It took about 30 minutes to 

make the voting machine available. 

• In San Francisco, all the initiatives had not been loaded onto an accessible 

voting machine, denying a voter who is blind the ability to vote on the entire 

ballot.

• In the District of Columbia, a voter reported that she told the poll worker 

that she had a visually disability and needed to vote electronically. The 

worker found the headset to allow auditory output but did not know how to 

load the auditory ballot.

• In Georgia, a voter reported that the accessible voting machines had not 

been set up. 

• Also in Georgia, a voter reported that the voting machine was difficult to 

use because part of the screen was too high to reach. A poll volunteer held

the screen forward for the voter. The volunteer assured the voter that he 

was not watching, but the voter said he was uncomfortable giving up the 

privacy of his voting experience.

• In Kentucky, five voters with visual disabilities reported going to the poll 

and finding that the accessible voting machine was not working. At first, the 

poll workers tried to deny these people the opportunity to vote, then they 

were asked to use paper ballots, which they refused to do. Eventually the 

poll workers called a technician; he arrived in 20 minutes and repaired the 

machine.
62

• In Maryland, a respondent described the electronic voting machine system 

as being too complicated to understand.

• In Minnesota, a respondent found that the print on the ballot was too small

to read, and poll workers could not adjust the print size. 

• In Pennsylvania, a voter reported that the poll workers refused to take her 

to the accessible voting machine.

Another significant barrier reported in the polling place involved the lack of poll worker 

training and awareness regarding how to help voters with disabilities, which prevents 

people with disabilities from voting privately and independently. For example:

• An Illinois voter who is blind was greeted at the check-in table by a poll 

worker who exclaimed, ”How is she going to vote?” The voter was 

accompanied by her husband, and the poll worker was directing questions 

to him, assuming that he would be assisting his wife. Another poll worker 

stepped in and directed the voter to an accessible voting machine, 

“pushing” her toward the machine. She sat down at the machine and the 

poll workers found the headphones, but they did not know how to make the 

audio work.

• In Minnesota, poll workers approached and attempted to distract a voter’s 

service dog. 

• A voter in Nebraska described his voting experience as “well supervised,” 

because two poll workers stayed nearby and within his line of sight as he 

voted.

Other problems identified by the respondents included rooms that were too small, 

cluttered floors along paths of travel, and narrow hallways that interfered with 

maneuvering chairs and walkers; voting machines, booths, and tables that could not be 
63

adjusted for height; failure to provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters; and 

inaccessible restrooms. 

Forty-five percent of the reported barriers inside the polling place involved voting 

machines. Untrained poll personnel were identified as a barrier by 25 percent of 

respondents. Lack of training resulted in poll workers being unfamiliar with the operation 

of accessible voting machines, unable to troubleshoot malfunctions, or unwilling to set up 

an accessible machine or demonstrate its use. There were also numerous reports of poll 

personnel making assumptions that a voter with a disability required help in voting even 

if help was not requested, thus intruding on the privacy of voting.

Twenty percent of responding voters with disabilities said they were prevented from 

exercising a private and independent vote. Problems identified by these voters included 

lack of seating at the polling booths; long waits and lack of seating in line; polling sites 

that were crowded, cramped, chaotic, and noisy; stations and paths of travel to voting 

booths and exits that were cluttered with bags and boxes, interfering with maneuvering 

both manual and power wheelchairs; lack of poll workers to manage and assist voters; 

lack of signage inside the building; inaccessible restrooms; and improper training 

regarding service animals.

Challenges to Competency and Eligibility of Voters with Disabilities

A Texas voter took a friend along to the polls to help her with voting. As the friend filled 

out a required form, the voter attempted to ask a question of the poll worker, but the 

worker could not understand her. The poll worker then said, “I have to prove that she’s 

competent.” The voter was ultimately able to cast her ballot.

Eligibility or competency to vote was not questioned for the majority of respondents. 

However, it is not uncommon for election officials and poll workers to impose their own 

requirements on people with disabilities, whom they perceive as lacking competency to 

vote. Two voters reported that their competency was challenged, and the assistance of 

family members with voting was also challenged for some voters. Three voters reported 
64

that they were denied the opportunity to vote but did not describe the circumstances of 

the denial. 

Ninety-three percent of respondents to the NCD questionnaire reported that neither their 

eligibility nor their competency was questioned. However, a small number reported some 

challenges at the polls. Challenges involving discrepancies in addresses, status as an 

absentee voter, precinct assignments, and registration were largely resolved by poll 

personnel checking registration sheets, voter rolls, or other election board records and 

updating addresses or registration status where appropriate. Voters were allowed to cast 

provisional ballots in most cases, which suggests the potential for overuse of provisional 

ballots without any guarantee that they will be honored and counted.

Voters had more complaints regarding poll personnel; 20 percent of respondents 

described poll workers as poorly trained on the voting process, especially in assisting 

voters with disabilities. Respondents said some poll workers were condescending or

rude, or demonstrated pejorative attitudes toward them as voters with disabilities. 

The following challenges were described by responding voters:

• A California voter changed her voting status from absentee to in-person. At

the polling place she was not able to vote until a senior poll worker was 

able to clarify her status. Similar situations were reported in Florida, Illinois,

Massachusetts, and Ohio.

• A Colorado voter described a poll worker who spoke in a very 

condescending manner and made her repeat everything that was said, to 

make sure that she “understood” everything. The voter described the 

encounter as “unpleasant.”

• A voter in Florida and one in the District of Columbia reported that a poll 

worker initially challenged their right to have someone of their choice assist 

with voting. 
65

• In New York, a voter was turned away from her regular voting precinct and 

sent to another site. The second location was inaccessible and the voter 

was told to return to her regular precinct. When she returned to the original 

precinct, poll workers proceeded to check her in under the wrong name. 

She was ultimately able to vote.

Voter Education and Training

More than half of the responding voters reported participating in formal or informal 

education and training activities. The remaining respondents (nearly 40 percent) 

indicated that they had received no formal voter education or training.

A Connecticut voter said, “I remember learning about the structure of government and 

how to use a voting booth in the sixth grade. Ever since high school, I have tried to 

become knowledgeable about government and to vote intelligently.... I have not had any 

formal voter training as an adult.” A voter from Massachusetts commented that he 

learned about voting “from my parents and from the staff at my day support program.”

Approximately 20 percent of the respondents had participated in formal voter education 

and training activities, including presentations on voting rights and the voting process by 

service providers, Independent Living Centers, local and national disability advocacy 

organizations, P&As, the State Developmental Disability Council, and local boards of

elections. Another 5 percent identified high school civics and government classes as 

influencing their understanding of the voting process. 

Informal activities identified by another 20 percent of respondents included reading

candidate materials and materials developed by the local board of elections; using the 

Internet to research voting laws and requirements, download sample ballots, find polling 

sites and hours of operation, and access other electoral process information; and being 

exposed to public service announcements (PSAs) and other media, including print, radio, 

television, and social media such as Facebook. Another 15 percent indicated that voter 

education was provided by parents and other family members or through education and 
66

training received as a voter advocate, poll worker, elections judge, observer, or other 

voting precinct officer.

Voter Photo Identification

In Illinois, a state with no voter ID law, a voter was told by a judge that his ID was not 

sufficient to establish identify, but another judge intervened and overruled that decision. 

A number of states have enacted laws requiring different kinds of identification at the 

polls, including photo IDs, but many of these laws were overturned or put on hold right 

before the November 2012 election, postponing their enforcement. Pennsylvania, 

Wisconsin, Texas, and South Carolina were among those states.116 This created 

confusion and frustration for voters and poll workers alike. A few people with disabilities 

reported problems related to photo ID requirements; however, none of them were denied 

the right to vote.

In Pennsylvania, a voter was told over the telephone that a photo ID would be 

necessary, but the state did not enforce that requirement in 2012, so a photo ID was not 

requested at the poll. 

Similarly, a Texas voter said he was concerned about having to schedule time off from 

work to procure a photo ID so he could vote in the general election. However, the Texas 

law was not enforced in the November 2012 election. 

Voters in Arizona, Illinois, Missouri, and New York experienced challenges because the 

address on their ID did not match the address in the registration rolls. These voters were 

allowed to cast provisional ballots. 

As noted in chapter 3, a number of states have proposed or enacted restrictive voting 

legislation—including restrictions on early voting, new voter ID requirements, and 

restrictions on voter registration drives—that will make voter registration and voting more 

difficult and will work against the promise of expanding citizen access.
67

NCD was relieved that few respondents to the questionnaire encountered problems 

having to do with photo IDs, but these laws, coupled with other laws and practices 

designed to restrict citizen access to voting, are likely to have a disparate impact on 

people with disabilities who are trying to vote in future elections. 

Additional Comments

In the comment section of the questionnaire, responding voters covered a wide range of 

topics, issues, concerns, and voting experiences, including the following: 

• A number of respondents underscored the need for better trained poll personnel 

and elections staff.

• Some voters expressed concerns about the pejorative attitudes of poll staff and 

volunteers toward people with disabilities, as well as unwarranted assumptions 

made by poll workers.

• A few voters praised the ease and convenience of absentee voting.

• Some respondents reported improvements in accessibility at their polling sites.

• A Massachusetts voter wrote, “This was one of the most demoralizing and 

humiliating experiences I’ve had surrounding my disability in a few years. I was 

terribly ashamed to be American and in fact felt ostracized by my own country.”

• Another Massachusetts voter, said, “People were very nice to us and were happy 

we were voting. We all felt very proud.”

• A voter from North Carolina commented, “I know this [questionnaire] is looking for 

problems, but you should be aware of persons with disabilities who did not 

encounter any accessibility problems.”
68

• In Indiana, a respondent commented that “voter ID is very important and should 

be the law of the land.” Similar opinions were expressed by voters from Georgia, 

Nebraska, North Carolina, and Virginia. 

• On the other hand, a voter in Massachusetts stated that “it would be hard for 

some people to vote if they are made to show an ID.” 

• Another voter in Massachusetts commented that voter ID laws would create “more 

problems for the aging, ill, disabled, and those with low economic status.”

• From Arkansas a voter commented, “This was my very first time casting my vote 

[and] it was awesome!”

Impact of Hurricane Sandy

When Hurricane Sandy hit the eastern seaboard in the last week of October 2012, it was 

anticipated that the destruction would be devastating to voters and the voting process. 

Even before the storm hit, its potential impact on voting was being debated.117 Boards of 

elections in many states posted emergency plans and special hours of operation on their 

Web sites to keep the public informed.118 Precincts in hard-hit areas of New Jersey, New 

York, and Connecticut were severely affected. Election officials had to quickly swing into 

action to move polling places; they resorted to makeshift tents, generators, and new 

locations, creating confusion for voters. The governors of New York and New Jersey 

exercised Executive Orders allowing residents to vote provisionally at any polling site in 

their state it they could make their way to a poll.119

Our researchers anticipated comments from respondents on the impact of this 

devastating storm on voters with disabilities. However, of the nearly 900 questionnaires 

returned, only one respondent from New York mentioned it. This voter with disabilities 

said that he had requested that his registration be moved to an accessible polling site, 

but he received no response to his request. When he followed up, before the storm hit, 

he was told that it was his responsibility to identify an accessible site and then inform the 

 
69

elections board where he wanted to vote. After the hurricane, he was not able to leave 

his home to choose a site, so he was resigned to the fact that “voting day will come and I 

won’t get to vote!” 

The devastation of this storm and its impact on Election Day 2012, as well as on early 

voting, spurred the National Association of Secretaries of State to create a Task Force 

on Emergency Preparedness for Elections to “identify the strategies that worked well for 

election officials who dealt with the fallout from Hurricane Sandy...and find some costeffective ways in which states can better prepare for such emergency scenarios in the 

future...that will improve the collective capabilities of the states.”120 We should all look at 

the flexibility that was demonstrated by state and local boards of elections in the 

aftermath of Sandy to identify promising practices that can create alternative processes 

for casting a ballot

What Does This All Mean? 

The introduction to this report included a brief summary of other surveys of voters with 

disabilities conducted following the November 6, 2012, election, including those by New 

Jersey Community Access Unlimited, the New York State ILC, the Lawyers Committee 

for Civil Rights Under the Law, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), Rutgers 

University, and Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE). Despite different

methodologies, these six surveys came up with very similar findings. 

The reports from these surveys, combined with this report, reflect the experiences of 

more than 2,000 voters with disabilities across the country, many of whom encountered

physical, architectural, technological, and attitudinal barriers to voting. These 

discriminatory barriers must be removed. Federal, state, and local resources must be 

committed now to eliminating this unacceptable and chronic injustice. The 

recommendations in chapter 6 offer practical strategies to help end voter discrimination 

for citizens with disabilities in the United States. 
70
71

CHAPTER 5. POSTELECTION UNDERTAKINGS AT THE FEDERAL AND 

STATE LEVELS 

In addition to reports chronicling the experiences of voters with disabilities deduced

through various surveys and studies, such as those discussed in the introduction, the 

months since the November 2012 election have seen much activity at both the state and 

national levels with regard to voting. We look at some of these undertakings here.

Presidential Commission on Election Administration

In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Barak Obama spoke about the long 

lines and wait times during the November 2012 general election and announced the 

formation of a nonpartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration to 

improve voting in America by emphasizing “our most fundamental right as citizens: the 

right to vote.” As the President said, “When any Americans...are denied that right...we 

are betraying our ideals.”121

The President recognized the impact on voters with disabilities. A fact sheet issued by 

the White House, describing the new commission, lists voters with disabilities and 

physical barriers among the issues to be addressed. In the Executive Order establishing 

the commission, issued on March 28, 2013, the President set forth 11 areas for 

consideration:

 

i. the number, location, management, operation, and design of polling places;

ii. the training, recruitment, and number of poll workers;

iii. voting accessibility for uniformed and overseas voters;

iv. the efficient management of voter rolls and poll books;

v. voting machine capacity and technology;
72

vi. ballot simplicity and voter education;

vii. voting accessibility for individuals with disabilities, limited English 

proficiency, and other special needs;

viii. management of issuing and processing provisional ballots in the polling 

place on Election Day; 

ix. the issues presented by the administration of absentee ballot programs;

x. the adequacy of contingency plans for natural disasters and other 

emergencies that may disrupt elections; and

xi. other issues related to the efficient administration of elections that the CoChairs agree are necessary and appropriate to the Commission's work.122

The commission is advisory in nature and is mandated to hold public meetings and 

engage with federal, state, and local officials; technical advisors; and nongovernment 

organizations to carry out its mission. The commission is to submit a final report to the 

President within six months of the date of its first public meeting, which was held June 

21, 2013, after which the commission will terminate. In carrying out its mission, the 

commission must avoid duplicating the efforts of other government entities.123 On May 

21, 2013, the President announced 10 appointees to the commission.124

NCD Policy Forum125

On April 23, 2013, NCD, exercising its statutory authority to convene hearings and 

receive testimony, held a Policy Forum: “The Help America Vote Act, Ten Years Later: 

Has the Law Accomplished Its Aim?” Held at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in 

Washington, D.C., the forum brought together distinguished panelists to explore what 

HAVA was intended to do; what it has accomplished; what work remains; and what 
73

policy measures would help address the persistent barriers experienced by people with 

disabilities when they attempt to exercise their right to vote. 

Three panels were convened. Prior to the first panel, former Senator Christopher Dodd 

(D-CT), author of HAVA, testified as to the congressional intent and legislative purposes 

of HAVA. The first panel that followed further discussed its history. Panelists were Lee 

Perselay, disability counsel, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), though testifying in his individual

capacity; Mark Richert, director of public policy, American Foundation for the Blind; and

Chai Feldblum, commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

The second panel, on assessing HAVA’s impact, included Barbara Bovbjerg, managing 

director, education, workforce, and income security, GAO; and Sharon Lewis, acting 

principal deputy administrator, Administration for Community Living, and commissioner, 

AIDD. 

The third panel, addressing the firsthand experiences of voters with disabilities, included

Lou Ann Blake, director of outreach, Jernigan Institute, NFB; Denise Ann McQuade, 

board member, United Spinal Association; Kathy Hoell, executive director, Nebraska 

Statewide Independent Living Council; and Nancy Ward, co-director, SABE National 

Technical Assistance Center for Voting and Cognitive Access. 

Mr. Perselay and Mr. Richert described highlights of their experiences as disability 

advocates to advance the voting rights of people with disabilities in the 1980s and 1990s, 

leading up to the enactment of HAVA. Senator Dodd recounted the turmoil following the 

2000 presidential election. He noted:

A series of hearings were held to examine not only the problems with the 2000 

election, but the problems that were systemic to our nation’s electoral procedures, 

processes and laws...in the course of those hearings we focused on the 

difficulties of those with physical disabilities. We learned that 21 million people 

with disabilities did not vote. That made the disabled communities the single 

largest demographic group of nonvoters in the United States of America. At that 
74

time only 16 percent of polling places were physically accessible. And not one, not 

one of the nearly 500 polling locations which the General Accounting Office visited 

on Election Day in 2000, had special ballots adapted for blind voters.126

Senator Dodd set forth four purposes of HAVA: (1) to establish a legal right to cast a 

provisional ballot; (2) to create statutory authority to establish national minimum 

standards for accessibility at all polling places, as well as standards for voting equipment 

and systems to ensure that all voters can vote independently and privately; (3) to 

appropriate funding to states to train poll workers, get equipment, upgrade voter lists, 

make polling places more accessible, and for other purposes; and (4) to establish the 

Election Assistance Commission as a resource for election officials for professional

advice and counseling on topics from resources to systems in their states to guidelines 

for administering an election.127

The Senator said, “HAVA is not a perfect law...clearly changes need to be made, [but] it 

changed a lot in ten years to make a difference.... It helped make our democracy work 

for many previously disenfranchised Americans, and most importantly, it treats all 

Americans equally with respect to carrying out their first amendment rights....but it’s 

clear there’s still an awful lot of work to be done.... The work started by HAVA will and 

must continue.... I look forward to seeing the next chapter of HAVA. We need one.”128

During the question-and-answer period, NCD members asked Senator Dodd how NCD 

could work with the Presidential Commission on Election Administration to ensure 

greater access for people with disabilities. Senator Dodd responded that one of the first 

priorities must be for disability advocates to be “in the room and have a seat at the table”; 

in fact, he recommended that they have more than one seat, so they can bring their 

wealth of knowledge to the process.

129 He also suggested working with the 

Administration and Congress in a bipartisan effort to ensure enforcement of existing laws 

and to create a sense of accountability, and examining the 2004, 2008, and 2012 

elections to determine what actually occurred in these elections.130
75

Responding to a question about applying technological advances to the electoral 

process, Senator Dodd responded that sophisticated technology firms should be asked 

to improve voting technology, and we should look at the effective use of voting 

technology in other countries. 

Following Senator Dodd’s testimony, Chai Feldblum of the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission focused on the enforcement mechanisms in HAVA. 

Commissioner Feldblum said, “It’s clear that the EAC could use some additional power 

and authority.” She recommended that requirements be added to HAVA to ensure that 

commissioners are appointed.131 Under HAVA, the EAC has no authority to issue rules, 

promulgate regulations, or take any action that imposes any requirement on any state or 

local government.132

Commissioner Feldblum noted that the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

play an important role in ensuring state compliance. She recommended that the Federal 

Election Commission might need to be given more power until the EAC is revived.

 

On the second panel, GAO’s Barbara Bovbjerg addressed the progress made between 

2000 and 2008 to improve accessibility for voters with disabilities and the steps the 

Department of Justice has taken to enforce the provisions of HAVA. GAO’s data 

suggests that polling places have become more accessible for voters with disabilities 

and that accessible voting systems were available to “nearly everyone...yet polling 

places continue to have impediments and almost half haven’t thought through how to 

place the system so that voters can use it privately and independently.”133

Ms. Bovbjerg noted that DOJ has “taken certain measures, such as providing guidance 

on the accessible voting system requirements in 2006 and conducting polling place 

observations themselves in 2008 and 2012. They have also initiated civil access 

assessments which involve onsite inspections of public buildings, which may include 

buildings designated as polling places....The inspections are few, infrequent, and rarely 

done on Election Day, so are not really indicative of accessibility when voters are

 
76

present. We [GAO] have recommended that they look for opportunities to expand their

oversight in cost-effective ways.”134

While not blatantly critical of DOJ enforcement, Ms. Bovbjerg noted that “Justice’s limited 

oversight of HAVA voting system requirements and polling place accessibility, by 2009, 

left gaps in ensuring voting accessibility for people with disabilities.”135 GAO’s 2009 

report on polling place accessibility made the following recommendations to DOJ for 

expanding its monitoring and oversight of the accessibility of polling places in a costeffective manner:

 

• Working with states to use existing state oversight mechanisms and using 

other resources, such as organizations representing election officials and 

disability advocacy organizations, to help assess and monitor states’ 

progress in ensuring polling place accessibility, similar to the effort used to 

determine state compliance with HAVA voting system requirements by the 

2006 deadline. 

• Expanding the scope of Election Day observations to include an 

assessment of the physical access to the voting area and the level of 

privacy and independence being offered to voters with disabilities by 

accessible voting systems. 

• Expanding DOJ’s Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling 

Places to include additional information on the accessibility of the voting 

area and guidance on the configuration of the accessible voting system to 

provide voters with disabilities with the same level of privacy and 

independence as is afforded to other voters.

In response to these recommendations, Ms. Bovbjerg wrote that DOJ “generally 

agreed...and when we [GAO] reached out for an update in preparation of this testimony, 

DOJ indicated it had taken steps toward addressing the recommendation. For example, 
77

Justice noted that it has entered into settlements—with Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 

2009 and Flint, Michigan, in 2012—to resolve allegations of inaccessible polling 

places.”136

It was further reported by GAO that DOJ “had expanded the scope of Election Day

observations to include an assessment of the physical accessibility of polling places, 

citing its monitoring of 240 polling places in about 28 jurisdictions for the 2012 General 

Election. However, Justice did not indicate whether its expanded Election Day

observations include assessing privacy and independence provided by accessible voting 

systems.” GAO saw no indication that DOJ had taken action to expand the scope of the

ADA Checklist for Polling Places.

 

137

AIDD Commissioner Sharon Lewis, in her testimony, noted that “there have been 

tremendous accomplishments through HAVA,” but “there have been difficulties in 

particular in the utilization of Part Two funds by the states.” Nonetheless, “HAVA efforts 

and related activities have increased awareness and improved opportunities for people 

with disabilities to more easily exercise their right to vote.... HAVA has definitely 

changed the landscape since the 2000 election, and HAVA programs and related efforts 

must continue to play a key role to ensure that all people with disabilities are able to 

exercise the right to vote.”138

Commissioner Lewis was asked to describe the efforts AIDD has been making to 

monitor state expenditures to ensure that polling places are accessible and that voting 

equipment meets the needs of voters with disabilities. She said, “One of the 

shortcomings of the Act is enforceability and accountability” and acknowledged that 

AIDD’s monitoring and enforcement comes through the P&A agencies that “really are the 

on-the-ground eyes and ears that pay attention to whether or not states are doing the 

work of HAVA and utilizing the resources as intended....”139

Finally, asked about the advice she would offer to facilitate more effective enforcement 

and field monitoring of expenditures, Commissioner Lewis responded, “When you look at 

the reporting that’s been done by GAO, by our annual reporting, [and] by the survey that 

 
78

you have done, some of the glaring errors and omissions and gaps in the law are 

apparent.”140 She concluded her written statement by saying, “We anticipate that 

improvement in the election process will continue to include better voting experiences for 

people with disabilities, and for all voters.... HAVA has definitely changed the landscape 

since the 2000 election, and...must continue to play a key role in...ensuring that all 

people with disabilities are able to exercise their right to vote without delay or duress.”141

The third panel offered testimony of firsthand experiences from voters with disabilities 

that mirror many of the experiences shared by the almost 900 voters who responded to 

NCD’s Voter Experience Questionnaire.

Lou Ann Blake of the Jernigan Institute introduced the NFB data from its 2012 election 

survey (discussed in the introduction to this report). 

Kathy Hoell of the Nebraska Statewide Independent Living Council offered her 

perspective as a member of both the Nebraska HAVA Planning Committee and the 

Nebraska Disability Vote Project. She noted that “HAVA has changed voting 

tremendously, but problems remain in how different states interpret the law’s 

requirements in diverse ways...the degree of success has varied from state to state, 

[depending]... on what equipment was purchased, how it was positioned in the polling 

place, the thoroughness of poll worker training, and whether the polling place meets 

accessibility guidelines.”142 In testimony Ms. Hoell offered her personal experience: 

[T]he passage of HAVA has made things better, but I have been shown stairs, I 

have been questioned by the poll workers [to determine whether] I am intelligent 

enough to vote, and they have told me that I am being unreasonable for asking 

them to move the machine out of the front door of the polling place. But the one 

good thing that has happened since the passage of HAVA is that I get to vote on

my own. I don’t have to wait for somebody else to be available to go with me.143

Nancy Ward of the National Technical Assistance Center for Voting and Cognitive 

Access introduced a training video on accessible voting equipment and discussed the 
79

SABE data results from its 2012 Election Project Vote Checklist, which was used in five 

states. Ms. Ward noted that “clearly, poll workers need more training.”144

Denise McQuade of the United Spinal Association related her experiences and her 

participation in a lawsuit in New York City, where the board of elections was sued under 

ADA Title II and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for inaccessible polling sites. In 

United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in City of New York,

145 the court held that the 

plaintiff organization’s members were denied meaningful opportunity to participate in or 

benefit from the city board of election's voting program by reason of their disabilities and 

were, therefore, subject to discrimination as defined under the ADA and the 

Rehabilitation Act. 

 

The powerful and thoughtful statements made by all these panelists and their 

recommendations for moving forward have helped to inform the recommendations in this 

report.

2013 Legislative Efforts That Promote Voter Disenfranchisement 

A number of state legislatures are introducing and enacting laws that create restrictive 

state requirements and have the potential to disenfranchise voters with disabilities. 

Moreover, these state laws may be in direct conflict with federal laws. As noted by 

Senator Dodd in testimony before NCD, these bills often refer to voter fraud prevention, 

but “in fact statistics show over and over and over again that [voter fraud] is virtually 

nonexistent...proponents are peddling falsehoods in order to disenfranchise their political 

adversaries. In the process, they deny people who are disproportionately poor and 

elderly their rights.”146

These restrictive requirements include voter photo identification, repeal of same-day 

registration, proof of citizenship, reduction in early voting sites and early voting 

schedules, and limits on restoring voting rights. 

 
80

The Voting Laws Roundup Report issued by the Brennan Center for Justice in October 

2012 reported that at least 180 restrictive bills had been introduced since the beginning 

of 2011 in 41 states.147

Since the November 2012 general election, this trend has not abated; states have 

continued to propose restrictive voting requirements, with mixed results. Brennan reports 

that as of April 29, 2013:

• At least 82 restrictive bills have been introduced in 31 states. 

• Of those, 50 restrictive bills are still pending in 18 states. 

• Of those, 14 restrictive bills are currently active in eight states, meaning that there 

has been legislative activity beyond introduction and referral to committee (e.g.,

hearings, committee activity, or votes). 

• Seven states have already passed eight restrictive bills this session.

At the same time, across the country, politicians on both sides of the aisle have 

introduced and supported bills that expand access to registration and voting. At least 204 

bills that would expand access to voting have been introduced in 45 states.

148

• Of those, 142 expansive bills are still pending in 29 states. 

• Of those, 30 bills are currently active in 16 states, meaning that there has been 

legislative activity beyond introduction and referral to committee (e.g., such as 

hearings, committee activity, or votes). 

• Seven states have passed eight bills that expand opportunities for eligible citizens 

to register and to vote.
81

Despite the success of restrictive bills in some states, we have reports that other 

states—including Colorado, Florida, and Maryland—have expanded voter access this 

year. 

In Florida, lawmakers passed an election reform bill that adds early voting days and 

locations. It also limits the length of ballot descriptions of constitutional amendments, 

which many considered to be one of the causes of long lines in the November 2012 

election.

149

Maryland enacted a law that expands registration opportunities during early voting, 

extends polling place hours, and increases access to absentee ballots. The governor 

said the measure was passed in response to long lines and voting restrictions.

 

150

Colorado passed a bill to modernize and improve the state’s voting system; it includes 

Election Day registration and portable registration, eliminates “failure to vote” status, and 

crates a bipartisan voting modernization task force.

 

151

Nonetheless, Dēmos (a public policy organization) reports that opponents of same-day 

registration are moving to counter this reform in several states, including Montana and 

North Carolina, where a number of voting measures are pending that will restrict access 

to the polls, including a strict voter ID requirement and shortening of the state’s early 

voting periods.

 

152

Voter competency requirements imposed by state laws or by election officials or service 

providers also present challenges for voters with disabilities.153 Bazelon Center for 

Mental Health Law reports that about 15 states and the District of Columbia have laws 

that bar voting by people who are “under guardianship” or adjudged “mentally 

incompetent” or “mentally incapacitated.” These laws require a court determination of 

incompetence or incapacity before removing a person’s right to vote. Twenty states have 

laws that bar voting solely on the basis of a court determination that a person lacks the 

capacity to vote, while 11 states place no disability-related restrictions on the right to 

vote.
82

However, election officials frequently impose their own voter competence requirements 

and prevent voters with disabilities from casting a ballot. One example is denying people 

who live in institutions the right to register and vote or to obtain absentee ballots. 

Poll workers and volunteers turn away people at the polls on the basis of their personal

prejudices and judgments that people with mental disabilities should not be permitted to 

vote. It is imperative that people with cognitive and psychiatric disabilities use existing 

processes to retain or restore their right to vote. The publication Vote. It’s Your Right: A 

Guide to the Voting Rights of People with Mental Disabilities states, “[I]t is unnecessary 

to impose any limitation on the fundamental right to vote of people with mental 

disabilities, because there is no indication that the election system has been 

compromised in any states that have no voter competence requirements.154
83

CHAPTER 6. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The foregoing chapters examined the experiences of voters with a wide variety of 

disabilities during the 2012 general election cycle. Through this study, NCD hopes to 

articulate the fundamental right to vote and raise awareness of the challenges and 

barriers to voting faced by people with disabilities. 

This chapter sets forth major findings and recommendations flowing from the study and 

charts a strategy for the future. If these recommendations are followed, people with 

disabilities will be able to participate in the electoral process by registering to vote, 

accessing polling places, developing proficiency in using voting systems as they affect 

people with disabilities, and casting a vote that is private and independent. 

FINDING 1: People with disabilities continue to face barriers in exercising their 

voting rights because of architectural and physical barriers at registration and 

polling sites.

States and localities have not invested adequate resources, planning, or training to meet 

architectural and physical access compliance standards required to increase 

participation and improve the experience of voters with disabilities.

In written testimony submitted to NCD for its April 23, 2013, Policy Forum, Congressman 

Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who was the lead sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives of 

the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 2008 ADA Amendments Act, 

stated, “Congress has a responsibility to continue funding HAVA programs, including the 

grant program to make polling places accessible to all Americans.... We must approve a 

budget and appropriations bills that provide the resources to fund HAVA at levels that will 

treat all voters the same. To that end, I requested that the Labor, Health and Human 

Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee include $17 million toward the 

implementation of HAVA programs in next year’s [FY 2014] budget.”155
84

Other witnesses at the NCD Policy Forum also expressed the belief that adequate 

funding is crucial to improving access for voters with disabilities and that improvement in 

making polling places accessible is the result in large part to the power of federal grants. 

Recommendations

• States and localities must ensure that all voter service centers and polling 

precincts be fully accessible, in compliance with the ADA, Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act, and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

NCD recommends that state and local election officials ensure the architectural 

accessibility of all Voter Service Centers and polling precincts—in compliance with 

the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and HAVA—by conducting 

accessibility compliance reviews before the primary and general elections and 

making appropriate modifications. States and localities should use existing federal 

resources, including U.S. Election Assistance Committee (EAC) election 

management resources.

If the state is facing accessibility complaints, the Department of Justice Project 

Civic Access (PCA) compliance reviews should be used to facilitate and 

benchmark real change and address accessibility concerns across all areas to 

promote civic participation of people with disabilities. Additionally, state and local 

election boards should collaborate with Protection and Advocacy systems (P&As), 

the ADA National Network, disability rights groups, and self-advocates to survey 

registration and polling sites, using the Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA 

Checklist for Polling Places and other similar resources for accessible parking, 

curb cuts, sidewalk maintenance, accessible doors and entrances, paths of travel, 

restroom accessibility, and any other physical barriers, and to identify potential 

modifications. Accessibility should be determined before any new site is 

designated for voter registration or voting. 

• Local boards of elections must be provided with the fiscal resources to 

make modifications necessary to meet accessibility requirements under the 
85

ADA.

NCD recommends that state election entities, including secretary of state offices, 

help localities maximize the availability of adequate funding to provide the 

necessary planning, training, materials, and resources to make modifications 

necessary to meet accessibility requirements under the ADA and HAVA. 

• The Department of Justice must increase its enforcement of ADA 

compliance and pursue complaints raised by voters with disabilities.

NCD recommends that DOJ commit increasing resources, staff, and focus to 

ensure the physical, technological, and architectural accessibility of the voting 

process for people with disabilities through its enforcement of the ADA and 

Section 504 compliance. NCD further recommends that DOJ support enforcement 

actions brought by P&As and private litigators as enforcement partners.

• States and localities must be flexible in modifying Election Day procedures 

to help voters waiting in line to exercise their right to vote.

NCD recommends that state and local election officials be flexible in modifying 

Election Day procedures to allow, particularly, voters with disabilities and elderly 

voters to sit inside the polling place while they wait to exercise their right to vote. It 

was widely reported during the 2012 general election that voters across the 

country faced long lines and hours of waiting at the polls before being able to 

vote. For voters with disabilities and older voters, the lengthy standing created a 

physical strain that caused some voters to leave the poll without voting. Flexibility 

in accommodating the needs of these voters to sit will help ensure the 

participation of all voters, and protect and preserve this sacred right.

FINDING 2: Voters with disabilities do not have equal access to voting systems 

because states and localities have not invested adequate resources, planning, and 

training to provide reliable, accessible voting technology.
86

Although all state jurisdictions have received HAVA funding to upgrade voting systems, 

including accessible voting machines, voters with disabilities were disenfranchised 

during the 2012 elections because of voting machines that malfunctioned, were broken, 

were unavailable for use, or that poll personnel were unable to demonstrate or operate. 

Voters with disabilities were denied an equal opportunity for voting access and the 

opportunity to cast a private and independent ballot.

At the NCD Policy Forum on April 23, 2013, a number of distinguished panelists testified 

about the need for continued HAVA funding to the states for voting technology. Mark 

Richert, director of public policy, American Federation for the Blind (AFB), noted, “I hope 

that over the course of this afternoon, we’ll make the connections to the extent we do not 

invest as adequately as I believe we need to in protecting/managing the most sacred 

right that we have in this country.”156 Mr. Richert said, “The funds that have been made 

available to make the equipment available have been effective,” but there is a lack of 

training on the part of polling officials. He added, “If our polling workers are not prepared 

to use the equipment, it’s worthless.”157

Recommendations

 

• The Presidential Commission on Election Administration should 

recommend and the Election Assistance Commission should encourage 

state and local jurisdictions to ensure that universally designed, accessible 

voting machines are available, functioning, and situated to provide 

complete privacy for voters with disabilities.

NCD recommends that the Presidential Commission on Election Administration 

and the EAC encourage state and local jurisdictions to maintain universally 

designed, accessible voting machines that are available, functioning, and situated 

to provide complete privacy for voters with disabilities. 
87

• Congress in its oversight capacity should direct and ensure continued 

research and create incentives for the development of universally designed 

electronic/digital voting technology and processes that preserve the privacy 

of the ballot and the independence of the voter while allowing verification of 

the vote and system reliability.

NCD recommends that Congress direct further research and create incentives for 

the development of universally designed electronic/digital voting technology to 

meet HAVA’s specific requirements for voting systems to be accessible to people 

with disabilities and to permit a voter to verify his or her vote on the ballot in a 

private and independent manner before the ballot is cast and counted. Many of 

the voting technologies currently in use, including direct recording electronic 

(DRE) and optical scan systems, have been fraught with problems as identified by 

voters; these problems undermine voter confidence. HAVA expressly mandates 

research and development to improve the quality, reliability, accuracy, 

accessibility, affordability, and security of voting equipment, election systems, and 

voting technology.

• Congress must appropriate funding for state secretary of state (SOS) offices 

to support the purchase, upgrading, and maintenance of electronic voting 

systems.

NCD recommends that Congress appropriate funding for SOS offices to support 

the purchase, upgrading, and maintenance of electronic voting systems. In the 

current world of technological advances and ever-changing electronic business 

methods, updating and improvement in voting systems is perhaps the most costly 

of HAVA’s innovation goals, but it holds the most promise for providing a barrierfree voting experience for voters with disabilities. 

• The DOJ Civil Rights Division’s Voting Rights, Disability Rights, and Federal 

Coordination and Compliance sections should work closely together to 

identify state and local jurisdictions that are failing to meet their legal 

obligations to provide accessible voting systems for voters with disabilities, 
88

and should provide targeted monitoring and require remediation. 

NCD recommends that the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s Voting Rights, Disability 

Rights, and Federal Coordination and Compliance sections work together to 

identify state and local jurisdictions that are failing to meet HAVA mandates. 

These DOJ sections can leverage their expertise and fortify their influence to 

ensure consistency and effective enforcement of voting rights statutes and the 

ADA across all federally mandated programs that may affect voting access for 

people with disabilities. 

NCD further recommends that DOJ, in conjunction with the Presidential 

Commission on Election Administration and the EAC, update and reissue 

guidance to the states on the legal obligation to provide accessible voting systems 

for voters with disabilities. The guidance should address requirements under 

HAVA, other relevant voting rights laws, and accessibility compliance under the 

ADA.

FINDING 3: Voters with disabilities face discrimination at voter registration and 

polling sites resulting from poorly trained election personnel and volunteers.

Voters with disabilities continue to encounter election system personnel who are 

condescending or rude or who demonstrate pejorative attitudes toward voters with 

disabilities, owing to lack of training and personal bias. State and local election 

personnel, including Election Day officials and volunteers, require extensive training on 

the voting rights of people with disabilities, the local voting system, and the requirement 

to provide all presenting voters with the opportunity to cast a private, independent ballot. 

Recommendations

• State and local election officials must invest in adequate training for all 

election personnel and volunteers. 

NCD recommends that state and local election officials invest in adequate training 
89

for all election personnel and volunteers. Such comprehensive training should 

include (1) the obligations and requirements of HAVA and other relevant federal 

and state statutes regarding the voting rights of people with disabilities, including 

the right of voters to receive voting assistance from a person of their choosing; (2) 

the state and local voting process and election system; (3) how to set up, operate, 

and demonstrate the use of accessible voting machines; and (4) disability 

awareness and etiquette training. Elections personnel, particularly election judges 

and supervisors, should employ heightened scrutiny during hours of operation to 

make sure that voters with a full spectrum of disabilities receive assistance, 

effective communication, and respect. NCD further recommends that, to achieve 

this training goal, states and localities collaborate with trusted local sources as 

well as national disability organizations and disability-related entities, such as the 

National Council on Independent Living, the National Disability Rights Network, 

and the ADA National Network.

• State and local election officials must increase their efforts to hire people 

with disabilities for all election personnel and volunteer positions.

NCD recommends that state and local election officials increase their efforts to 

recruit and hire people with disabilities for all election personnel and volunteer 

positions. Such efforts will require focused outreach to the disability community.

FINDING 4: People with disabilities have limited access to voter education, 

despite its importance to understanding the election process and voting rights.

People with disabilities, particularly those who reside in institutional settings and other 

isolated communities, have limited, if any, access to voter education and training.

Recommendations

• State and local election officials should identify rural, remote, and isolated 

communities to enhance outreach and voter education activities.

NCD recommends that state and local election officials use available data and 
90

knowledge to identify rural, remote, and isolated communities, including 

institutional settings, and develop a plan to enhance outreach and voter education 

activities to people with disabilities. Local disability rights organizations, Protection 

& Advocacy agencies, Developmental Disabilities Councils, University Centers for 

Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, and Centers for Independent Living, as 

well as self-advocates can be effective partners in identifying these voters. 

Information can be gleaned from available national, state, and local population, 

geographical, anecdotal, and descriptive data.

• The PAVA program should be extended to provide funding to the Native 

American Consortium.

Although all other P&As in the states and territories receive funding under the 

PAVA program to advocate for voter accessibility, the Native American 

Consortium P&A does not, because it is not a “state-designated” P&A as defined 

under HAVA pursuant to the Developmental Disabilities Assistance Act.

• States and localities must educate community and institutional care 

providers regarding the voting rights of people with disabilities who live in 

institutional settings. 

NCD recommends that state and local boards of election, in partnership with local 

disability rights advocates, develop training and voter education opportunities for 

people who live in institutional settings, including group homes, foster homes, 

psychiatric facilities, and nursing and intermediate care facilities. NCD also 

recommends that any voter outreach and education plan emphasize training for 

community and institutional facilities staff to raise awareness of every person’s 

right to cast a private and independent ballot. 

During election cycles, NCD recommends that state administering agencies 

ensure that all state facilities are trained to provide opportunities for residents to 

register to vote and to cast a private and independent ballot. Well in advance of 

primary and general elections, service providers in both community and 
91

institutional facilities should coordinate with local advocacy organizations to avoid 

potential barriers to residents exercising their voting rights and to ensure that 

qualified voters are not prohibited from voting. 

• Voters with disabilities, advocates, and voting rights organizations should 

be actively involved in legislative and rulemaking activities.

NCD recommends that, as part of voter education and training, voters with 

disabilities, advocates, and voting rights organizations be engaged in state and 

local legislative and rulemaking activities that have the potential to eliminate or 

reduce barriers to voting. These civic engagement activities can include writing 

comments, testifying at hearings, creating and circulating petitions, and visiting 

lawmakers to advocate for change.

• Through community partnerships, voter education materials should be 

broadly disseminated in schools and included as a service delivery goal.

NCD recommends that community partnerships broadly disseminate voter 

education materials in accessible formats in schools to transitioning youth to raise 

awareness of voting rights for people with disabilities. NCD also recommends that 

voter education be included as a service delivery goal for transitioning youth, 

either in the Individualized Education Program or other individual service plan.

• State and local election officials should ensure that all voter materials are 

available in accessible alternative formats.

NCD recommends that state and local election officials ensure the availability of 

alternative format ballots in braille, large print, and electronic formats at each 

polling place and that they are available upon request to meet the needs of voters. 

Relatedly, NCD recommends that poll personnel, including volunteers, be trained 

to explain to the voter that choosing an alternative format may affect the privacy of 

the ballot, if it is duplicated for counting. 
92

NCD further recommends that all voter education materials be available in 

accessible alternative formats and minority languages.

FINDING 5: The Federal Government plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity of 

the election process in the United States.

While federal elections are administered under state laws and policies, Congress has 

enacted laws to ensure that every U.S. citizen has equal access to exercising the right to 

vote. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government play

important roles in protecting the election process and enforcing the right of all citizens to 

cast private and independent ballots. 

Recommendations

• The independent Election Assistance Commission established under HAVA 

must be fully reconstituted so it can meet its statutory mandates. 

The EAC was established under HAVA to serve as a national clearinghouse and 

resource for election administration information; provide funds to states to improve 

election administration; and create minimum standards for states in key areas of 

election administration. This four-member commission was without a quorum 

beginning December 2010; since December 2011, the EAC has had no 

commissioners, and both the executive director and general counsel resigned in 

late 2011. Without commissioners or a staff, the EAC cannot perform its 

mandated functions under HAVA. In a memo issued in early 2011, the general 

counsel and acting executive director suspended activity by the EAC-mandated 

advisory boards because there was no designated federal official appointed to 

conduct official business. 

Without commissioners, there can be no actions by the important EAC boards, 

including the 37-member Board of Advisors and the 110-member Standards 

Board, as well as the Technical Guidelines Development Committee. It is critical 

that these seats be filled and that the EAC be staffed immediately. The lack of 
93

commissioners was noted by panelists at the NCD Policy Forum. Former Senator 

Christopher Dodd (D-CT) said: 

HAVA established a new commission to assist states in [meeting HAVA 

requirements]. The EAC, conceived and championed by my former 

colleague, Mitch McConnell, was a resource for election officials, a place to 

turn to for professional advice and counseling on topics from resources to 

systems in their states to guidelines for administering an election. 

Unfortunately, they are without any commissioners. One of the 

recommendations I would make to this group is that you insist these jobs 

be filled.158

• The Presidential Commission on Election Administration should draw on 

the reported experiences of voters with disabilities to improve the 

experience of all voters.

NCD recommends that the Presidential Commission on Election Administration 

use this and other recent reports that capture the experiences of voters with 

disabilities, along with a concerted effort to focus on disability voting concerns at 

their public meetings, to identify the challenges related to physical, architectural, 

technological, and attitudinal barriers to voting and to develop solutions to improve 

the experience, and protect and ensure the rights of voters with disabilities and all 

voters. 

 

Support for this recommendation was offered by former Senator Dodd at the NCD 

Policy Forum. When he was asked what specific advice NCD could give the 

presidential commission, he said, “Well, start with the basics. You have to be in 

the room and at the table...that ought to be fundamental. To talk about this and 

not be at the table.... I'm not suggesting one seat either. You can become 

advocates not only for your own community but for everyone else as well. So it 

ought not to be a seat physically designated for disability, but because you bring a 

wealth of knowledge for all Americans. So I would begin there.”159
94

• The Presidential Commission on Election Administration should identify 

and recommend promising practices related to voting processes that can 

enhance the experience of voters with disabilities while protecting their 

rights.

NCD recommends that the Presidential Commission on Election Administration 

identify, investigate, and report on promising practices related to voting processes 

that can be made available to protect the rights and enhance the experience of 

voters with disabilities, and eliminate barriers to the electoral process. Such 

practices might include vote-by-mail systems such as that currently used in 

Oregon and the permanent absentee ballot voter status recently introduced in 

Connecticut. 

Hurricane Sandy dealt a devastating blow to a number of precincts in the 

northeast corridor right before the 2012 general election, severely challenging the 

resources of state and local election officials and the ability of voters (including 

first responders) to get to the polls. NCD recommends that the commission work 

with state and local election officials and the National Association of Secretaries of 

State’s Task Force on Emergency Preparedness for Elections to devise effective 

emergency response procedures for elections to ensure that the requirements of 

voters with disabilities are considered as preparedness protocols are developed. 

Both the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) and the National Council on 

Independent Living (NCIL) have memorandums of understanding with the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and those two entities should take an 

active leadership role in this process.

• Congress should restore and maintain full HAVA funding for the secretary 

of state offices and the P&As.

NCD recommends that Congress restore FY 2014 HAVA funding to the secretary 

of state (SOS) offices to help states comply with minimum HAVA provisions. 

Funding and oversight are crucial to ongoing improvement of the electoral 
95

process and its systems. Similarly, funding should be maintained for the P&A 

systems pursuant to Section 291. 

NCD further recommends that Congress require SOS offices to file their 

mandatory annual reports with the EAC and with the Administration on Intellectual 

and Developmental Disabilities of the Department of Health and Human Services 

(AIDD-HHS) so that AIDD-HHS can monitor state spending to ensure compliance 

with the HAVA disability goals. 

In a similar vein, NCD recommends that Congress request that the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) conduct a field study during the 2016 general election 

to chart progress and establish a further point of comparison since their “Voters 

with Disabilities: Challenges to Voting Accessibility” surveys and reports in 2000 

and 2008. Additionally, Congress should request that GAO investigate the 

experiences of SOS offices in their use of HAVA funds to improve and reform 

voting systems for voters with disabilities. GAO witness Barbara Bovbjerg 

commented at the NCD Policy Forum, “Our work suggests that polling places 

have become somewhat more accessible...and, amazingly, that accessible voting 

systems were available to nearly everyone.... [Y]et polling places continue to 

have impediments and almost half haven’t thought through how to place the 

system so that voters can use it privately and independently.”160

• Congress should expand allowable voting formats under the Federal 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and extend these 

formats to voters with disabilities.

NCD recommends to Congress that the allowable voting methods under the 

Federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act—including 

electronic formats, email, and fax—be extended to voters with disabilities.161 NCD 

also recommends that the experiences of voters with disabilities in states that 

have introduced alternative voting processes—such as Oregon’s vote-by-mail 
96

process and the Connecticut permanent absentee ballot—be examined to identify 

effective voting methods for increasing participation of voters with disabilities.

FINDING 6: The enforcement role of the Department of Justice is critical to 

compliance with federal statutes by states and localities. 

DOJ has heightened its monitoring and enforcement of the voting rights statutes and the 

ADA. During the 2012 general election cycle, DOJ was a more visible, active 

enforcement partner with nonpartisan voter protection coalitions such as the P&A system 

and the Election Protection coalition led by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under 

Law. 

However, testimony at the NCD Policy Forum on HAVA suggested the need for more 

vigorous enforcement. DOJ must continue to increase its presence through monitoring 

and rigorous enforcement in states and localities where the rights of voters with 

disabilities have been abridged and voters disenfranchised. As discussed in this report, 

DOJ must use enforcement actions under HAVA, the ADA, and Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. 

Recommendations 

• DOJ must increase and expand its monitoring of polling sites for 

compliance with the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

NCD recommends that DOJ increase and expand its monitoring of polling sites for 

compliance with ADA Title II and Title III, and bring enforcement actions as 

necessary. NCD recommends the use of DOJ’s Project Civic Access to identify 

areas of noncompliance and required remediation. DOJ should include Project 

Civic Access compliance reviews in response to all voting access complaints 

under review. NCD also recommends that DOJ broadly publicize its voter 

complaint process and vigorously pursue all complaints received. 
97

Further, NCD recommends that DOJ use the local expertise of Protection and 

Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) programs and other voting advocacy entities 

in monitoring, identifying, and addressing noncompliance. This targeted attention 

on voting access compliance, particularly on Election Day, will continue to send a 

strong message to state and local jurisdictions that they can no longer 

discriminate against voters with disabilities.

• DOJ must be vigilant in enforcing the Voting Rights Act and remediating 

any violations of federal voting laws.

NCD recommends that DOJ remain vigilant in enforcing Voting Rights Act of 1965 

related to any discriminatory election procedures, including voter identification 

laws that have the potential to disenfranchise voters with disabilities. It is an 

important enforcement tool, as has been proven with proposed voter photo ID 

requirements in Texas. 

NCD similarly recommends that DOJ intervene and pursue complaints to 

remediate any violations of federal voting laws, proposals, and practices that 

impinge on voter rights.

• DOJ must expand its monitoring and oversight of the accessibility of polling 

places for people with disabilities.

NCD recommends that DOJ expand its monitoring and oversight of the 

accessibility of polling places for people with disabilities, using the following 

suggestions offered by GAO in its 2009 report:

Working with states to use existing state oversight mechanisms and using 

other resources, such as organizations representing election officials and 

disability advocacy organizations, to help assess and monitor states’ progress 

in ensuring polling place accessibility, similar to the effort used to determine 

state compliance with HAVA voting system requirements. 
98

Expanding the scope of Election Day observations to include an assessment 

of the physical and technological access to the voting area and the level of 

privacy and independence being offered to voters with disabilities by 

accessible voting systems. 

Expanding the ADA Checklist for Polling Places to include additional 

information on the accessibility of the voting area and guidance on the 

configuration of the accessible voting system to provide voters with disabilities 

with the same level of privacy and independence as is afforded other voters.

FINDING 7: The enactment of laws requiring stricter identification at the polls, 

including voter photo IDs, will increase barriers to the voting process and further 

disenfranchise voters with disabilities.

A number of state legislatures proposed and passed voter photo ID laws in advance of 

the 2012 primary and general election cycle. As a result of advocacy by a broad disability 

and voting rights coalition, a few of these laws were postponed until the next election 

cycle, while others were found unconstitutional. Similar proposals in other states across 

the nation have the potential to create barriers to voting for eligible voters with disabilities 

and suppress citizen participation in voting. Restrictive voter registration practices, 

inappropriate purging of voter rolls, and restrictive requirements at the polls are just 

some of the proposals that suppress voting under the guise of preventing voter fraud. 

State legislatures must consider the potential for disenfranchisement and oppose 

election laws, policies, and practices that can create barriers to voting for people with 

disabilities. 

Former Senator Christopher Dodd, testifying at the NCD Policy Forum, noted that 

proponents of restrictive voting laws “would have you believe that one of the largest 

problems in our federal elections is people voting who aren’t eligible to vote, when in fact 

statistics show over and over and over again that problem is virtually nonexistent.”162
99

Recommendations

• Before they propose new laws and policies, state legislatures and local 

rulemaking authorities have a responsibility to consider the potential for 

inadvertently creating new barriers to voting.

NCD recommends that state legislatures and local rulemaking authorities 

thoroughly research, analyze, and consider the potential for creating new barriers 

to people with disabilities before proposing new laws and policies. 

State legislatures and rulemaking authorities should avail themselves of the 

expertise developed by local voting advocates to understand the needs and 

concerns of voters with disabilities and the potential impact of any changes to the 

voting process that might create new barriers to voting. NCD recommends that 

voters with disabilities be engaged at every step of the information gathering, 

analysis, and recommendation process with the state and local boards of 

elections as active partners in all voting process decision making. 

The involvement of voters with disabilities will help jurisdictions understand the 

nuance and impact of laws such as the voter photo ID. In states that have enacted 

voter photo ID requirements, the state legislature or board of elections should 

initiate a review to determine whether these laws create any impediments to 

voting or further disenfranchise of voters with disabilities.

FINDING 8: People with disabilities who are under guardianship face increasing 

barriers to voting owing to state laws.

Increasing numbers of state laws are being passed that bar voting by people who are 

under guardianship or adjudged mentally incompetent or mentally incapacitated.
100

Recommendation

• State legislatures and local rulemaking authorities must ensure that people 

with disabilities are afforded their fundamental right to vote.

NCD recommends that state legislatures and local rulemaking authorities conduct 

a review of state guardianship laws and modify them where necessary to ensure 

that all people with intellectual, developmental, or psychiatric disabilities have full 

access to the right to vote, independent of their legal capacity.
101

CONCLUSION

The voices of the nearly 900 voters with disabilities who shared their experiences during 

the 2012 general election cycle provide a snapshot of the improvements propelled by 

HAVA and highlight areas in which work remains to be done. 

HAVA is improving access to the electoral process for millions of voters with the full 

spectrum of disabilities. A voter in Illinois commented, “I have been voting since age 18 

and am now 54. Because of the accessible voting machines, voting for me as a blind 

person has not ever felt more liberating!” 

Yet, despite the many gains reported through NCD’s Voting Experience Questionnaire 

and testimony at the Policy Forum on HAVA, it is clear that much work remains. A voter 

from Massachusetts described the voting experience as “one of the most demoralizing 

and humiliating experiences I’ve had surrounding my disability in a few years. I was 

terribly ashamed to be American and in fact felt ostracized by my own country.”

Discrimination and disenfranchisement of voters with disabilities is an intolerable blot on 

the U.S. election process. America must rid itself of the bias and barriers to voting, which 

is a fundamental right of all Americans and the very foundation of our democracy. 

At the NCD Policy Forum, Nancy Ward succinctly summed up the issue when she said, 

“Having a disability is not the problem with voting, it is having accessible equipment, 

accessible locations, and the respect to vote.”

NCD is committed to ensuring complete access to the electoral process for all Americans 

with disabilities, including registering to vote, accessing polling places, and casting a 

private and independent ballot. The integrity of the voting process for all Americans—

including those with disabilities—is critical to our future as a nation. NCD is committed to 

working at the federal, state, and local levels to pursue equality in voting for people with 

disabilities, now and for generations to come.
102

The right to vote is perhaps the single most important indicator of citizenship in the 

United States and around the free world. For too long, citizens with disabilities have been 

in the shadows in exercising this basic civil right. 

Together, we must meet the challenge to eliminate the barriers. We must protect and 

enforce the right to vote for all Americans, with and without disabilities. 

It is our hope that the voter experiences, activities, proven strategies, and recommended 

practices detailed in this report will guide stakeholders as they work together to increase 

the vibrant engagement of citizens with disabilities in the voting process. This act of civic 

duty and responsibility is the cornerstone in making the voices of citizens with disabilities 

heard at the local, state, and national levels, now and for generations to come.

In 10 years, HAVA clearly has made an important difference in removing barriers that 

once precluded the participation of many voters with disabilities. Significant strides have 

been made to ensure full participation in the electoral process, but much more needs to 

be done. We must not lose ground.
103

APPENDIX A. 2012 VOTER EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

The National Council on Disability, in collaboration with the National Disability Rights 

Network and EIN SOF Communications, Inc., wants to hear from you about your voting 

experiences during the 2012 General Election! 

Please complete this questionnaire and email it to Voting.Questionnaire@ndrn.org or 

mail it to NDRN, 900 Second Street, NE, Suite 211, Washington, DC 20002. 

You can also complete the questionnaire online at 

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1053447/Voting. 

If you have any questions, please contact NDRN at 202.408.9514, ext. 130.

1. If you needed any assistance in completing your voter registration, who assisted you? 

2. Please describe any physical barriers you encountered at your polling place (for 

example, no accessible parking, no curb cuts, separate entrance, stairs, narrow 

doorways, etc.). 

3. Describe any barriers you encountered inside your polling place (for example, 

inaccessible voting machine, attitudes of poll workers, etc.) that prevented you from 

voting privately and independently. 

4. If your eligibility to vote was questioned, how did the poll worker handle the situation? 

5. What, if any, voter education or training have you received?
104

6. Please describe any difficulty you had voting because of your state’s photo ID

requirement. 

7. What are your city and state? 

8. How many times have you voted in the past? 

Additional Comments

Thank you for your feedback!
105

APPENDIX B. HAVA APPROPRIATIONS, 2003–2012

The following tables, provided by the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, show the funding 

amounts appropriated to the secretary of state offices and Protection & Advocacy 

systems under Sections 261 and 291 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). 

Secretary of State

Offices (SOSs)

Amount Appropriated Unspent amount returned to the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury

FY2003 $ 11,301,889 

FY2004 $ 9,019,128 

FY2005 $ 9,919,338

FY2006 $ 10,879,201

FY2007 $ 10,885,040

FY2008 $ 11,918,164 Funds will expire 9/29/13

FY2009 $ 12,054,000 Funds will expire 9/29/14

FY2010 $ 12,054,000 Funds will expire 9/29/15

FY2011 $ 6,166,258 Funds will expire 9/29/16

FY2012 0 No money appropriated

Protection & 

Advocacy 

Systems (P&As)

Amount Appropriated Unspent amount returned to the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury

FY2003 $ 1,858,371 

FY2004 $ 4,615,146 

FY2005 $ 4,612,493

FY2006 $ 4,492,095

FY2007 $ 4,386,900

FY2008 $ 4,818,201 Funds will expire 9/29/13

FY2009 $ 4,888,080 Funds will expire 9/29/14

FY2010 $ 4,888,080 Funds will expire 9/29/15

FY2011 $ 2,707,645 Funds will expire 9/29/16

FY2012 $ 4,868,930 Funds will expire 9/29/17
106
107

APPENDIX C. HAVA-FUNDED SECRETARY OF STATE OFFICE 261 

ACTIVITIES, 2003–2010

Awards of HAVA funds to the secretary of state offices are made through the 

Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) to each state, the 

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and 

the Virgin Islands. AIDD has provided the following examples of activities carried out by 

the secretary of state offices with Section 261 funds.

Secretary of State Offices – Section 261

Fiscal Year Accomplishment

2003 • Arizona awarded grants to county partnerships to purchase 

accessible voting booths, clip-on lights, parking signs, ramps, 

door handle adapters, embosser and translation software, and 

audio voting materials.

• Puerto Rico improved instructions for blind voters using braille, 

purchased equipment and software necessary to make voting 

materials in the election office library accessible to voters with a 

variety of disabilities, and equipped four mobile offices to 

provide voter registration opportunities and voting opportunities 

to people with disabilities who are hospitalized, homebound, or 

reside in remote areas.

2004 • Hawaii worked with the Disability and Communication Access 

Board to train county election clerks and state election officials 

on best practices for assisting voters with disabilities and to 

engage in informational outreach promoting the accessible 

features and use of the direct recording electronic voting system 

selected by Hawaii to provide accessible voting.

• Minnesota, with the active involvement of the American Council 

of the Blind and the Minnesota State Council on D isabilities, 

developed the 2004 Election Judge Training Video Project, a 
108

segment of which concentrates on assisting voters with 

disabilities.

• Connecticut, in collaboration with its Protection & Advocacy 

system, its Board of Education for Services of the Blind, and 

several national and local advocacy organizations, conducted 

conferences and prepared written materials for local municipal 

officials and registrars of voters to educate them about polling 

place accessibility. 

2005 • The Virgin Islands Election System created a poll worker 

category—facilitator—from a pool of community members who 

work in the service industry (e.g., bankers, attorneys, school 

principals). In addition to the regular orientation, these poll 

workers met with the director of the Disability Rights Center to

receive instructions on how to deal with challenged individuals. 

On Election Day, they were assigned to polling places to 

facilitate the process and the voting experience of electors. 

• The office of the Idaho secretary of state produced audio files 

for the visually impaired and posted them on the 

Idahovotes.gov Web site, along with instructions on how to use 

the ballot-marking device. They also posted the full text of 

measures, amendments, and propositions on the ballot.

2006 • The Vermont State Election Office implemented a v ote-byphone system that proved to be successful during the 2006 

election.

• The Maryland State Board of Elections purchased items for the 

2006 elections that can be transported to polling locations to 

create temporary solutions to barriers. 

2007 • In a collaborative effort with the Iowa Department of the Blind, 

the office of the secretary of state created voting registration 

forms in braille that are accessible to the visually impaired and 
109

blind citizens of Iowa. 

• Two training videos were developed by the office of the Rhode 

Island secretary of state. The first is a 10-minute training for 

election officials and poll workers, to prepare them to meet the 

needs of voters with a full range of disabilities. The second is a 

5-minute training on the Automark machine; it is mandatory for 

all election officials and poll workers. The two videos were 

collaboratively developed by the Rhode Island Disability Law 

Center and the state board of elections.

2008 • The state of Alaska trains election officials and poll workers to 

promote the access and participation of individuals with the full 

range of disabilities in elections for federal office. In 

collaboration with the state ADA coordinator, the four regional 

election supervisors continue to refine their training curriculum 

to include disability awareness education. Training has been 

available in all of Alaska’s 439 voting precincts. The state also 

worked with disability organizations and I ndependent Living 

Centers to address the needs of disabled voters and make 

resources available to them. 

• The Ohio secretary of state regional liaisons (field 

representatives) have been trained extensively on accessibility 

laws affecting Ohio and how to evaluate polling places for 

accessibility. The field representatives used their skills and 

voting training to perform polling place accessibility spot checks 

during the November general election. The secretary of state’s 

office conducted five regional training seminars for board of 

election staff and board members, with 51 o f 88 c ounties 

represented. Updated voting materials and accessibility 

resources were provided. 

2009 • The Virginia State Board of Elections partnered with the Center 

for Independent Living to audit polling places in the state. By 
110

year’s end, 700 polling place audits in 75 l ocalities had been

completed. The removal of polling place barriers has been 

accomplished by 134 localities in Virginia to ensure accessible 

voting for people with disabilities. 

• The American Samoa Territorial Election Office provided 

training to voters with disabilities to ensure proper use of 

assistive technology equipment and additional voting aids, 

including the ES&S Automark machines. 

2010 • The office of the Maine secretary of state used HAVA funds to 

continue maintenance of the software for the Accessible Voting 

System (AVS). More than 500 municipalities were provided with 

accessible earphone covers for use with the AVS, the Access to 

Voting Pocket guides, and a new chapter devoted to 

accessibility for the election officials training manual. 

• The office of the North Dakota secretary of state and t he ND 

Protection & Advocacy project cooperated on the development, 

creation, and distribution of an educational video and booklet on

voters with disabilities. The media aids and materials were 

advertised on t he Internet and di stributed to more than 1,200 

people statewide. 
111

APPENDIX D. HAVA-FUNDED P&A ACTIVITIES, 2003–2010

Awards of HAVA funds to P&As are made through the Administration on Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) to each eligible state, the District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. AIDD 

has provided the following examples of activities carried out by the P&As with Section 

291 funds.

Protection and Advocacy Systems– Section 291

Fiscal Year Accomplishment

2003 • Protection & Advocacy, Inc., of California trained approximately 

600 people on topics related to ensuring full participation in 

elections for voters with the full range of disabilities; served on

the secretary of state’s task force to develop uniform poll worker 

training standards; and participated in the development of these 

standards.

• South Dakota Advocacy Services published a series of articles 

on the Help America Vote Act covering topics relevant to voters 

with disabilities, provided training to county auditors, conducted 

eight outreach events to distribute HAVA information, and 

participated in seven public listening sessions addressing voting 

issues and concerns. 

2004 • Michigan Protection & Advocacy Services organized individuals 

knowledgeable about the Americans with Disabilities Act to 

assist local clerks in surveying the physical accessibility of 

polling places throughout Michigan.

• The Disability Law Center of Alaska provided outreach to more 

than 100 assisted living homes, offered voter registration 

assistance to residents, and provided voters with information 

regarding their voting rights.
112

2005 • Missouri Protection & Advocacy used HAVA grant funds to

create the Vote at Home project. The project used a little-known 

law that enables Missouri voters with disabilities to register with 

their local election authority as permanently disabled, so they 

can vote in every election via absentee ballot by mail. P&A legal 

staff also collaborated with advocacy and di sability rights 

organizations to challenge a restrictive Missouri voting law that

required all voters to show a state-approved photo ID. 

Ultimately, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the law.

• The Louisiana Protection & Advocacy Center set up a 

conference to train and educate officials, poll workers, and 

election volunteers regarding the rights of voters with disabilities 

and best practices for working with people with disabilities (450 

served).

2006 • University Legal Services, Inc. (a P&A agency) conducted voter 

registration drives in July 2006 at nursing homes, residential 

buildings for the elderly and people with disabilities, and the local 

psychiatric hospital. The agency helped more than 130 residents 

submit new voter registrations or update their information. 

• The Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons 

with Disabilities collaborates with the office of the secretary of 

state on Every 1 Counts, a project that addresses the rights of 

voters with disabilities in Connecticut through outreach, 

advocacy, education, and assistance. 

2007 • The Disability Rights Center (DRC) of Kansas has been 

extensively involved in efforts to implement HAVA and ensure 

the rights of voters with disabilities. DRC advocated with the 

Kansas secretary of state to ensure that Kansas law was 

followed regarding polling place accessibility. DRC was able to 

get the law amended in 2004, which has enhanced polling 
113

places and accessibility to Kansans with disabilities. Although 

the law is on t he books, constant monitoring and vigilance are

required to ensure that the promise of the law becomes the 

reality.

• The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program provided two 

trainings on the primary voting concerns of people with 

developmental disabilities. The training focused on 

transportation to and from the polls, decreasing the number of 

absentee ballots, and pre-voting activities in nursing homes. The 

training affected a total of 104,785 people in the state. 

2008 • The Nevada Disability Advocacy Law Center provided research 

and technical assistance for the drafting of the final regulations 

for the Signature Stamp law (Senate Bill 23). The law allows the 

use of a r ubber signature stamp for people with a phy sical 

disability who are unable to write their names. The project 

coordinator was able to share information on how to obtain and 

use the stamp during the voting process with more than 20 

consumers. 

• The New York State Commission on Quality of Care and 

Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities created a voting public 

service announcement for the radio and television media 

markets in conjunction with the NYS Independent Living Council 

and Association. The PSA was distributed throughout the 52 

upstate counties served by the upstate P&A office.

2009 • The Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services (IPAS) 

Commission disseminated voting and accessibility information to 

64,633 people through trainings, speaking engagements, and 

publications. IPAS worked in collaboration with the secretary of 

state’s office to train county clerks on v oting topics, including

allowable accommodations, physical access requirements, the 
114

grievance process, and provisional balloting. 

• Disability Rights Mississippi initiated a four-month “A Time to 

Share” listening tour across the state with a mission of hearing 

from Mississippians with disabilities, family members, and 

service providers regarding voting needs and ac cessibility 

concerns. There were a total of 41 out reach opportunities and 

events in 28 different communities across the state for outreach 

and input. The listening tour resulted in increased connections 

and services to underserved and unserved demographics, and

provided an opportunity to educate families, community partners, 

and other advocates about voting rights for upcoming elections. 

2010 • West Virginia Advocates provided voter education kits to 

numerous individuals at conferences, provider locations, 

psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, and senior centers. The 

kits included outreach information, voter registration forms, 

absentee ballots, polling site information, hotline numbers, and 

frequently asked questions. 

• Disability Rights New Mexico worked with the Native American 

liaison in the office of the New Mexico secretary of state to 

provide intensive training and accessibly voting materials to 

tribal group leaders and officials throughout the state, to ensure 

that polling sites on t ribal lands met accessibility requirements 

for disabled voters. 
115

ENDNOTES 

1 CalTech Voting Technology Project and MIT, “Voting: What Is, What Could Be,” 

July 2001, at http://vote.caltech.edu/content/voting-what-what-could-be. 

2 Written testimony of Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip, NCD 

Policy Forum, April 23, 2013, available at 

http://www.ncd.gov/events/OtherEvents/04232013. 

3 Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy Forum, April 23, 2013, p. 10.

4 Id. at 25.

5 Transcript of the oral testimony of the Honorable Christopher Dodd, NCD Policy 

Forum, April 23, 2013.

6 Id. 

7 Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy Forum, April 23, 2013, p. 30.

8 42 U.S.C. § 1973.

9 Id.. § 1973ee

10 Id. § 12101.

11 Id. § 1973gg.

12 Id. § 15301.

13 See U.S. Department of Justice website at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot

(last visited 1/7/2013).

14 42 U.S.C. § 15301.

15 Supra at note 2.

16 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-09-685, Voters With Disabilities: More 

Polling Places Had No Potential Impediments Than in 2000, But Challenges Remain

(2009), http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-685. 

17 Testimony of Barbara Bovbjerg, GAO, Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy 

Forum, April 23, 2013, p. 33.
116

18 See Americans With Disabilities 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, July 2012 at 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf. 

19 Lisa Schur and Douglas Krause, “Fact Sheet, Disability and Voter Turnout in the 

2008 Election,” Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations (2009) at 

http://smlr.rutgers.edu/research-centers/disability-and-voter-turnout. 

20 Id. 

21 Lisa Schur and Douglas Krause, supra, “Fact Sheet, Disability and Voter Turnout 

in the 2010 Election” at http://smlr.rutgers.edu/research-centers/disability-and-voterturnout. 

22 Lisa Schur, Douglas Kruse, and Meera Adya, Survey Results of Polling Place 

Accessibility in the 2012 Elections, Presentation to the Election Assistance Commission, 

Washington, D.C., May 9, 2013.

23 See “Members of Community Access Unlimited in Elizabeth Vote in Great 

Numbers,” The Jersey Journal, January 12, 2013 at 

http://www.nj.com/suburbannews/index.ssf/2013/01/post_35.html. 

24 Id. 

25 NYSILC 2012 Post Election Voter Poll at http://www.nysilc.org/voter_edu.htm. 

26 The Blind Voter Experience: A Comparison of the 2008 and 2012 Elections, 

National Federation of the Blind (February 2013).

27 Testimony of Lou Ann Blake, NFB, Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy Forum, 

April 23, 2013, pp. 36-37.

28 The 2012 Election Protection Report, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under 

Law, February 13, 2013 at 

http://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/publications/document/EP-2012-Full-Report.pdf. 

29 Id., p. 40.

30 Id., pp. 40-41.

31 Post 2012 Election Day Report, SABE National Technical Assistance Center for 

Voting and Cognitive Access, April 1, 2013.

32 In early 2012, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) became 

the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD). Previously a 

division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration on 

Children and Families (ACF), on April 16, 2012, HHS combined AIDD, the Administration 
117

on Aging, and the Office on Disability into a new agency called the Administration for 

Community Living.

33 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 

Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2012, to accompany S. 1599, Report 112-84, September 22, 

2012, p. 144. 

34 The White House Fact Sheet on the Presidential Commission on Election 

Administration at http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/SOTU-factsheetElections-FINAL.pdf; Executive Order: Establishment of the Presidential Commission of 

Election Administration (3/28/2013) at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/03/28/executive-order-establishment-presidential-commission-electionadministr. 

35 Supra at note 15.

36 Researchers did not receive responses from voters in Hawaii, South Dakota, 

Vermont, or Wyoming.

37 The information on funding, expenditures, reporting requirements, and 

challenges and barriers was provided by the PAVA administering office at AIDD.

38 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq.

39 Id. § 15421.

40 Id. § 15481.

41 Id. § 15405.

42 Id. § 15451.

43 Id. § 15461.

44 Id. § 15512.

45 Id. § 15481(a)(3). 

46 Id. §§ 15321–15346.

47 Id. § 15401 et seq.
118

48 FY 2012 Activities Report, Election Assistance Commission website at 

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/FY-2012-EAC-Activities-Report-WebsiteScanned.pdf. 

49 Id. 

50 Written testimony of Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, supra, note 2.

51 Testimony of Sen. Christopher Dodd, supra, note 5. 

52 42 U.S.C. § 15512.

53 Id. § 15511.

54 Id. § 15421 and § 15461

55 Id. § 15301.

56 Id. § 15302.

57 Id. § 15401.

58 Id. § 15301.

59 Id. §15481(a)(3)(A).

60 §15481(b)

61 Id. § 15481(b)(1).

62 Id. § 15481(b)(2).

63 Id. § 15481(b)(2).

64 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

http://www.eac.gov/testing_and_certification/2005_vvsg.aspx (last visited Feb. 3, 2012).

65 How States Are Using Federal Funds to Carry Out the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA), National Association of Secretaries of State, April 2010. See also The 

Machinery of Democracy: Voting System Security, Accessibility, Usability, and Cost, 

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Fall, 2006, pp. 9, 127-150.

66 See “EAC: $7 Million Federal Grand Available to Make Voting More Accessible 

to People With Disabilities” at 

http://idevmail.americaneagle.com/message.aspx?d=237&m=596&e. See also “Clemson 

University Research Team to Lead Accessible Voting Technology Project,” June 7, 2011, 
119

Clemson University at http://www.clemson.edu/ces/computing/newsstories/PrimeIII.html; and National Institute of Standards and Technology Accessible 

Voting Workshop at http://www.nist.gov/itl/iad/avt-research-workshop.cfm; and FY 2012 

Activities Report, Election Assistance Commission Web site at 

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/FY-2012-EAC-Activities-Report-WebsiteScanned.pdf. 

67 Id. 

68 “The Help American Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues,” CRS 

Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, RS20898, June 27, 2011 

available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20898.pdf. 

69 How States are Using Federal Funds to Carry Out the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA), National Association of Secretaries of State, April 2010. See also GAO 

Decision, Matter of Election Assistance Commission-Availability of Funds for Purchase of 

Replacement Voting Equipment, File B316107, March 19, 2008, approving EAC’s 

proposed policy to permit states to fund the replacement of HAVA-compliant voting 

systems, purchased with HAVA funds, with a different kind of HAVA-compliant voting 

system; An Agenda for Election Reform, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of 

Law, 2007, p. 10; The Machinery of Democracy: Voting System Security, Accessibility, 

Usability, and Cost, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Fall, 2006, pp. 9, 

127-150.

70 Coalition for Full Funding of HAVA, Open Letter to Congress: Honor 

Commitment to Election Reform, March 2, 2010.

71 See generally written testimony of Sharon Lewis, Commissioner AIDD-ACL, 

HHS, before the NCD Forum, April 23, 2013, available at 

http://www.ncd.gov/events/OtherEvents/04232013. 

72 Oral testimony of Sharon Lewis, Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy Forum, 

April 23, 2013, p. 35.

73 42 U.S.C. § 15461.

74 Id. 

75 Id.

76 Id. § 15462.

77 See, for example, the AIDD HAVA webpage at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/aidd/programs/hava/about (last visited 1/3/2013), the 

AIDD HAVA Fact Sheet at 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/aidd/hava_factsheet.pdf?nocache=134946742
120

7, and AIDD Performance Reports at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/aidd/resource/help-america-vote-act-fy-2007-2008-

performance-highlights. 

78 42 U.S.C. § 15511.

79 See generally written testimony of Sharon Lewis, Commissioner AIDD-ACL, 

HHS, before the NCD Forum, April 23, 2013, available at 

http://www.ncd.gov/events/OtherEvents/04232013, and oral testimony of Sharon Lewis, 

Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy Forum, April 23, 2013, p. 35.

80 42 U.S.C. §15461(c).

81 Id. 

82 Id § 15425.

83 Id. § 15425. The AIDD annual reports can be viewed at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/aidd/programs/hava. 

84 42 U.S.C. § 15327. EAC annual reports can be viewed at 

http://www.eac.gov/payments_and_grants/reporting.aspx. 

85 See Americans with Disabilities 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, July 2012 at 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf, p. 30.

86 Written testimony of Barbara Bovbjerg, GAO, NCD Policy Forum, April 23, 2013, 

p. 15, available at http://www.ncd.gov/events/OtherEvents/04232013. 

87 Id., p. 17.

88 42 U.S.C. § 15461.

89 Id. § 1973.

90 Id. § 1973ee.

91 Id. § 12101.

92 Id. § 1973gg.

93 Id. § 15301.

94 See U.S. Department of Justice Web site at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot

(last visited 1/7/2013).
121

95 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-6.

96 42 U.S.C. § 1973ee.

97 Id.

98 Id. § 1973ee-3(a) & (c). Specifically, under the VAEHA, no notarization or 

medical certification shall be required of a voter with a disability with respect to an 

absentee ballot or an application for such ballot, except that a state may require medical 

certification to establish eligibility for a permanent absentee application or ballot, or to 

apply for an absentee ballot after the deadline has passed.

99 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

100 Id. §§ 12131–12165. 

101 See, for example, United Spinal Association v. Bd. of Elections in the City of 

New York, 2012 WL 3222663 (S.D.N.Y. August 8, 2012)(Plaintiff brought claims under 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against 

the NYC Board of Elections alleging that polling places were in many cases inaccessible 

and failed to provide meaningful access to persons with disabilities with respect to 

voting. The District Court agreed and granted plaintiff’s summary judgment); Kerrigan, et 

al. v. Philadelphia Bd. of Elections, et al., #07-687, Slip Copy, 2008 WG 3562521, 

(U.S.D.C.E.D.Pa, August 14, 2008)(Six Philadelphia voters with mobility disabilities filed 

suit against the Philadelphia Board of Elections challenging the inaccessibility of several 

hundred of Philadelphia’s more than 1,600 polling places. The court determined that the 

ADA encompassed voting and that it could provide for broader protections than the 

VAEHA, which permits elections boards to rely on alternative voting procedures to 

address accessibility issues, and HAVA, which addresses accessible voting machines. 

The board eventually settled the case.); but see AAPD v. Harris, 643 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 

2011) (The court held in an en banc decision that voting machines were not “facilities” 

under the ADA that needed to be accessible.) 

102 Nelson v. Miller, 170 F.3d 641(6th Cir.)(Plaintiffs who were blind brought claims 

under the ADA, pre-HAVA, and the court held that there was no right to a “private or 

secret” vote under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act; it was not a violation of the ADA to 

have voting processes that entailed use of assistance). Another pre-HAVA case, 

Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, Texas, 118 F.3d 421 (5th Cir 1997), found that Texas 

did not violate the ADA, as there were no facts alleged by the plaintiffs that the county 

refused to approve an accessible voting machine.

103 Troiano v. Supervisors of Elections in Palm Beach County, 382 F.3d 1276 (11th 

Cir. 2004) (Held that the plaintiffs’ claims were moot because the elections officials had 

implemented voting equipment with audio output at all precincts.); AAPD v. Shelley, 324 

F.Supp. 1120, (C.D. Calif. 2004) (Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order to stop 

elections officials from decertifying certain direct recording electronic voting machines 
122

that were accessible to people who are blind. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to 

show a likelihood of success on the merits because decertifying the machines did not 

deprive voters who were blind with the fundamental right to vote. The case was 

dismissed). 

104 Exempted from these requirements generally are private clubs and religious 

organizations, including places of worship.

105 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

106 See Project Civic Access webpage at http://www.ada.gov/civicac.htm. 

107 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg.

108 Id. § 1973gg–7.

109 Id .§ 1973gg-2. 

110 Id. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B).

111 Id. § 1973gg-3, -gg-4, - gg-5.

112 Id. § 1973gg-5.

113 Id.

114 Id.

115 See, generally, Voting Law Changes in 2012, Brennan Center for Justice at 

NYU School of Law (2011), and Election 2012: Voting Laws Roundup Analysis, Brennan 

Center for Justice (10/16/2012).

116 For a detailed description of the current voter identification requirements, see

the Brennan Center for Justice, Election 2012: Voting Laws Roundup and Analysis at 

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voter_id_laws_passed_in_2011. Also 

see the National Conference of State Legislatures Web site at 

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx. 

117 “How Hurricane Sandy Could Affect the Election,” Washington Post

(10/26/2012), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/postpolitics/wp/2012/10/26/how-hurricane-sandy-could-affect-the-election. 

118 Examples of such postings can be found for the board of elections for the city of 

New York at http://vote.nyc.ny.us/html/temp_hours/temp_hours.shtml, and the Disability 

Power & Pride (Virginia) Web site at 

http://mypowerandpride.org/news/2012/10/hurricane-sandy-information-voters-virginia. 
123

119 See generally “Hurricane Sandy Aftermath Presents Difficulties For Voters In 

New York, New Jersey,” Huffington Post (11/6/2012), available at 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/hurricane-sandy-aftermath-voters-new-yorknew-jersey_n_2084358.html; “Hurricane Sandy Victims Vote, Then Evacuate As 

Weather Continues To Impact Election 2012,” Washington Post (11/6/2012), available at 

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-06/politics/35506148_1_hurricane-sandypaper-ballot-vote-by-provisional-ballot; “Hurricane Sandy Election Plans: Officials 

Prepare To Hold Election In Storm-Ravaged Sections Of New York, New Jersey,” 

Huffington Post (11/04/2012), available at 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/hurricane-sandy-electionplans_n_2073731.html; “Disruption From Storm May Be Felt at the Polls,” New York 

Times (11/2/2012), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/us/politics/hurricanesandy-threatens-to-disrupt-voting-on-election-day.html. 

120 “Secretaries of State Announce National Task Force on Emergency 

Preparedness for Election,” foxreno.com, March 4, 2013, available at Election Protection 

Newsroom at http://www.866vote.org/newsroom or 

http://www.foxreno.com/news/news/national/secretaries-state-announce-national-taskforce-eme/nWgWr. 

121 The White House Fact Sheet on the Presidential Commission on Election 

Administration at http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/SOTU-factsheetElections-FINAL.pdf; Executive Order: Establishment of the Presidential Commission of 

Election Administration (3/28/2013) at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/03/28/executive-order-establishment-presidential-commission-electionadministr. 

122 Id.

123 Id. 

124 White House Press Release, President Obama Announces His Intent to Appoint 

Individuals to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, May 21, 2013, 

available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/21/president-obamaannounces-his-intent-appoint-individuals-presidential-co. 

125 See generally NCD Web site for the Notice of Forum, agenda, and links to 

written testimony at http://www.ncd.gov/events/OtherEvents/04232013. 

126 Transcript of the oral testimony of the Honorable Christopher Dodd, NCD Policy 

Forum, April 23, 2013.

127 Id. 

128 Id. 
124

129 Id. 

130 Id. 

131 Oral testimony of Commissioner Chai Feldblum, Rough Draft Transcript, NCD 

Policy Forum, April 23, 2013, p. 20. 

132 42 U.S.C. § 15329.

133 See Americans with Disabilities 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, July 2012 at 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf, p. 30.

134 Id., p. 32.

135 Written statement of Barbara Bovbjerg, NCD Public Forum, April 23, 2013, 

GAO-13-538SP, p. 15.

136 Id., p. 16.

137 Id.

138 Testimony of Commissioner Sharon Lewis, Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy 

Forum, April 23, 2013, p. 32. 

139 Id., p. 35.

140 Id. 

141 Written testimony of Commissioner Sharon Lewis, NCD HAVA Policy Forum, 

April 23, 2013, p. 12, available at http://www.ncd.gov/events/OtherEvents/04232013. 

142 Written testimony of Kathy Hoell, NCD HAVA Policy Forum, April 23, 2013 at 1, 

available at http://www.ncd.gov/events/OtherEvents/04232013. 

143 Testimony of Kathy Howell, Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy Forum, April 23, 

2013, p. 40.

144 Testimony of Nancy Ward, Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy Forum, April 23, 

2013, pp. 41-42.

145 882 F. Supp. 2d 615 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

146 Transcript of the oral testimony of the Honorable Christopher Dodd, NCD Policy 

Forum, April 23, 2013.
125

147 Election 2012: Voting Laws Roundup, Brennan Center for Justice at New York 

University School of Law, October 16, 2012, available at 

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/2012_summary . 

148 Id. 

149 HB 7013 (Fla. 2013) passed by the Florida Legislature on May 4 and signed by 

the governor on May 21, 2013. For the final bill analysis, go to 

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/7013/Analyses/d/mB65yRQ12h4tkO0XaLyLBI

PH8=%7C14/Public/Bills/7000-7099/7013/Analysis/h7013z1.EES.PDF. 

150 HB 224 (Md. 2013) passed by the legislature on April 8, 2013 and signed by the 

governor on May 2, 2013. For a copy of the bill, go to 

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/chapters_noln/Ch_158_hb0224E.pdf. 

151 Voting Law Roundup 2013, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University 

School of Law, May 10, 2013, available at 

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup. 

152 Dēmos Updates, Same Day Registration, May 17, 2013.

153 See generally Vote: It’s Your Right, A Guide to the Voting Rights of People with 

Mental Disabilities, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and National Disability Rights 

Network, 2008 and 2012 Addendum, available at 

http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8GRTfqaH_Qc%3d&tabid=543. 

154 Id., pp. 14-15.

155 Written testimony of Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip, NCD 

Policy Forum, April 23, 2013, available at 

http://www.ncd.gov/events/OtherEvents/04232013. 

156 Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy Forum, April 23, 2013, p. 10.

157 Id. at 25.

158 Transcript of the oral testimony of the Honorable Christopher Dodd, NCD Policy 

Forum, April 23, 2013.

159 Id. 

160 Rough Draft Transcript, NCD Policy Forum, April 23, 2013, p. 30.

161 42 U.S.C. §1973ff.

162 Supra, note 21.