VOTERS WITH 

DISABILITIES

Challenges to Voting 

Accessibility

Statement of Barbara Bovbjerg, Managing Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Statement 

Before the National Council on 

Disability

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

GAO-13-538SP

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-538SP, statement 

before the National Council on Disability

April 2013

VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES

Challenges to Voting Accessibility

Why GAO Did This Study

Voting is fundamental to our 

democracy and federal law generally 

requires polling places to be accessible 

to all eligible voters, including those 

with disabilities and the elderly. 

However during the 2000 federal 

election, GAO found that only 16 

percent of polling places had no 

potential impediments to voting access 

for people with disabilities. To address 

these and other issues, Congress 

enacted the Help America Vote Act of 

2002 (HAVA), which required each 

polling place to have an accessible 

voting system by 2006. Congress

asked GAO to reassess voting access 

on Election Day 2008, and also to 

study voter accessibility at long-term 

care facilities.

This statement focuses on (1) progress 

made from 2000 to 2008 to improve 

voter accessibility in polling places,

including relevancy to long-term care 

facilities and (2) steps the Department 

of Justice (Justice) has taken to 

enforce HAVA voting access 

provisions. 

To prepare this statement, GAO relied 

primarily on its prior products on polling 

place accessibility (GAO-09-941) and 

voting in long-term care facilities 

(GAO-10-6). 

What GAO Recommends

GAO previously recommended that 

Justice expand its monitoring and 

oversight of polling place accessibility. 

Justice generally agreed with our 

recommendation and has reported 

taking some steps towards addressing 

it, such as expanding Election Day 

observations to include an assessment 

of physical accessibility. 

What GAO Found

Compared to 2000, 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 2008, based upon GAO’s survey of polling places, GAO estimated that 

27 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path from the 

parking to the voting area—up from16 percent in 2000; 45 percent had potential 

impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27 percent had 

potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting. All but one polling place 

GAO visited had an accessible voting system—typically, an electronic machine in 

a voting station—to facilitate private and independent voting for people with 

disabilities. However, 46 percent of polling places had an accessible voting 

system that could pose a challenge to certain voters with disabilities, such as 

voting stations that were not arranged to accommodate voters using wheelchairs. 

In GAO’s 2008 state survey, 43 states reported that they set accessibility 

standards for polling places, up from 23 states in 2000. Further, 31 states 

reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was challenging. Localities GAO 

surveyed in 2008 reported providing voting services directly to long-term care 

facility residents who may face challenges voting in a polling place. For example, 

close to one-third of localities GAO surveyed reported designating long-term care 

facilities as Election Day polling places.

From shortly after the passage of HAVA until 2006, Justice provided guidance on 

polling place accessibility and conducted an initial assessment of states’ 

compliance with HAVA’s January 2006 deadline for accessible voting systems. 

After implementation of HAVA, Justice’s oversight of HAVA’s access 

requirements was part of two other enforcement efforts, but gaps remained. 

While Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility, this guidance did

not address accessibility of the voting area itself. In 2009, Justice conducted

polling place observations for federal elections that identified whether accessible 

voting systems were in place, but it did not systematically assess the physical 

accessibility of polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided 

to voters with disabilities. Justice also conducted a small number of annual 

community assessments of Americans with Disabilities Act compliance of public 

buildings, which included buildings designated as polling places. However, these 

assessments did not provide a national perspective on polling place accessibility 

or assess any special features of the voting area and the accessible voting 

system that are set up only on Election Day. 

View GAO-13-538SP. For more information, 

contact Barbara Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or 

bovbjergb@gao.gov.
 

Page 1 GAO-13-538SP 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Council,

I am pleased to be here today to discuss voting access for people with 

disabilities. As you know, voting is fundamental to our democratic system, 

and federal law generally requires federal election polling places to be 

accessible to all eligible voters, including voters with disabilities and the 

elderly. Under the law, state political subdivisions responsible for 

conducting elections must assure that polling places used in federal 

elections are accessible, as determined by the state.1 These 

requirements present a challenge to state and local election officials 

because achieving accessibility—which is affected by the type of 

impairment and various barriers posed by polling place facilities and 

voting methods—is part of a larger set of challenges they face in 

administering elections on a periodic basis. In the 2008 federal election, 

an estimated 15 million voters with disabilities cast ballots. However, 

during the 2000 federal election, we found that only 16 percent of polling 

places had no potential impediments to voting access for people with 

disabilities. Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 20022 (HAVA) 

to address these and other challenges encountered during the 2000 

federal election. Subsequently, Congress asked GAO to assess voting 

access for people with disabilities again and examine actions taken to 

facilitate voting for residents of long-term care facilities during the 2008 

federal election.3

Much has happened since the 2008 federal election, and states have 

made various changes to their election laws that may affect voters with 

disabilities. Specifically, leading into the 2012 presidential election, 

numerous states made substantive changes to: their election codes or 

 

1

See the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, Pub. L. No. 98-435, 98 

Stat. 1678 (1984), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1973ee et seq. Exceptions are allowed if the 

state determines that all potential polling places have been surveyed and no accessible 

place is available, and the political subdivision cannot make one temporarily accessible. In 

these cases, voters with disabilities who are assigned to inaccessible polling places must 

be, upon advance request, either reassigned to an accessible polling place or provided 

another means for voting on Election Day.

2

Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq.

3

GAO, Voters with Disabilities: Additional Monitoring of Polling Places Could Further 

Improve Accessibility, GAO-09-941 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2009) and GAO, Elderly 

Voters: Information on Promising Practices Could Strengthen the Integrity of the Voting 

Process in Long-term Care Facilities, GAO-10-6 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2009).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-538SP 

procedures in areas of voter identification; alternative methods of voting, 

such as in-person voting prior to Election Day; and requirements for voter 

registration drives conducted by nongovernment organizations.4

My statement today is based primarily on our findings from two 2009 

GAO reports on polling place accessibility and voting in long-term care 

facilities, respectively. Specifically, my comments will focus on (1) 

progress made from 2000 to 2008 to improve voter accessibility in polling 

places, including relevancy to long-term care facilities and (2) steps the 

Department of Justice (Justice) has taken to enforce HAVA voting access 

provisions. In addition, we currently have work under way examining state 

voter identification laws and their impact on voting access.5

In conducting our prior work on polling place accessibility and voting in 

long-term care facilities, we visited 730 randomly selected polling places 

in the contiguous United States on Election Day, November 4, 2008, to 

make observations of their accessibility features.6 We also administered a 

web-based survey of election officials in all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia (District), and 4 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands)7

 

4

See GAO, Elections: State Laws Addressing Voter Registration and Voting on or before 

Election Day, 

between December 2008 and 

February 2009 and received a 100 percent response rate. In addition, we 

conducted an e-mail survey of 104 local election jurisdictions between 

September 2008 and February 2009 and received an 88 percent 

GAO-13-90R, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2012). 

5

This study—being conducted for the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Committee 

on Rules and Administration—seeks to examine the cost to voters to obtain documents to 

satisfy state voter identification requirements, the impact of voter identification 

requirements on voter turnout and the use of provisional ballots, and the availability of 

data on voter impersonation and fraud. We expect to report on this work early next year.

6

The 730 polling places we visited on Election Day 2008 were located in 79 of the 84 

counties we selected for our sample because 5 counties did not grant GAO access to 

polling places on Election Day. In addition, in several counties, state or county officials 

granted us access but placed restrictions on our visits, such as not permitting access to 

the voting area itself. We excluded Alaska and Hawaii for cost and efficiency reasons and 

Oregon because voters exclusively use mail-in ballots. 

7

We selected the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands for this review because they are required to comply with HAVA provisions.

See 42 U.S.C. § 15541.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-538SP 

response rate.8

The work upon which this testimony is based was performed in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provided a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusion based on our audit objectives. Additional information on our 

full scope and methodology is available in the published reports.

Furthermore, we interviewed federal officials and national 

organizations that represented election officials and disability advocacy 

groups. We also reviewed relevant state and federal laws, guidance, and 

other documentation, including citizen complaints from Election Day 2008 

that Justice provided to us.

The administration of federal elections is a massive enterprise, conducted 

primarily at the state and local level, under applicable state and federal 

voting laws. Responsibility for holding elections and ensuring that each 

voter has the ability to fully participate in the electoral process—including 

registering to vote, accessing polling places or alternative voting methods, 

and casting a vote—primarily rests with state and local governments. 

While federal elections are generally conducted under state laws and 

policies, several federal laws apply to voting and some provisions 

specifically address accessibility issues for voters with disabilities, 

including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 19909 (ADA) and HAVA.10

 

8 The sample of local election jurisdictions was taken from the two-stage sampling method 

used to create a nationally representative random selection of polling places in the 

contiguous United States, with the exception of those in Oregon. Specifically, the local 

election jurisdictions used for the survey were those which had one or more of their polling 

places randomly selected in the sample of polling places. The survey estimates calculated 

did not have a low enough margin of error to allow us to generalize results to localities 

nationally and for this reason we simply report counts of local jurisdictions. In addition, the 

scope of this work did not include contacting election officials from each local jurisdiction 

to verify all survey responses or other information provided by local officials.

9

 Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

Background 

Limited Federal Role in 

Administering Elections
 

Page 4 GAO-13-538SP 

Title II and III of the ADA contain provisions that help increase the 

accessibility of voting for individuals with disabilities. Specifically, Title II 

and its implementing regulations require that people with disabilities have 

access to basic public services, including the right to vote. The ADA 

requires that public entities make reasonable modifications in policies, 

practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination against people with 

disabilities. Moreover, no person with a disability may, by reason of 

disability, be excluded from participating in or be denied the benefits of 

any public program, service, or activity. State and local governments may 

generally comply with ADA accessibility requirements in a variety of ways, 

such as reassigning services to accessible buildings or alternative 

accessible sites.11 Title III of the ADA generally covers commercial 

facilities and places of public accommodation that may also be used as 

polling places. Public accommodations must make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to facilitate access for 

people with disabilities. These facilities are also required to remove 

physical barriers in existing buildings when it is “readily achievable” to do 

so; that is, when the removal can be done without much difficulty or 

expense, given the entity’s resources.

HAVA, which contains a number of provisions to help increase voting 

accessibility for people with disabilities, establishes the Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) and grants the Attorney General 

enforcement authority. In particular, section 301(a) of HAVA outlines 

minimum standards for voting systems used in federal elections.12

 

10Other relevant laws include the 1984 Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and 

Handicapped Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437, 

codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973 to 1973bb-1.

This 

section specifically states that the voting system must be accessible for 

people with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and 

visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for 

access and participation as is provided for other voters. To satisfy this 

requirement, each polling place must have at least one direct recording 

electronic or other voting system equipped for people with disabilities. 

1128 C.F.R. § 35.150(b)(1). All newly constructed public buildings where construction 

commenced after January 26, 1992, must be readily accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a). Alterations to existing facilities commenced after 

January 26, 1992, must also to the maximum extent feasible be done in such a way that 

the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b). 

12Codified at 42 U.S.C. § 15481(a).

Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990

Help America Vote Act of 

2002
 

Page 5 GAO-13-538SP 

HAVA also established the EAC as an agency with wide-ranging duties to 

help improve state and local administration of federal elections, including 

providing voluntary state guidance on implementing HAVA provisions. 

The EAC also has authority to make grants for the research and 

development of new voting equipment and technologies and the 

improvement of voting systems. Additionally, HAVA vests enforcement 

authority with the Attorney General to bring a civil action against any state 

or jurisdiction as may be necessary to carry out specified uniform and 

nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements 

under HAVA.13 

As the proportion of older Americans in the country increases, the number 

of voters residing in long-term care facilities who may face challenges 

voting at polling places on Election Day due to their physical and mental 

condition could also increase. By 2030, those aged 65 and over are 

projected to grow to more than 72 million individuals and represent a 

quarter of the voting age population. Older voters, who consistently vote 

in higher proportions than other voters, may face challenges exercising 

their right to vote because disability increases with age. Moreover, it is 

estimated that 70 percent of people over age 65 will require some longterm care services at some point in their lives, such as residing in a 

nursing home or assisted living facility. The physical and cognitive 

impairments of many long-term care facility residents may make it more 

difficult for them to independently drive, walk, or use public transportation 

to get to their designated polling place. Once at the polling place, they 

may face challenges finding accessible parking, reaching the ballot area, 

and casting a ballot privately and independently.

We recently issued two reports on elections in which the findings may 

have implications for voters with disabilities. Specifically, in 2012, we 

issued a report examining state laws addressing voter registration and 

voting on or before Election Day.14

 

13Specifically, the Voting Section, with Justice’s Civil Rights Division, is responsible for 

enforcement of civil provisions of federal voting laws, such as HAVA. Whereas, the 

Disability Rights Section, also within the Civil Rights Division, is primarily responsible for 

protecting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA.

In the report, we found that states had 

14GAO-13-90R.

Characteristics of Longterm Care Facility 

Residents 

Recent GAO Election 

Reports 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-538SP 

been active in the past 10 years in amending their election codes, 

regulations, and procedures, not only to incorporate requirements 

mandated by HAVA, but also in making substantive changes to their laws 

in the areas of voter identification, early voting, and requirements for thirdparty voter registration organizations. We found that states had a variety 

of identification requirements for voters when they register to vote, vote at 

the polls on Election Day, and seek to cast an absentee ballot by mail that 

were in effect for the November 2012 election. Specifically, while voter 

identification requirements varied in flexibility, the number and type of 

documents allowed, and alternatives available for verifying identity, 31 

states had requirements for all eligible voters to show identification at the 

polls on Election Day. We also found that most states had also 

established alternatives for voters to cast a ballot other than at the polls 

on Election Day. Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia provided 

an opportunity for voters to cast a ballot prior to the election without an 

excuse, either by no-excuse absentee voting by mail or in-person early 

voting, or both. States also regulated the process by which voters 

registered to vote and had a variety of requirements that address thirdparty voter registration organizations that conduct voter registration 

drives.

In addition, in 2012, we issued a report looking at the potential 

implementation of weekend voting and similar alternative voting 

methods.15

 

15GAO, Elections: Views on Implementing Federal Elections on a Weekend, 

In the report, we found that in the 2010 general election, 35 

states and the District provided voters at least one alternative to casting 

their ballot on Election Day through in-person early voting, no-excuse 

absentee voting, or voting by mail. However, state and local election 

officials we interviewed identified challenges they would anticipate facing 

in planning and conducting Election Day activities on weekends—

specifically, finding poll workers and polling places, and securing ballots 

and voting equipment—and expected cost increases. Specifically, officials 

in 14 of the 17 jurisdictions and the District expected that at least some of 

the polling places they used in past elections—such as churches—would 

not be available for a weekend election, and anticipated difficulty finding 

replacements. Additionally, officials in 5 of the 7 states and the District 

that conducted early voting and provided security over multiple days 

explained that the level of planning needed for overnight security for a 

GAO-12-69, 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan.12, 2012).
 

Page 7 GAO-13-538SP 

weekend election would far surpass that of early voting due to the greater 

number and variety of Election Day polling places. For example, officials 

in one state said that for the 2010 general election, the state had fewer 

than 300 early voting sites—which were selected to ensure security—

compared to more than 2,750 polling places on Election Day, which are 

generally selected based on availability and proximity to voters.

In comparison to our findings in 2000, the proportion of polling places with 

no potential impediments increased in 2008. In 2008, we estimated that 

27 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path 

from the parking area to the voting area—up from 16 percent in 2000.16

 

16 The 95 percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 11.3 to 21.6 and for 2008 data is 

21.9 to 32.7. The difference between the 2000 and 2008 estimates are statistically 

significant.

Specifically, polling places with four or more potential impediments 

decreased significantly—from 29 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2008 

(see fig. 1). Potential impediments included a lack of accessible parking 

and obstacles en route from the parking area to the voting area.

The Proportion of 

Polling Places 

Without Potential 

Impediments 

Increased Between 

the 2000 and 2008 

Elections 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-538SP 

Figure 1: Comparison of Potential Impediments in 2000 and 2008

Figure 2 shows some key polling place features that we examined in our 

2008 review of polling places. These features primarily affect individuals 

with mobility impairments, in particular voters using wheelchairs.17

 

17 For the purposes of this study, we treated all of the potential impediments with equal 

significance, although we recognize that, in practice, the effect of any one impediment will 

depend on an individual’s type or severity of disability. For example, the width of a door 

would not necessarily affect a blind individual without mobility impairments, but it could 

prevent a person using a wheelchair from entering a polling place.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-538SP 

Figure 2: Key Polling Place Features that We Examined

Similar to our findings in 2000, the majority of potential impediments at 

polling places in 2008 occurred outside of or at the building entrance, 

although improvements were made in some areas. In particular, the 

percentage of polling places with potential impediments at the building 

entrance dropped sharply—from 59 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 

2008.18 In addition, polling places made significant gains in providing 

designated parking for people with disabilities, which decreased from 32 

percent with no designated parking in 2000 to only 3 percent in 2008 (see 

fig. 3).19

 

18The 95 percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 51.6 to 66.4 and for 2008 data is 

16.7 to 34.2.

The most common potential impediments in 2008 were steep 

ramps or curb cuts in the parking area, unpaved or poor surfaces in the 

path from the parking lot or route to the building entrance, and door 

thresholds exceeding 1⁄2 inch in height.

19The 95 percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 24.2 to 40.2. The 95 percent 

confidence interval for 2008 data is 1.6 to 6.0.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-538SP 

Figure 3: Key Locations of One or More Potential Impediments at Polling Places in 

2000 and 2008

Note: For parking area data, the 95 percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 24.7 to 41.3 and for 

2008 data is 29.2 to 45.5. For the path from the parking area to the building entrance data, the 95 

percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 50.2 to 63.9 and for 2008 is 44.4 to 54.9.

a

The difference between 2000 and 2008 data is statistically significant. For the building entrance data, 

the 95-percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 51.6 to 66.4 and for 2008 data is 16.7 to 34.2. For 

the path from the building entrance to the voting area, the 95-percent confidence interval for 2000 

data is 9.8 to 18.2 and for 2008 data is 3.7 to 8.0. 

Many of the polling places that had potential impediments offered 

curbside voting or other accommodations to assist voters who may have 

had difficulty getting to or making their way through a polling place. Some 

polling places provided assistance to voters by bringing a paper ballot or 

provisional ballot to a voter in a vehicle. The percent of polling places that 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-538SP 

had potential impediments that did not offer curbside voting remained 

virtually unchanged from 28 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2008.20

In 2008, in addition to our review of the path to the voting area at polling 

places, we also examined impediments in the voting area that might 

facilitate or impede private and independent voting for people with 

disabilities.21 We found that all but one polling place had at least one 

accessible voting system—typically, an accessible machine in a voting 

station—to facilitate private and independent voting for people with 

disabilities. Yet, nearly one-half (46 percent) had systems that could pose 

challenges for people with disabilities to cast a private or independent 

vote.22 We assessed four aspects of the accessible voting system that, if 

not met, could pose a challenge to private or independent voting: (1) 

voting system is set up and powered on; (2) earphones are available for 

audio functions; (3) voting system is set up to accommodate people using 

wheelchairs; and (4) accessible voting system provides the same level of 

privacy for voters with disabilities as is offered to other voters (see table 

1).23

 

20The difference between the percentage of polling places with one or more potential 

impediments that did not offer curbside voting in 2000 and 2008 data is not significant. 

The 2008 data is subject to sampling error of plus or minus 8 percentage points at the 95 

confidence level. 

21We did not assess polling places’ legal compliance with HAVA accessible voting system 

requirements. For our 2008 Election Day data collection instrument, we compiled a list of 

commonly known accessible voting machines by consulting with disability experts and 

others.

22The 95 percent confidence interval for the data is 36.3 to 54.9.

23We did not assess polling places’ legal compliance with HAVA accessible voting system 

requirements.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-538SP 

Table 1: Extent to Which Voting System Features to Facilitate Private and Independent Voting at Polling Places Were Not Met

Voting system features that, if not met, could pose a challenge to voting privately 

and independently 

Percentage of polling places where 

features were not met

Set up to accommodate voters using a wheelchair 29a

Provides the same level of privacy for voters with disabilities as is offered to other voters 23b

Earphones are attached or prominently visible 6c

Set up and powered on 5d

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 4, 2008.

a

The 95 percent confidence interval for the data is 19.3 to 40.5.

b

The 95 percent confidence interval for the data is 16.0 to 30.3.

c

The 95 percent confidence interval for the data is 3.8 to 9.7.

d

The 95 percent confidence interval for the data is 2.8 to 8.3.

According to our 2008 survey of state election officials, the majority of 

states established accessibility requirements and funded improvements to 

help facilitate accessible voting at the polling places.24

 

24Although we included the four U.S. territories in our survey to compare the results of our 

2008 survey of state election officials to our 2000 survey, we are only reporting data from 

the 50 states and the District of Columbia in our discussion of states’ actions to help 

facilitate voting for people with disabilities. For the purposes of survey results, we refer to 

the 50 states and the District of Columbia collectively as states.

Forty-three states 

reported on our 2008 survey that they set accessibility standards for 

polling places in 2008, up from 23 states in 2000. Some states reported 

requiring polling places to provide other accommodations for voters with 

disabilities, such as curbside voting and audio or visual aids, although 

fewer states reported requiring some of these accommodations in 2008 

than in 2000 (see fig. 4). These practices may have declined because 

more states reported taking actions to make polling places accessible 

since the 2000 election, and more states reported allowing people to vote 

absentee without having to meet specific criteria. Additionally, most states 

reported that they used federal HAVA funds to improve the physical 

accessibility of polling places. We also found that there was an increase 

from 2000 to 2008 in the number of states that reported requiring polling 

places to be inspected and local jurisdictions to submit inspection reports 

to the state to help ensure the accessibility of polling places. Although 

according to our state survey the majority of states established 

accessibility requirements by 2008, 31 states reported that ensuring 

polling place accessibility was very or moderately challenging.
 

Page 13 GAO-13-538SP 

Figure 4: Accommodations That States Reported Requiring Local Jurisdictions to 

Offer to Voters with Disabilities, as of the 2000 and 2008 Federal Elections

Note: Data include the 50 states and the District of Columbia, but not all states answered every 

survey question.

In addition to our 2008 nationwide review of polling places, we also 

surveyed local election officials in 2008 to collect information on local 

actions taken to facilitate voting in long-term care facilities, including steps 

taken to improve the accessibility of polling places located in long-term 

care facilities. According to our 2008 survey of local election officials, 

some localities we surveyed reported providing voting services directly to 

long-term care facility residents, who may face physical and cognitive 

impairments that may make it more difficult for them to independently get 

to a polling place, find accessible parking, reach the ballot area, and cast 

a ballot privately and independently. Specifically, close to one-third (29 of 

92) of the localities we surveyed reported designating long-term care 

facilities as Election Day polling places, which allows residents to vote in 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-538SP 

an official polling place without having to leave their residence.25

However, local officials from one of these localities reported that they only 

designate a portion of the long-term care facilities in their election 

jurisdiction as polling places. Designating long-term care facilities as 

polling places may provide residents with increased opportunities to vote 

privately and independently, because HAVA requires each polling place 

for federal elections to have at least one voting system equipped for 

people with disabilities. While accessible voting systems provide 

opportunities for more private and independent voting, only 15 localities 

we surveyed reported providing long-term care facilities with 

demonstrations of voting systems equipped for people with disabilities, 

which could facilitate a greater use of these systems at Election Day 

polling places by residents unfamiliar with electronic machinery. Finally, 

one locality we surveyed—Falmouth, Maine—reported providing longterm care facility residents with transportation to polling places on 

Election Day.

From shortly after the passage of HAVA until 2006, Justice officials 

provided educational outreach and guidance on polling place accessibility 

and conducted an initial assessment of states’ compliance with HAVA’s 

January 2006 deadline for accessible voting systems.26

 

25We did not collect information from localities on whether long-term care facilities 

designated as polling places were open to all voters or exclusively to long-term care 

facility residents. 

Justice provided 

guidance on the new HAVA voting system requirements while the EAC 

26 See 42 U.S.C. § 15481(d).

Justice Assessed 

States’ 

Implementation of 

HAVA Requirements 

for the 2006 Deadline, 

but Its Oversight Had 

Some Gaps

Justice’s Outreach, 

Guidance, and Oversight
 

Page 15 GAO-13-538SP 

was being formed. During this time, Justice officials said they made a 

considerable effort to educate state and local election officials and 

national organizations representing election officials and people with 

disabilities on HAVA voting system requirements. As part of these early 

efforts, Justice provided guidance to poll workers on how to assess and 

create a physically accessible polling place. Specifically, in 2004, Justice 

published the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling 

Places, which provided information to voting officials on key accessibility 

features needed by most voters with disabilities to go from the parking 

area to the voting area. According to our survey, 34 states found the 

checklist to be moderately to very helpful. While the checklist provides 

limited guidance on accessibility features within the voting area, it does 

not provide information about the configuration of the voting system. In 

addition to early guidance, Justice also conducted an initial assessment 

of states’ progress toward meeting the January 2006 deadline for 

compliance with HAVA voting system requirements. For example, in 

2003, Justice sent letters to state election officials summarizing HAVA 

voting system requirements. Justice later followed up with letters in 2005 

and 2006, which outlined HAVA voting system requirements, and asked 

states to respond to a series of questions to help gauge whether every 

polling place in the state had at least one accessible voting machine and 

whether poll workers were trained in the machine’s operation. Finally, with 

the full implementation of HAVA in 2006, the EAC took over Justice’s 

state educational outreach and guidance efforts.

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. For example, Justice supervised 

polling place observations for federal elections on Election Day 2008,

primarily to assess compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

However, Justice did not systematically assess the physical accessibility 

of the polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided to 

people with disabilities by the accessible voting system, which limited the 

department’s ability to identify potential accessibility issues facing voters 

with disabilities. In addition, Justice initiated a small number of annual 

community assessments—called Civic Access assessments—of ADA 

compliance in public buildings, including buildings designated as polling 

places, but these assessments included a small portion of polling places 

nationwide and were generally not conducted on Election Day. According 

to Justice, these assessments could be resource-intensive, which, in part, 

may have limited the number that the department could complete in a 

given year. Justice initiated Civic Access assessments for three 

communities in calendar year 2008. When onsite reviews identified 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-538SP 

physical barriers and impediments for people with disabilities, Justice 

generally negotiated and entered into a settlement agreement with the 

election jurisdiction. Between 2000 and 2008, Justice entered into 69 

Civic Access settlement agreements containing one or more 

recommendations aimed at polling place provisions, but given the small 

number of Civic Access assessments conducted annually, they did not 

provide a national perspective on polling place accessibility. In addition, 

since these assessments were not conducted during elections, they did 

not assess any special features of voting areas and accessible voting 

systems that are set up only on Election Day.

In our 2009 report on polling place accessibility, we recommended that 

the Department of Justice look for opportunities to expand its monitoring 

and oversight of the accessibility of polling places for people with 

disabilities in a cost-effective manner. This effort might include:

• 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; and

• expanding the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist of 

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.

Justice generally agreed with this recommendation in commenting on the 

draft report, and when we reached out for an update in preparation of this 

testimony, indicated it has taken steps towards addressing the 

recommendation. For example, 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. 

In addition, Justice stated that it has expanded the scope of Election Day 

observations to include an assessment of the physical accessibility of 

Implementation of 

Recommended Monitoring 

and Oversight Would 

Reduce Potential Voting 

Impediments and Other 

Challenges
 

Page 17 GAO-13-538SP 

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. Further, it does not appear at this time that Justice has taken 

action to expand the scope of 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. We 

believe that expanding these additional steps could build upon Justice’s 

efforts to date in potentially reducing voting impediments and other 

challenges for voters with disabilities.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions you or other Members of the Council may have.

Further information about this statement, please contact Barbara 

Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this testimony. Other key contributors to this statement 

include: Brett Fallavollita, Assistant Director; David Lin; Ryan Siegel; and 

Amber Yancey-Carroll. Additional contributions were made by David 

Alexander, Orin Atwater, Rebecca Gambler, Alex Galuten, Tom Jessor; 

Kathy Leslie, Mimi Nguyen, Barbara Stolz, Janet Temko, Jeff Tessin, and 

Walter Vance.

GAO Contact and 

Staff and 

Acknowledgements 

(131255)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.