GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

VOTERS WITH 

DISABILITIES 

Additional Monitoring 

of Polling Places 

Could Further 

Improve Accessibility 

September 2009 

GAO-09-941 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2009

VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES 

Additional Monitoring of Polling Places Could Further 

Improve Accessibility 

Highlights of GAO-09-941, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Voting is fundamental to our 

democracy, and federal law 

generally requires polling places to 

be accessible to all eligible voters 

for federal elections, including 

voters with disabilities. However, 

during the 2000 federal election, 

GAO found that only 16 percent of 

polling places had no potential 

impediments to 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. We examined (1) 

the proportion of polling places 

during the 2008 federal election 

with features that might facilitate 

or impede access for voters with 

disabilities compared to our 

findings from 2000; (2) actions 

states are taking to facilitate voting 

access; and (3) steps the 

Department of Justice (Justice) 

has taken to enforce HAVA voting 

access provisions. GAO visited 730 

randomly selected polling places 

across the country, representing 

polling places nationwide, on 

Election Day 2008. GAO also 

surveyed states and interviewed 

federal officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Justice 

expand its monitoring and 

oversight of polling place 

accessibility. Justice generally 

agreed with this recommendation, 

but had concerns about 

expanding the scope of Election 

Day observations. 

Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential 

impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible voting 

system. In 2008, based upon our survey of polling places, we estimate that 27.3 

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

parking to the voting area—up from16 percent in 2000; 45.3 percent had potential 

impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27.4 percent had 

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

we 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. 

Most states have established accessibility requirements and funded 

improvements to help facilitate accessible voting, and all states reported that 

they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting methods. In 2008, 

43 states reported that they required accessibility standards for polling places, 

up from 23 states in 2000. Additionally, most states reported that they used 

federal HAVA funds to improve the physical accessibility of polling places. 

Further, all states reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer 

alternative voting methods, such as absentee voting. At the same time, 31 

states reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was challenging. 

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. Since then, Justice’s oversight of HAVA’s access 

requirements is part of two other enforcement efforts, but gaps remain. While 

Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility, this guidance does not 

address accessibility of the voting area itself. Justice currently conducts polling 

place observations for federal elections that identifies whether an accessible 

voting system is in place, but it does not systematically assess the physical 

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

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

community assessments of Americans with Disabilities Act compliance of 

public buildings, which includes buildings designated as polling places. 

However, these assessments do 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. 

Source: GAO.

Sign marking

accessible

voting route

Accessible

voting machine

View GAO-09-941 or key components.

For more information, contact Barbara 

Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215) or 

bovbjergb@gao.gov; or William O. Jenkins, 

Jr. at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-941 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 5 

The Proportion of Polling Places Without Potential Impediments 

Increased Since 2000 12 

Most States Have Established Requirements and Funded 

Improvements to Help Facilitate Voter Accessibility 24 

Justice Assessed States’ Implementation of HAVA Requirements 

for The 2006 Deadline, But Its Current Oversight Has Some Gaps 31 

Conclusions 35 

Recommendation for Executive Action 36 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 41 

Appendix II List of Counties Randomly Selected for Site 

Visits on Election Day, November 4, 2008 51 

Appendix III Summary Of Justice Voting Section’s Internal 

Process For Handling HAVA-Related Matters 

And Cases 54 

Appendix IV List of Potential Features That Might Impede 

Access to Voting in a Polling Place 56 

Appendix V State Requirements for Accessibility of Polling 

Places, Alternative Voting Methods, and 

Accommodations to Facilitate Voting 59 

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Justice 62 

 Voters With Disabilities 
Appendix VII Comments from the Election Assistance Commission 66 

Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services 68 

Appendix IX GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 70 

Related GAO Products 71 

Tables 

Table 1: Comparison of Specific Features from the Parking Area to 

the Voting Area of Polling Places That Might Impede 

Voting Access in 2000 and 2008 17 

Table 2: Type of Assistance That Polling Place Officials Would 

Provide to Help People with Disabilities Operate or 

Overcome Difficulties While Voting on the Accessible 

Machine 21 

Table 3: Extent to Which Voting System Features to Facilitate 

Private and Independent Voting at Polling Places Were Not 

Met 23 

Table 4: State Challenges in Implementing Various Aspects of 

HAVA 28 

Table 5: Examples of Reasons That Some States Permitted for 

Absentee Voting 29 

Table 6: Summary of Changes in State Requirements Concerning 

Accessibility of Polling Places from the 2000 to the 2008 

General Elections 59 

Table 7: State Provisions Concerning Accessibility of Polling Places 

and Accommodations for Individuals with Disabilities as 

of the November 2004 and 2008 Federal Elections 60 

Table 8: Changes in State Requirements Concerning Alternative 

Voting Methods from the 2000 to the 2008 General 

Elections 61 

Page ii GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Figures 

Figure 1: Example of DRE Instructions and Equipment 9 

Figure 2: Ballot Marking Device 10 

Figure 3: Vote-by-Phone System 11 

Figure 4: Comparison in Prevalence of Potential Impediments in 

2000 and 2008 13 

Figure 5: Key Polling Place Features That We Examined 14 

Figure 6: Key Locations of One or More Potential Impediments at 

Polling Places in 2000 and 2008 16 

Figure 7: Example of a Polling Place with Inadequately Marked 

Parking for People with Disabilities and Unramped and 

Uncut Curb 17 

Figure 8: Comparison of the Proportion of Polling Places That Had 

One or More Potential Impediments in 2000 and 2008 19 

Figure 9: Type of Accessible Voting Machines 20 

Figure 10: Example of Voting Station for People with Disabilities 22 

Figure 11: State Requirements Concerning the Accessibility of 

Polling Places, as of Election Days 2000 and 2008 25 

Figure 12: Example of State Guidance for Setting Up the Voting 

Room in the Polling Place and for Placement of the 

Accessible Voting Machine 26 

Figure 13: Accommodations That States Required Local 

Jurisdictions to Offer to Voters with Disabilities, as of 

Election Days 2000 and 2008 30 

Figure 14: Examples of Some Measurements and Items for 

Observation That Were Used to Train GAO Teams for 

Election Day Visits 45 

Page iii GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Abbreviations 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

DCI data collection instrument 

DRE direct recording electronic 

EAC Election Assistance Commission 

HAVA Help America Vote Act of 2002 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

VAEHA Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act 

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. 

Page iv GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Page 1 GAO-09-941 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

September 30, 2009 

Congressional Requesters 

Voting is fundamental to our democratic system, and federal law generally 

requires federal election polling places to be accessible to all eligible 

voters, including the elderly and voters with disabilities. In particular, the 

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA) 

requires that, with a few exceptions, political subdivisions responsible for 

conducting elections ensure that polling places used in federal elections 

are accessible to voters with disabilities. These requirements can present a 

challenge to state and local election officials because achieving 

accessibility—which is affected by a person’s type of impairment as well 

as by various barriers posed by polling place facilities and voting 

methods—is part of a larger set of challenges these officials face in 

administering elections on a periodic basis. In fact, 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—although most 

polling places with potential impediments offered curbside voting.1

 The 

number of voters who may face difficulties exercising their right to vote 

due to mobility and other impairments could grow as the proportion of the 

population age 65 and older is expected to grow from 12 percent of the 

population in 2003 to more than 20 percent of the population by 2030. 

Disability increases with age and studies have shown that with every 10 

years after reaching the age of 65, the risk of losing mobility doubles.2

Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to address 

these and other challenges encountered during the 2000 federal election. 

HAVA required each polling place to have at least one voting system for 

use in federal elections that is accessible for people with disabilities by 

January 1, 2006. This voting system can be a direct recording electronic 

voting system (e.g., touch screen) or another system that, according to 

HAVA, must provide people with disabilities the same opportunity for 

voting privately and independently as is afforded to other voters. In 

1

GAO, Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting Methods, 

GAO-02-107 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 2001). 

2

Wan He, Manisha Sangupta, Victoria A. Velkoff, and Kimberly A. DeBarros, 65+ in the 

United States: 2005, Current Population Reports Special Studies (Washington, D.C.: 

December 2005), pp. 23-209. 

 Voters With Disabilities 
 

addition, HAVA created the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to 

serve, among other purposes, as a clearinghouse and information resource 

for election officials with respect to the administration of federal 

elections. HAVA also required the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) to provide annual grants to state and local governments to 

improve the accessibility of voting systems and polling places, and a total 

of $79.5 million has been appropriated for this purpose since 2003.3

 While 

our work since the passage of HAVA has reported improvements in state 

provisions and local practices to ensure accessibility of polling places, the 

extent to which these provisions and practices have improved accessibility 

nationally is unknown.4

 To address these issues, you asked us to examine 

voting access for people with disabilities at polling places on Election Day, 

November 4, 2008. Specifically, this report examines (1) the proportion of 

polling places that have features that might facilitate or impede access to 

voting for people with disabilities and how these results compare to our 

findings from the 2000 federal election; (2) the actions states are taking to 

facilitate voting for people with disabilities; and (3) the steps the 

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

provisions. We provided some preliminary findings on the proportion of 

polling places that had features that might facilitate or impede access to 

voting for people with disabilities and how these results compare to our 

findings from the 2000 federal election in a report that we issued earlier 

this year.5

 We also plan to issue a report on voting practices in long-term 

care facilities later this year. 

To estimate the proportion of polling places with features that might 

facilitate or impede access to voting for people with disabilities, we visited 

randomly selected polling places across the country on Election Day, 

November 4, 2008. We used a two-stage sampling method that created a 

nationally representative sample of polling places in the contiguous United 

States, with the exception of those in Oregon.6

 The first stage involved 

 

3

Kevin J. Coleman and Eric A. Fischer, Election Reform: Overview and Issues, 

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 7-5700 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 

2009), pp. 6-7. 

4

GAO, Elderly Voters: Some Improvements in Voting Accessibility from 2000 to 2004 

Elections, but Gaps in Policy and Implementation Remain, GAO-08-442T (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 31, 2008). 

5

GAO, People with Disabilities: More Polling Places Had No Potential Impediments Than 

in 2000, but Challenges Remain, GAO-09-685 (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2009). 

6

We excluded Alaska and Hawaii for cost and efficiency reasons, and Oregon because 

voters exclusively use mail-in ballots. 

Page 2 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

selecting a random sample of counties weighted by their total populations. 

We based the probability of each county’s selection on the size of its 

population so that heavily populated counties, which tend to have more 

polling places than less-populated counties, would have a greater chance 

of being selected in the sample. Each time a county was selected, we 

returned it to the sample universe, which gave it an additional chance of 

being selected. Therefore, some counties with large populations were 

selected multiple times, resulting in a final selection of 84 unique counties 

in 31 states (which was the equivalent of 100 counties). This method 

allowed us to select a sample that was representative of polling places 

across the country on Election Day. The second stage involved randomly 

selecting 8 polling places in each county for each time the county was 

selected. On Election Day 2008, we visited a total of 730 polling places.7

 At 

each polling place, we took measurements and made observations of 

facility features that could facilitate access to the voting area—such as 

accessible parking and door thresholds that do not exceed 1⁄2 inch in 

height. We also identified voting methods and features that could facilitate 

or impede private and independent voting for people with disabilities in 

the voting area, such as voting stations that were properly configured for a 

wheelchair.8

 In addition, we conducted short interviews with chief polling 

place officials to identify other accommodations for voters—such as 

curbside voting outside the polling place. We documented our 

observations and interviews with poll workers in a data collection 

instrument (DCI) we developed. The DCI was similar to the one used in 

our 2000 study of polling places, but we updated it to incorporate changes 

that have occurred in federal laws and guidance since 2000.9

This study focused on features in the path leading from the parking area to 

the voting area that might facilitate or impede access to voting for people 

with disabilities, as well as challenges to private and independent voting in 

 

7

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. 

8

This report focuses on access to voting for people with physical disabilities, but does not 

specifically address access for voters with hearing impairments. 

9

To update our DCI, we reviewed relevant laws, such as HAVA, and documentation related 

to polling place accessibility, such as the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 

Disability Rights Section, Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling 

Places (Washington, D.C.: February 2004). 

Page 3 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

the voting area. However, because the extent to which any given feature 

may affect access is dependent upon numerous factors—including the 

type or severity of an individual’s disability—we were not able to 

determine whether any observed feature prevented access. Accordingly, 

we did not categorize polling places as “accessible” or “inaccessible.” 

Moreover, we did not determine whether curbside or other 

accommodations offered at polling places actually facilitated voting. 

Finally, we did not assess polling places for legal compliance with HAVA 

accessible voting system requirements or other federal laws, and we did 

not test the accessible capabilities of these voting systems. 

To address our second and third objectives, we administered a Web-based 

survey of election officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 

U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands)10 between December 2008 and February 2009. We received a 100 

percent response rate. We also searched state election Web sites to better 

understand and illustrate states’ actions to facilitate voting for people with 

disabilities, and obtained and reviewed relevant documentation for 

selected states. The scope of this work did not include contacting election 

officials from each state and local jurisdiction to verify survey responses 

or other information provided by state officials. Also, we did not analyze 

states’ laws to determine their voting access requirements, but instead 

relied on the states’ responses to our survey. 

To determine what actions Justice has taken to enforce HAVA voting 

access provisions, we interviewed Justice officials and reviewed relevant 

federal laws, guidance, and other documentation. We also reviewed citizen 

complaints from Election Day 2008 that Justice provided to us, and all 

three complaints containing a HAVA voting access claim that Justice filed 

against states or election jurisdictions since HAVA was enacted in 2002. In 

addition, we interviewed officials from EAC, HHS, national organizations 

that represented election officials, and disability advocacy organizations. 

We conducted our work from April 2008 through September 2009 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 provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

 

10We 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. 

Page 4 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for additional information 

on our scope and methodology, and appendix II for a list of counties that 

we randomly selected for site visits on Election Day. 

Holding federal elections in the United States is a massive enterprise, 

administered primarily at the local level. On federal Election Day, millions 

of voters across the country visit polling places, which are located in 

schools, recreation centers, churches, various government buildings, and 

even private homes.11 For the 2008 federal election, state and local election 

officials recruited and trained about 2 million poll workers across the 

country. Generally, each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. 

territories also play a role in elections, by establishing election laws and 

policies for their respective election jurisdictions. 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. These federal laws collectively address 

two issues that are essential to ensuring that voters with disabilities can go 

to polling places and cast their ballots independently and privately as do 

nondisabled voters. These two issues are physical access and voting 

systems that enable people with disabilities to cast a private and 

independent vote. 

Background 

Voting Accessibility for the 

Elderly and Handicapped 

Act 

In 1984, Congress enacted VAEHA, which required political subdivisions 

responsible for conducting elections to ensure that all polling places for 

federal elections are accessible to elderly voters and voters with 

disabilities, with limited exceptions. One such exception occurs when the 

chief election officer of the state determines that no accessible polling 

places are available in a political subdivision, and that officer ensures that 

any elderly voter or voter with a disability assigned to an inaccessible 

polling place will, upon advance request, either be assigned to an 

accessible polling place or will be provided with an alternative means to 

cast a ballot on the day of the election. Under the VAEHA, the definition of 

“accessible” is determined under guidelines established by the state’s chief 

election officer, but the law does not specify standards or minimum 

requirements for those guidelines. Additionally, states are required to 

 

11Federal elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in 

even-numbered years. In the interests of convenience and economy, most states and many 

local jurisdictions also hold many of their elections on the federal Election Day. 

Page 5 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

make available voting aids for elderly voters and voters with disabilities, 

including instructions printed in large type at each polling place and 

information by telecommunications devices for the deaf. 

Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) also contains 

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. Although the ADA does not strictly require all 

polling places to be accessible, public entities must 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 comply with ADA accessibility requirements in a variety 

of ways, such as redesigning equipment, reassigning services to accessible 

buildings or alternative accessible sites, or altering existing facilities or 

constructing new ones.12 However, state and local governments are not 

required to take actions that would threaten the historical significance of a 

historic property, fundamentally alter the nature of a service, or impose 

any undue financial and administrative burdens. Moreover, a public entity 

is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where 

other methods are effective in achieving compliance. 

Title III of the ADA covers commercial facilities and places of public 

accommodation, such as private schools and privately operated 

recreational centers that may also be used as polling places.13 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. When the removal of an architectural barrier cannot be 

 

1228 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). 

13Exempted from these requirements generally are private clubs and religious 

organizations, including places of worship. 

Page 6 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

accomplished easily, the entity may take alternative measures to facilitate 

accessibility. All buildings newly constructed by public accommodations 

and commercial facilities must be readily accessible, and any alterations to 

an existing building are required, to the maximum extent feasible, to be 

readily accessible to people with disabilities, including those who use 

wheelchairs.14

The Voting Rights Act of 

1965 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, provides for voter assistance 

in the voting room. Specifically, the Voting Rights Act, among other things, 

authorizes voting assistance for blind, disabled, or illiterate persons. 

Voters who require assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or 

the inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the 

voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer 

or officer or agent of the voter’s union. 

Help America Vote Act of 

2002 

Most recently, Congress passed HAVA, which contains a number of 

provisions to help increase the accessibility of voting for people with 

disabilities. In particular, section 301(a) of HAVA outlines minimum 

standards for voting systems used in federal elections. 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. 

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

improve state and local administration of federal elections. Among other 

things, the EAC is responsible for (1) providing voluntary guidance to 

states implementing certain HAVA provisions; (2) serving as a national 

clearinghouse of election-related information and a resource for 

information with respect to the administration of federal elections; (3) 

providing for the certification of voting systems; and (4) periodically 

conducting and making publicly available studies regarding methods of 

ensuring accessibility of voting, polling places, and voting equipment to all 

voters, including people with disabilities. The EAC also makes grants for 

 

1428 C.F.R. § 36.401-406. This requirement applies to the new construction of facilities for 

first occupancy after January 26, 1993, or alteration commenced after January 26, 1992. 

Page 7 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

the research and development of new voting equipment and technologies 

and the improvement of voting systems. Furthermore, HAVA requires the 

Secretary of HHS to make yearly payments to each eligible state and unit 

of local government to be used for (1) making polling places accessible for 

people with disabilities and (2) providing people with disabilities with 

information on accessible polling places. 

HAVA vests enforcement authority with the U.S. 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. These requirements pertain to 

HAVA voting system standards, provisional voting and voting 

information,15 the computerized statewide voter registration list, and voter 

registration by mail. The Voting Section, within Justice’s Civil Rights 

Division, is responsible for enforcement of civil provisions of federal 

voting laws, such as HAVA. The Voting Section’s internal process for 

initiating HAVA-related matters and cases consists of four phases: 

initiation, investigation, complaint justification, and litigation. See 

appendix III for an overview of this internal process. The Disability Rights 

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

protecting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA, which 

includes ensuring that people with disabilities have access to basic 

services, such as voting. 

Accessible Voting Systems 

for People with Disabilities 

Providing an accessible voting system encompasses both the voting 

method and the operation of the system. In terms of the voting method, 

HAVA specifically identifies direct recording electronic systems to 

facilitate voting for people with disabilities or other voting systems 

equipped for people with disabilities. For the most part, these systems are 

electronic machines or devices equipped with features to assist voters 

with disabilities. A brief description of these types of systems follows. 

Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Devices. DRE devices capture votes 

electronically (see fig. 1). These devices come in two basic models: push 

button or touch screen. DRE ballots are marked by a voter pressing a 

button or touching a screen that highlights the selected candidate’s name 

 

15Provisional voting is also generally used by states to address certain voter eligibility 

issues encountered at the polling place on Election Day. A provisional ballot cast by an 

individual with an eligibility issue typically would not be counted until the individual’s 

eligibility to vote under state law has been verified. 

Page 8 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

or an issue. Voters can change their selections until they select the final 

“vote” button or screen, which casts their vote. These devices can be 

equipped with such features as an audio ballot and audio voting 

instructions for the blind. 

Figure 1: Example of DRE Instructions and Equipment 

Source: GAO.

Note: DRE voting instructions (left), DRE voting unit (right). 

Ballot Marking Devices. These devices use electronic technology to mark 

an optical scan ballot at voter direction, interpret the ballot selections, 

communicate the interpretation for voter verification, and then print a 

voter-verified ballot. A ballot marking device integrates components such 

as an optical scanner, printer, touch-screen monitor, and a navigational 

keypad (see fig. 2). Voters use the device’s accessible interface to record 

their choices on a paper or digital ballot. For example, voters with visual 

impairments will use an audio interface as well as a Braille keypad to 

make a selection. Voters who prefer to vote in an alternate language can 

also utilize the audio interface. Voters with disabilities can make their 

selection using a foot-pedal or a sip-and-puff device.16

 

16A sip-and-puff device is a straw-like accessory that allows a voter to make selections by 

either blowing or sucking into the device. 

Page 9 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

Figure 2: Ballot Marking Device 

Source: Election Systems & Software. 

Vote-by-Phone. Vote-by-phone systems use electronic technology to mark 

paper ballots. This system is made up of a standard touch-tone telephone 

and a printer (see fig. 3). When voters call from a polling place to connect 

to the system, the ballot is read to the voters who then make choices using 

the telephone keypad. The system then prints out a paper ballot at either a 

central location (central print) or a polling site (fax print). Central print 

ballots are read back to the voter over the telephone for verification, after 

which the voter can decide to cast the ballot or discard it and revote. Fax 

print ballots produce a physical ballot at the polling place for the voter to 

review, verify, and cast in a ballot box. 

Page 10 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

Figure 3: Vote-by-Phone System 

Source: Maine, Department of the Secretary of State, Division of Elections. 

Regarding accessible voting system operation, HAVA specifies that the 

voting system must be accessible for people with disabilities, in a manner 

that provides the same opportunity for access and participation as is 

provided for other voters. The operation of the voting system is the 

responsibility of local election officials at individual polling places. For the 

voting system to be accessible,17 the system should be turned on, equipped 

with special features such as ear phones, set up to accommodate voters 

using wheelchairs, and positioned in a way to provide the same level of 

privacy as is afforded to other voters. Also, poll workers should be 

knowledgeable of the operation of the voting system to provide assistance, 

if needed. 

Alternative Voting Methods As we have previously mentioned, the VAEHA requires that any elderly 

voter or voter with a disability who is assigned to an inaccessible polling 

place, upon his or her advance request, must be assigned to an accessible 

 

17We are not making a legal assessment of what is required under HAVA for a voting system 

to be accessible. 

Page 11 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

polling place or be provided with an alternative means for casting a ballot 

on the day of the election. However, states generally regulate absentee 

voting and other alternative voting method provisions, which provide 

voters with disabilities with additional voting options.18 Alternative voting 

methods may include curbside voting; taking a ballot to a voter’s 

residence; allowing voters to use another, more accessible polling location 

either on or before Election Day; voting in person at early voting sites; or 

removing prerequisites by establishing “no excuse” absentee voting or 

allowing absentee voting on a permanent basis.19

Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential 

impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible voting 

system. In 2008, based upon our survey of polling places, we estimate that 

27.3 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; 45.3 percent 

had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 

27.4 percent had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting. All 

but one polling place we visited had an accessible voting system 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. 

The Proportion of 

Polling Places 

Without Potential 

Impediments 

Increased Since 2000 

 

18For the purposes of this study, we define “alternative” voting methods as any voting 

method other than traditional in-person voting at a polling place on Election Day. 

19“No excuse” absentee voting is available to all voters—that is, voters do not need to give a 

reason to vote absentee. In permanent absentee voting, the voter may request that an 

absentee ballot be automatically mailed to them, rather than applying separately, for each 

election. However, voters may need to periodically reapply for permanent absentee ballot 

status. 

Page 12 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

In 2008, we estimate 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 (see fig. 4).20 Potential impediments included a lack of 

accessible parking and obstacles en route from the parking area to the 

voting area. 

area to the 

Figure 4: Comparison in Prevalence of Potential Impediments in 2000 and 2008 

While Polling Places 

Without Potential 

Impediments Increased, 

Most Had Potential 

Impediments Outside of or 

at Building Entrances 

Note: The difference between the 2000 and 2008 estimates are statistically significant. For 0 

impediments, the 95-percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 11.3 to 21.6 and for 2008 data is 

21.9 to 32.7. For 1 or more impediments, the 95-percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 78.4 to 

88.7 and for 2008 data is 67.3 to 78.1 

Figure 5 shows some key polling place features that we examined, and 

appendix IV contains a complete list of potential impediments. These 

 

20The 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. 

Page 13 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

features primarily affect individuals with mobility impairments, in 

particular voters using wheelchairs.21

Figure 5: Key Polling Place Features That We Examined 

Sources: Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines; GAO and Art Explosion (images).

Level

landing Level

landing

12" Horizontal

projection or run 

1" Rise 

Surface 32" min. of ramp 

36" min. 

24" max. distance 

for min. clearance

AA Parking area 

BB Route from 

parking area 

to building

entrance

CC Building

entrance

DD Curbside 

voting

E Route from 

inside the 

building

entrance to 

the voting

room

FF Voting

system

27"

30"

19"

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. For 

all polling places, we found that 45.3 percent had one or more potential 

impediments and offered curbside voting, 27.4 percent had potential 

impediments and did not offer curbside voting, and 27.3 percent had no 

potential impediments.22 Some polling places provided assistance to voters 

by bringing a paper ballot or provisional ballot to a voter in a vehicle. In 

 

21For 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. 

22The 95-percent confidence interval for polling places with no impediments is 21.9 to 32.7. 

The 95-percent confidence interval for polling places with one or more potential 

impediments that offered curbside voting is 37.4 to 53.2. The 95-percent confidence interval 

for polling places with one or more potential impediments that did not offer curbside 

voting is 20.4 to 34.4. 

Page 14 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

addition to curbside voting, officials we interviewed at most polling places 

said they would provide assistance to help people with disabilities vote in 

the polling place. For example, some polling places had wheelchairs 

available, if needed. 

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. Fifty percent of polling 

places had one or more potential impediments in the path from the 

parking area to the building entrance (see fig. 6).23 At the same time, the 

percentage of polling places with potential impediments at the building 

entrance dropped sharply—from 59 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 2008.24

As shown in table 1, 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. Figure 7 shows an example of a 

polling place with two potential impediments from the parking area to the 

building entrance. It is important to note that our assessment of polling 

places in 2000 did not include measurements of ramps or curb cuts in the 

parking area.25 With this additional accessibility indicator, we did not see a 

reduction of potential impediments in the parking area overall. However, 

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 2008.26

 

23The 95-percent confidence interval for 2008 data is 44.4 to 54.9. 

24The 95-percent confidence interval for 2000 data is 51.6 to 66.4 and for 2008 data is 16.7 to 

34.2. 

25The Election Day 2008 DCI was updated to include the measurement of steep ramps or 

curb cuts in the parking area on the basis of Justice’s ADA Checklist for Polling Places. 

26The 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 15 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

Figure 6: Key Locations of One or More Potential Impediments at Polling Places in 

2000 and 2008 

Percentage of polling places with potential impediments

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 7, 2000, and November 4, 2008.

 Area at polling place

2000

2008

0

14

28

42

56

70

Path from 

building 

entrance to 

voting area

 Building 

entrance

 Path from 

 parking area to 

building entrance

Parking area

33

36

57

50

59

25

14

6

a

a

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 42.5. 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. 

Page 16 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

Figure 7: Example of a Polling Place with Inadequately Marked Parking for People 

with Disabilities and Unramped and Uncut Curb 

Sign designating parking for 

people with disabilities not 

located near parking area

Curb without a curb

cut or ramp

Source: GAO.

Table 1: Comparison of Specific Features from the Parking Area to the Voting Area of Polling Places That Might Impede 

Voting Access in 2000 and 2008 

Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling place 2000 percentage 2008 percentage

Parking area 

One or more ramps or cut curbs is steeper than 1:12 a 24.0%

No designated parking for people with disabilitiesb 32.2% 3.3

One or more unramped or uncut curbsb,c 8.1 2.6

No parking for any voters 1.2 0.6

Other potential impediments in parking lot 4.1 8.2

Path from parking area to building entrance 

Unpaved or poor surface in parking lot or route to building entrance 23.2 23.5

Ramp in path from parking area to building entrance is steeper than 1:12b 21.5 16.4

Sidewalk/path is steeper than 1:12d19.6 12.0

Improper or no handrails on ramp 5.8 8.2

Page 17 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling place 2000 percentage 2008 percentage

No sidewalk/path from parking area to building entrance 8.2 4.2

Ramps in path from parking area to building entrance do not have a level landing at the top 

and bottom of each section that is at least 60 inches long 

a 4.0

Leaves, snow, or litter in path from parking area to building entrance 1.5 2.0

Sidewalk/path from parking area to building entrance < 36 inches wideb1.4 1.5

Ramps in path from parking area to building entrance is < 36 inches wide 0.5 1.4

Steps required in path from parking area to building entranceb 7.1 1.3

Other potential impediments in the path from parking area to building entrance 9.8 6.4

Building entrance 

Doorway threshold exceeds 1⁄2 inch in height 37.4 23. 3

Single doorway opening is < 32 inches wide 9.6 6.5

Doors that would be difficult for a person in a wheelchair to openb25.7 6.3

Double door opening is < 32 inches wide, including situations in which one of the doors 

cannot be opened 

5.0 3.4

Other potential impediments at the building entrance 6.1 4.7

Path from building entrance to voting area 

Doorway threshold exceeds 1⁄2 inch in height 2.3 3.7

Single doorway opening is < 32 inches wide 4.8 3.6

Corridors that do not provide an unimpeded width of at least 36 inches or can go down to 

32 inches for 2 feet 

0.9 2.7

Ramp is steeper than 1:12 2.4 2.7

Improper or no handrails on ramp 0.7 1.8

Doors that would be difficult for a person using a wheelchair to open 3.2 0.5

Steps are required to gain access to voting area 2.1 0.5

Double door opening is <32 inches wide, including situations in which one of the doors 

cannot be opened 

1.8 0.5

Elevator is not operational or is not properly equipped for people with disabilities a 0.5

One or more ramps that are < 36 inches wide or can go down to 32 inches wide for 2 feet 1.4 0.3

Wheelchair lift or buttons are not proper dimensions a 0.3

Other potential impediments with corridors 1.0 3.1

Other potential impediments at doorways and entrances 1.3 2.9

Other potential impediments with ramps 0.7 0.2

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 7, 2000, and November 4, 2008 

Note: The estimates depicted in the table are derived from survey data and have sampling errors 

associated with them. The 95-percent confidence intervals are provided in appendix VI. 

a

We did not measure these items in 2000. We collected data on these items in 2008 following our 

review of Justice’s Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places and per 

interviews with experts. 

b

The difference between the 2000 and the 2008 data is statistically significant. The 95-percent 

confidence intervals do not overlap. 

c

This feature was listed in the path from the parking area to the building entrance in the 2000 study. 

Page 18 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

d

We based this measurement on Justice’s ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, 

Appendix A, which states that any part of an accessible route with a slope greater than 1:20 shall be 

considered a ramp and the maximum slope of a ramp is 1:12, except in certain cases where space 

limitations prohibit the use of 1:12 slope or less. 

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

with multiple potential impediments decreased in 2008. Specifically, 

polling places with four or more potential impediments decreased 

significantly—from 29 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2008 (see fig. 8). At 

the same time, the percentage of polling places with one, two, or three 

potential impediments stayed about the same as in 2000. 

with one, two, or three 

Figure 8: Comparison of the Proportion of Polling Places That Had One or More 

Potential Impediments in 2000 and 2008 

Percentage of polling places 

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on November 7, 2000, and November 4, 2008.

 Number of potential impediments

2000

2008

0

7

14

21

28

35

1 2 3 4 or more

20

23

19 19

15

14

29

16

a

Note: The margin of error for the 2000 sample estimates range from 3 to 10 percentage points, 

unless otherwise noted. The margin of error for the 2008 sample estimates range from 3 to 5 

percentage points, unless otherwise noted. 

a

The difference between 2000 and 2008 data is statistically significant. The 95-percent confidence 

interval for 2000 data is 22.8 to 36.2. The 95-percent confidence interval for 2008 data is 12.2 to 21.1. 

Page 19 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

All but one polling place we examined 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.27 Accessible 

voting machines had special features for people with disabilities, such as 

an audio function to allow voters to listen to ballot choices. According to 

an election official we interviewed, the accessible voting systems have 

been significant in helping some voters with disabilities—such as blind 

voters—vote independently for the first time. The most common type of 

accessible voting machine was the Automark, followed by the Premier 

Accuvote, iVotronic, and Sequoia, respectively (see fig. 9). 

ier 

Virtually All Polling Places 

Had Accessible Voting 

Systems, Although Some 

Could Pose Challenges for 

People with Disabilities 

Figure 9: Types of Accessible Voting Machines 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Could not 

 identify

Other

Premier 

iVotronic

Sequoia

Automark

 AccuVote

Percentage of polling places

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

Type of accessible voting machine

36

21

14

10

16

3

Note: The margin of error ranges from 5.5 to 15.4 percent at the 95-percent confidence interval. 

To help facilitate the use of accessible machines, polling place officials 

told us that they received training and would provide assistance to help 

 

27We did not assess polling places’ legal compliance with HAVA accessible voting system 

requirements. For our 2008 Election Day DCI, we compiled a list of commonly known 

accessible voting machines by consulting with disability experts and others. 

Page 20 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

voters with disabilities operate voting machines or overcome difficulties 

while voting. Almost all (98 percent) of the 626 polling place officials we 

interviewed said that some or all of the poll workers working on Election 

Day received training on how to operate the accessible machine.28 In 

addition, polling place officials told us they would provide assistance to 

help people with disabilities with the voting process. All polling place 

officials we interviewed said they would explain how to operate the 

machine, and 79 percent said they would demonstrate how to operate the 

machine (see table 2).29 Virtually all polling place officials we interviewed 

told us they would allow a friend or relative to assist a person with a 

disability with voting. 

Table 2: Type of Assistance That Polling Place Officials Would Provide to Help 

People with Disabilities Operate or Overcome Difficulties While Voting on the 

Accessible Machine 

Type of assistance polling place officials would provide 

Percentage of 

polling places

Explain how to operate the accessible machinea 100%

Demonstrate how to operate the accessible machineb79 

Operate the machine for the person if having difficulties votingb 56

Let the person practice on the machine before votingb40

Otherc 46

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

a

The margin of error is less than 1 percentage point. 

b

The margin of error is between 6 and 7 percentage points. 

c

The margin of error is 14 percentage points. 

Although polling places had accessible voting systems, nearly one-half (46 

percent) had systems that could pose challenges for people with 

disabilities to cast a private or independent vote.30 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 

 

28The number of polling place officials we interviewed excludes the 104 polling places for 

which (1) we were prohibited from interviewing the officials on or after Election Day, (2) 

the polling place official declined to be interviewed, or (3) we were not allowed to 

interview the officials on Election Day and could not reach the officials after Election Day 

to conduct the interview. The 95-percent confidence interval for the data is 94.9 to 99.4. 

29The 95-percent confidence interval for the data is 73.0 to 84.9. 

30The 95-percent confidence interval for the data is 36.3 to 54.9. 

Page 21 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

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.31 Figure 10 shows an accessible 

voting station for people with disabilities. Overall, 35 percent of polling 

places did not meet one of these four aspects, 10 percent did not meet two 

aspects, and 1 percent did not meet three aspects.32

eet two 

Figure 10: Example of Voting Station for People with Disabilities 

Source: GAO.

 

31We did not assess polling places’ legal compliance with HAVA accessible voting system 

requirements. 

32The 95-percent confidence interval for polling places with one challenge is 27.6 to 41.8. 

The 95-percent confidence interval for polling places with two challenges is 5.9 to 15.7. The 

95-percent confidence interval for polling places with three challenges is 0.2 to 2.1. 

Page 22 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

As shown in table 3, the feature most commonly not met—at 29 percent of 

polling places—was an accessible voting machine located in a voting 

station with the minimum height, width, or depth dimensions to 

accommodate a voter using a wheelchair. This was followed by 23 percent 

of polling places that offered people with disabilities less privacy for 

voting than is provided for other voters. For example, some voting stations 

were not positioned to prevent other voters from seeing how voters using 

the accessible machine were marking their ballots. 

Table 3: 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 29%a

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. 

Page 23 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

The majority of states have established accessibility requirements and 

funded improvements to help facilitate accessible voting, and all states 

reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting 

methods. Forty-three states reported on our survey that they required 

accessibility standards for polling places in 2008, up from 23 states in 2000. 

Additionally, most states reported that they used federal HAVA funds to 

improve the physical accessibility of polling places. Further, all states 

reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting 

methods, such as absentee voting. 

Most States Have 

Established 

Requirements and 

Funded 

Improvements to Help 

Facilitate Voter 

Accessibility 

Most States Have 

Established Accessibility 

Standards and Funded 

Improvements, But 

Reported That Ensuring 

Accessibility Is 

Challenging 

To help facilitate voting for people with disabilities, most states have 

established standards by which to evaluate the accessibility of polling 

places and have required inspections of polling places to help ensure 

accessibility.33 The number of states with requirements specifying polling 

place accessibility standards grew from 23 states in 2000 to 43 states in 

2008 (see fig. 11).34 These standards can vary in terms of specificity of 

requirements and which aspects of accessibility they address. For 

example, California established requirements for ramps and entrances, 

among other things. By comparison, Indiana required that the voting area 

must have adequate maneuvering space for voters who use wheelchairs or 

other mobility aids and must allow space for a person who uses a 

wheelchair to navigate behind and around the accessible machine. Figure 

12 is an example of state guidance for setting up the voting room and for 

placement of the accessible voting system. The number of states that 

required accommodation of wheelchairs in the voting area has more than 

doubled—increasing from 17 in 2000 to 38 states in 2008. In addition to 

specifying standards, since 2000, more states have required polling places 

to be inspected and local jurisdictions to submit inspection reports to the 

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

accessibility standards, these practices can also vary from state to state. 

 

33Although we included the 4 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. 

34For the purposes of our study, we defined “requirements” as requirements under state 

law, regulation, or executive order/directive. It does not include federal requirements. We 

did not analyze state laws, regulations, or executive orders/directives to determine what 

they required, but instead relied on state responses to our survey. 

Page 24 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

For example, according to its Election Procedures Manual, Arizona 

requires counties to inspect polling places before each election or to have 

provisions that counties be contacted if a polling place is altered prior to 

an election. In contrast, Wisconsin recently revised its accessibility survey 

and requires all local jurisdictions to conduct their inspections on a 

primary Election Day so that state and local officials can evaluate the 

accessibility of polling places during an election. 

Figure 11: State Requirements Concerning the Accessibility of Polling Places, as of 

Election Days 2000 and 2008 

0

10

20

30

40

50

 Reporting 

 by local 

 jurisdictions

 to the state 

on polling place 

 accessibility

 Inspection 

 of polling 

 place 

 accessibility

 Accommodation

 of wheelchairs

 in voting areas

Polling place 

accessibility

 standards

Number of states

State requirement

Source: GAO analysis of data from its 2000 and 2008 surveys of state election officials. 

2000

2008

23

43

17

38

15

34

10

29

Page 25 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

Figure 12: Example of State Guidance for Setting Up the Voting Room in the Polling Place and for Placement of the 

Accessible Voting Machine 

5 ft.

6 ft.6 ft.

5 ft.

STANDARD

VOTING

BOOTHS ACCESSIBLE

VOTING

SYSTEM

BALLOT

BOX EXAMPLE EXIT

ENTER

Guardrail

Incoming

Voting

List

Power Phone

Source: Maine, Department of the Secretary of State, Division of Elections. 

Most states reported using HAVA funds or a combination of HAVA and 

state funds to support a variety of activities designed to facilitate voting 

for people with disabilities. In our report on the 2000 election, we found 

limited funding was one of the main barriers that most state officials faced 

in improving voting accessibility, especially in providing accessible voting 

Page 26 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

systems and, in some cases, making temporary or permanent 

modifications to polling places to make them accessible.35 However, with 

the availability of HAVA funding since that time, most state officials 

reported on our survey that they used HAVA funds or a combination of 

HAVA and state funds to help improve accessibility in these areas. The 

majority of states (45) reported spending or obligating HAVA funds and, in 

some cases, also using state funds to enhance physical access to polling 

places. For example, election officials in Nebraska reported spending 

HAVA funds to evaluate the accessibility of polling places throughout the 

state and to ensure they were compliant with ADA standards. 

Furthermore, 39 states reported obligating or spending HAVA funds or a 

combination of HAVA and state funds to improve voting systems and 

technology.36 For example, Minnesota used HAVA funds to buy ballotmarking machines so that voters with disabilities could mark regular 

paper ballots privately and independently and to develop instructional 

videos on how to use the machines. 

Even though states have taken actions to make the voting process more 

accessible, many states reported that it was very or moderately 

challenging to implement certain aspects of HAVA’s voting access 

requirements. According to our state survey, 31 states reported that 

ensuring polling place accessibility was very or moderately challenging. 

(See table 4.) For example, one area in California reported that it was 

challenging to find enough accessible polling places in some rural 

communities because limited accessible buildings are available. 

Additionally, 24 states reported that it was very or moderately challenging 

to purchase DREs or other accessible voting systems. For example, 

 

35GAO-02-107. 

36As we found in our report on the 2004 election, in some states, local jurisdictions are 

responsible for buying voting systems. Some states provide a list of voting systems from 

which local jurisdictions are required to choose or they must approve the systems that 

local jurisdictions purchase. GAO, Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as 

Reflected in the November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450, Washington, D.C.: June 6, 

2006. 

Page 27 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

several states said that it was difficult to buy accessible systems because 

of EAC’s delay in certifying voting systems.37

Table 4: State Challenges in Implementing Various Aspects of HAVA 

Number of states 

Aspect of implementing HAVAa

Very or 

moderately 

challenging

Slightly 

challenging

Not 

challenging 

State has not 

done this

Ensuring polling place accessibility 31 16 3 1

Purchasing DREs or other accessible voting systems 24 8 15 4b

Providing guidance to counties, cities, or local entities 

for HAVA—required voting access activities for 

people with disabilities 

20 18 12 1

Securing HAVA funding for the state 19 13 17 0

Disseminating HAVA funding to counties, cities, or 

local entities 

16 12 11 10

Source: GAO analysis of data from its 2008 survey of state election officials. 

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

survey question. 

a

These are not necessarily requirements of HAVA, but are actions states may have taken to 

implement accessibility provisions of HAVA. 

b

As we reported in our report on the 2004 election, in some sates, local jurisdictions are responsible 

for buying voting systems. 

All States Offered 

Alternative Methods Or 

Accommodations for 

Voting on or before 

Election Day 

In addition to efforts to ensure polling place accessibility, most states 

offered alternative voting methods, such as absentee voting, that could 

help facilitate voting options for people with disabilities. All states offered 

absentee voting as an option, although 26 states reported on our survey 

that they required voters to meet at least one of several reasons—typically 

referred to as an “excuse”—to be eligible to vote via absentee ballot, such 

as having a disability, being elderly, or being absent from the jurisdiction 

 

37In 2006, we reported that approximately one-third of the states reported plans to purchase 

new systems for use in the 2008 election, thus requiring federal system certification. 

Because EAC had not certified any of these systems as of May 2008—at the time we 

conducted our audit work—these states reported that they intended to either forego 

planned system replacements and upgrades for the 2008 general election or seek other 

ways to satisfy state statutes or directives that require federal certification See GAO-06-450. 

Page 28 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

(see table 5).38 However, the number of states that allow absentee voting 

without requiring that voters provide a reason has increased slightly since 

the 2000 election, from 18 states to 24 states in 2008. Of the 43 states that 

reported requiring local jurisdictions to offer in-person absentee voting, 40 

states required that locations used for in-person absentee voting abide by 

the same accessibility provisions and accommodations as Election Day 

polling places. In addition to absentee voting, all 23 states that reported 

that they required or allowed local jurisdictions to offer early voting also 

required early voting locations to meet the same HAVA and state 

accessibility requirements as Election Day polling places. 

Table 5: Examples of Reasons That Some States Permitted for Absentee Voting 

Eligible reason for absentee voting 

Number of states, as 

of 2008 election

Unable to get to the polls due to illness or disability 22

Being absent from jurisdiction on Election Day 22

Being hospitalized 20

Residing in a long-term care facility 12

Being elderly 10

Source: GAO analysis of data from its 2008 survey of state election officials. 

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

survey question. 

Some states required polling places to provide other accommodations for 

voters with disabilities, such as curbside voting and audio or visual aids, 

although fewer states required some of these accommodations in 2008 

than in 2000. According to our state survey, the number of states that 

required curbside voting decreased from 28 states in 2000 to 23 states in 

2008 (see fig. 13). Likewise, the number of states that required staff in local 

jurisdictions to take a ballot to the residence of a voter with a disability 

who needed assistance on or before Election Day decreased from 21 states 

in 2000 to only 9 states in 2008. These practices may have declined 

because more states have taken actions to make polling places accessible 

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

 

38Absentee voting is usually conducted by mail, but can also be done as “in-person 

absentee” voting, where the voter visits the election office and completes the absentee 

voting process in person. Permanent absentee voting is typically available to individuals 

with disabilities or the elderly. Permanent absentee status, where offered, generally allows 

the voter to apply for mail-in absentee ballots once (rather than for each separate election) 

over a specified time period. 

Page 29 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

absentee without having to meet specific criteria. See appendix V for a 

comparison of state requirements, accommodations, and voting 

alternatives from our 2000, 2004, and 2008 surveys. 

Figure 13: Accommodations That States Required Local Jurisdictions to Offer to 

Voters with Disabilities, as of Election Days 2000 and 2008 

Number of states

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Provision of 

ballot or 

methods of 

voting in Braille

Ballot taken

 to voter’s

residence 

on Election Day

 Provision 

of ballots with 

larger type

 Provision 

 of magnifying

instruments

Curbside voting

available on 

Election Day

Source: GAO analysis of data from its 2000 and 2008 surveys of state election officials. 

Accommodation to voter

2000

2008

28

23

7

12

2

11

21

9

3

6

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

survey question. 

Page 30 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

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. Since then, Justice’s oversight of HAVA’s 

access requirements is part of two other enforcement efforts, but gaps 

remain. Justice currently conducts polling place observations for federal 

elections that identify whether an accessible voting system is in place, but it 

does not systematically assess the physical accessibility of polling places or 

the level of privacy and independence provided to voters with disabilities. 

Justice also conducts a small number of annual community assessments of 

ADA compliance of public buildings, which includes buildings designated as 

polling places. However, these assessments do not provide a national 

perspective on polling place accessibility or assess any special features of 

voting areas and accessible voting systems that are set up only on Election 

Day. 

Justice Assessed 

States’ 

Implementation of 

HAVA Requirements 

for the 2006 Deadline, 

But Its Current 

Oversight Has Some 

Gaps 

During Early HAVA 

Implementation, Justice 

Provided Some Technical 

Assistance and Assessed 

States’ Compliance with 

Voting System 

Requirements 

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

they conducted educational outreach on HAVA voting system 

requirements. Justice provided guidance on the new HAVA voting system 

requirements, while the EAC, which was authorized by HAVA to develop 

guidance and serve as a clearinghouse for election information, 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. For this effort, Justice officials met 

with state and local election officials across the country and gave 

presentations on HAVA requirements at National Association of 

Secretaries of State and National Association of State Election Directors 

meetings. In addition, Justice provided information about HAVA voting 

system requirements on its Web site and posted answers to frequently 

asked questions. Justice also provided informal responses to questions 

from state election officials on specific aspects of HAVA voting system 

requirements. In one response, Justice stated that a HAVA-compliant 

voting system requires both the voting system and polling place to be 

accessible to people with disabilities.39 Furthermore, the EAC, in 

consultation with Justice, developed an advisory opinion stating that a 

HAVA-compliant voting system should be accessible to people with 

 

39Letter from Justice of March 4, 2005, to the Mississippi Secretary of State’s office 

regarding the accessibility of voting systems and polling places, see 

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/hava/msdisability.php. 

Page 31 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

disabilities (as defined by the ADA), which includes not just the technical 

features of the voting system, but configuring the system to allow people 

with disabilities to vote privately and independently. 

As part of these early efforts, Justice provided guidance to poll workers on 

how to assess and create a physically accessible polling place. 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. The checklist also describes how to 

take measurements of sloped surfaces, door openings, ramps, and other 

features to help identify potential impediments and suggest possible 

alternatives and temporary modifications. Justice officials said they have 

distributed 16,000 copies of the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA 

Checklist for Polling Places, primarily to advocacy groups and state and 

local election officials, and received over 80,000 hits on its Web site since 

the checklist was released in February 2004. According to our survey, 34 

states found the checklist to be moderately to very helpful and several 

state election officials with whom we spoke said they used it to develop 

their own state assessments of polling place accessibility. 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—such as positioning the voting system in such a way as to 

allow a person using a wheelchair to vote privately and independently. 

In 2005, the EAC adopted Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, which 

include accessibility standards that specify the configuration of the voting 

station to accommodate people using a wheelchair.40 The main purpose of 

these guidelines is to develop technical specifications and standards for 

voting systems for national testing and certification. HAVA does not 

require adoption of the guidelines at the state level, although states may 

choose to adopt the guidelines and make them mandatory in their 

 

40Three iterations of federal voluntary voting system standards have been issued by the 

federal government. The first set of standards was created in 1990 by the Federal Election 

Commission (FEC). In 2002, the FEC updated the standards by adopting a second iteration. 

HAVA transferred the responsibility of developing voting system standards from the FEC to 

the EAC. In 2005, the EAC issued the third iteration, called the Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (VVSG). These guidelines were developed by the EAC’s federal advisory 

committee, the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), and the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The EAC is currently in the process of 

revising the guidelines. Draft guidelines were prepared by the TGDC with technical support 

from NIST and are available for public comment on EAC’s Web site. 

Page 32 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

jurisdictions. While these guidelines are used to specify voting system 

testing standards, EAC officials told us that user-friendly guidance 

targeted to poll workers on HAVA voting system requirements, polling 

place accessibility, and voting assistance to people with disabilities is 

needed. 

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. In 2003, Justice sent 

letters to state election officials summarizing HAVA voting system 

requirements. Justice 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. Although states were not required to 

submit reports to Justice under HAVA, Justice officials said all states 

responded to the department’s letters. Justice officials reviewed state 

responses and followed up with state officials, sometimes on a weekly 

basis, if they were not satisfied with the progress being made. Justice also 

monitored local media outlets and state election and procurement Web 

sites and consulted with national disability groups, election organizations, 

and local advocacy groups to independently verify information provided 

by states. If Justice determined that sufficient progress toward HAVA 

voting system compliance was not being made, it initiated investigations 

and, in two cases, pursued litigation when all other options were 

exhausted. Justice filed complaints against New York and Maine in 2006, 

in part because these states had not made sufficient progress in 

purchasing and implementing HAVA accessible voting systems. Since then, 

according to Justice, both Maine and New York acquired and implemented 

HAVA accessible voting systems for the November 2008 federal election. 

Justice officials told us that their assessment of HAVA voting system 

requirements was part of an initial effort to ensure that all states had 

accessible voting systems by the required January 1, 2006, deadline. 

Justice’s Current 

Monitoring of Polling Place 

Accessibility Has Some 

Gaps 

Once the 2006 deadline passed and all states reported having accessible 

voting systems, Justice continued only limited oversight of HAVA voting 

system requirements and polling place accessibility, as part of two ongoing 

enforcement efforts. These limited efforts leave gaps in ensuring voting 

accessibility for people with disabilities. For example, Justice supervises 

polling place observations for federal elections on Election Day to 

primarily assess compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965; however, 

some limited observations on other federal voting statues, such as HAVA, 

Page 33 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

are also included. Specifically, polling place observers look for accessible 

voting systems and assess whether poll workers are trained in their 

operation. In calendar year 2008, 1,060 federal observers and 344 Justice 

staff members observed 114 elections in over 75 jurisdictions covering 24 

states.41 For such efforts, Justice officials select polling places where they 

believe there may be a problem, on the basis of negative news coverage, 

complaints received, or information provided by election officials. 

Information from polling place observations can provide evidence for an 

ongoing investigation or lawsuit. Justice sometimes initiates investigations 

on the basis of complaints and other information received. In some cases, 

the information may also be used to initiate a matter if an investigation has 

not already been opened. Justice officials told us that, as part of their 

Election Day 2008 observations, they came across some polling places 

where accessible voting machines were not turned on or poll workers 

were unable to operate the accessible machine. However, based on our 

Election Day assessments, the potential impediments and challenges for 

voters with disabilities to access and cast a ballot on accessible voting 

systems may be more common than what Justice officials said they found 

through their observations. Importantly, 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 limits the department’s ability to identify potential 

accessibility issues facing voters with disabilities. 

In addition, Justice officials said they annually initiate a small number of 

community assessments of ADA compliance in public buildings, including 

buildings designated as polling places, but these assessments include a 

small portion of polling places nationwide and are generally not conducted 

on Election Day. According to Justice, these assessments—called Civic 

Access assessments—can be resource-intensive, which, in part, may limit 

the number that the department can complete in a given year. Justice 

initiated three Civic Access assessments in calendar year 2008. Justice 

selects communities for Civic Access assessments on the basis of a 

number of characteristics within a community, including size of the 

 

41The Voting Rights Act of 1965 authorizes federal observers to monitor procedures in 

polling places and sites where ballots are counted in political subdivisions that have been 

certified by court or the U.S. Attorney General. Federal observers, recruited by the Office 

of Personnel Management and under the supervision of Justice attorneys, visit polling 

places in certified political subdivisions on Election Day, recording numerous observations 

on voting procedures and collecting information on voting statistics. According to Justice, 

its attorneys also conduct observations in uncertified political subdivisions under certain 

circumstances. 

Page 34 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

disability community, geographic location, complaints received from 

citizens and advocacy groups, and proximity to a university or tourist 

attraction—which, according to Justice officials, might attract people with 

disabilities from outside of the community. In planning for the assessment, 

Justice requests information from the communities about their polling 

places, such as their locations, modifications made on election days, and 

steps taken to make polling places accessible. The on-site reviews assess 

as many polling places as possible within the scope of the overall review. 

Justice officials said they prioritize polling places for assessments on the 

basis of geographic location, proximity to other buildings targeted for 

assessment in the review, and extent of public use of the facility for any 

purpose. To conduct on-site reviews—which typically take 1 to 3 weeks to 

complete—Justice deploys teams of attorneys, architects, and 

investigators to take measurements of a variety of public buildings. 

Afterwards, Justice compiles a list of physical barriers and impediments 

for people with disabilities found during the on-site review. Then Justice 

generally negotiates and enters into a settlement agreement with the 

election jurisdiction, which includes recommendations for improvements, 

a time frame for implementing needed changes, and requirements for 

reporting and documentation. Between 2000 and 2008, Justice entered into 

161 Civic Access settlement agreements, of which, 69 contained one or 

more recommendations aimed at polling place provisions. However, given 

the small number of Civic Assess assessments conducted annually, the 

information on polling place accessibility does not provide a national 

perspective on polling place accessibility. In addition, since these 

assessments are not conducted during elections, they do not assess any 

special features of voting areas and accessible voting systems that are set 

up only on Election Day. 

State and local election officials across the country took a considerable 

step toward improving voting access for people with disabilities by having 

accessible voting systems at virtually every polling place we visited on 

Election Day 2008. These voting systems have been significant in enabling 

some Americans with disabilities to vote privately and independently at 

their neighborhood polling place for the first time. This also shows that 

Justice’s efforts to assess states’ implementation of HAVA voting system 

requirements achieved the desired outcome of ensuring that polling places 

had at least one accessible voting system. Despite these significant efforts, 

voters with disabilities may have had difficulty casting a ballot on these 

systems because the majority of polling places still had one or more 

potential impediments that could prevent a voter with a disability from 

even getting to the accessible voting system. Furthermore, in close to half 

Conclusions 

Page 35 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

of polling places, the accessible voting system itself could pose challenges 

for voters with disabilities to vote privately or independently. If these 

conditions continue, there may be some voters with disabilities who will 

experience frustration and dissatisfaction with the voting process on 

future election days, while others could be discouraged from voting 

entirely. 

Ensuring that voters with disabilities can successfully vote privately and 

independently requires government to think broadly about access: how 

voters will arrive at the polling place, enter and move through the building, 

and cast a ballot using an accessible voting system. For example, just 

taking an accessible voting system out of its case and setting it up on any 

voting station is not enough if a voter using a wheelchair cannot reach it. 

Although Justice’s Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for 

Polling Places has been widely distributed and is considered helpful by 

states, it only includes limited information on creating an accessible voting 

area and does not have guidance on configuring voting systems for people 

with disabilities. In addition, Justice’s current oversight of HAVA voting 

system requirements and polling place accessibility does not address all 

aspects of voting access. Without monitoring that focuses on the broad 

spectrum of voting accessibility for people with disabilities, it will be 

difficult for Justice to ensure it is meeting its oversight duties under HAVA 

and other federal voting statutes and to know whether voters with 

disabilities are being well-served. We acknowledge that extensive 

monitoring of polling place accessibility could be a costly and challenging 

undertaking. However, Justice already demonstrated its ability to leverage 

resources when it worked with states, disability advocacy organizations, 

and others to conduct its initial assessment of states’ implementation of 

HAVA voting system requirements. As the proportion of older Americans 

increases, the number of people with disabilities will also likely continue 

to grow, and it will become even more important to ensure that voting 

systems are accessible to all eligible voters. 

To identify and reduce the number of potential impediments and other 

challenges at polling places that might hinder or detract from the voting 

experience for people with disabilities, we recommend 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 the following 

activities: 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Page 36 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

• 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. 

We provided a draft of this report to Justice, EAC, and HHS for review and 

comment. Justice generally agreed with our recommendation to expand its 

monitoring and oversight of accessibility of polling places for people with 

disabilities in a cost-effective manner, although it had some concerns 

about specific activities we suggested as part of this recommendation. 

Specifically, Justice generally agreed with our suggestion to work with 

states to use existing state oversight mechanisms and other resources to 

help assess and monitor states’ progress in ensuring polling place 

accessibility, similar to the effort it undertook shortly after HAVA was 

enacted. Justice said that it can look for opportunities to enhance 

educational efforts to states and gather some additional information to 

assess state accessibility programs, and work with election officials and 

disability rights organizations to stress the importance of polling place 

accessibility and ask for their assistance in improving compliance with 

federal requirements related to accessibility, but said that it is unlikely to 

have the resources for a comprehensive undertaking similar to its earlier 

effort. Justice also generally agreed with our recommendation to expand 

the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for 

Polling Places to provide additional information on ensuring the 

accessibility of the voting area and include guidance on the configuration 

of the accessible voting system. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Justice expressed concerns about our suggestion to expand the scope of 

Election Day observations to include an assessment of the physical access 

Page 37 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

to the voting area and the level of privacy and independence being offered 

to voters with disabilities by accessible voting systems. In particular, it had 

concerns about shifting the focus of the federal observer program from its 

primary purpose of ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 

1965, and not having the resources to train and deploy observers to 

conduct extensive assessments of polling places on Election Day. At the 

same time, Justice said that it will continue to have Election Day observers 

and monitors note whether polling places have an accessible voting 

system and will consider incorporating some additional questions such as 

observing whether the accessible voting system appears to be situated in a 

way that voters can use the system privately and independently. In 

response, we believe that the actions we suggest to expand Justice’s 

monitoring and oversight activities are consistent with the agency’s stated 

function. As laws are enacted and revised to support voting accessibility, 

Justice can be positioned to fully meet its duties by modifying its 

assessment approaches. That stated, we believe that incorporating 

additional questions such as these would satisfy our recommendation and 

could be done without adding significant work and interfering with the 

primary purpose of the Election Day observer program. Justice also 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

The EAC expressed appreciation for our research and said that the report 

will be a valuable resource for the EAC and election officials as they 

continue to develop, implement, and evaluate effective election 

administration practices regarding voting accessibility. It also identified 

some of the resources that the EAC has made available to election officials 

and the public regarding voting accessibility, and stated that it will 

continue to work in collaboration with election officials, experts, and 

advocacy groups to identify additional resources needed to address this 

area. HHS said that our findings were consistent with what states have 

reported and the report highlights concerns that HHS has found for some 

of its grantees. Written comments from Justice, EAC, and HHS appear in 

appendixes VI, VII, and VIII. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to Justice, EAC, 

HHS, the U.S. Access Board, and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report will be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 38 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
 

Page 39 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

Barbara D. Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov, or William 

O. Jenkins at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IX. 

Barbara D. Bovbjerg 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 

William O. Jenkins, Jr. 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice Issues 
 

List of Requesters 

The Honorable Tom Harkin 

Chairman 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Herbert Kohl 

Chairman 

Special Committee on Aging 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer 

Chairman 

The Honorable Robert Bennett 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Rules and Administration 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

United States Senate 

Page 40 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 41 GAO-09-941 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Our objectives were to examine (1) the proportion of polling places that 

have features that might facilitate or impede access to voting for people 

with disabilities and how these results compare to our findings from the 

2000 federal election; (2) the actions states are taking to facilitate voting 

for people with disabilities; and (3) the steps the Department of Justice 

(Justice) has taken to enforce the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) 

voting access provisions. To determine the proportion of polling places 

that have features that might facilitate or impede access to voting for 

people with disabilities and how these results compared to our 2000 

findings, GAO staff visited polling places on Election Day, November 4, 

2008, to make observations, take measurements, and conduct short 

interviews of polling place officials. To obtain information on our first and 

third objectives, we administered a Web-based survey of election officials 

in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories (American 

Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).1

 For all of our 

objectives, we interviewed officials at Justice, the Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

and from national organizations that represented election officials and 

disability advocacy organizations. We also reviewed federal laws, 

guidance, and other documentation. We conducted our work from April 

2008 through September 2009 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 provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Election Day Polling 

Place Visits 

Selection of Polling Places We used a two-stage sampling method to select the polling places that we 

visited on Election Day, November 4, 2008. In stage 1, we selected a 

sample of counties. Each county we selected was treated as a “cluster” of 

 

1

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 the provisions of 

HAVA. 

 Voters With Disabilities 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

polling places. In stage 2, we selected a sample of polling places from 

within each county. 

Since there is no central list of all of the polling places in the United 

States, the first stage of our sampling method started with all counties, 

because most elections are administered at the county level.2

 For cost and 

efficiency reasons, we confined our list of counties to those in the 

contiguous United States, including the District of Columbia—thus, 

excluding Alaska and Hawaii. We also excluded Oregon because eligible 

residents in this state have voted almost exclusively by mail since 1998. 

The total number of counties from which we sampled was 3,074. The list 

of county population sizes was constructed from 2005 American 

Community Survey data. We used jurisdiction total population size to 

define the probability of selection in the first stage of sampling because 

these census data were readily available for all counties and countyequivalents. Although it would have been useful to define the sample using 

national data on all registered voters or all eligible voters, we did not use 

the numbers of registered voters because Census data on registered voters 

were not available at the county level nationwide. In addition, we did not 

use the numbers of eligible voters (individuals 18 years old and over) 

because Census data allowing us to exclude noncitizens and felons—

groups that are not eligible to vote—from the 18 years and over population 

also were not available at the county level nationwide. 

Because polling places were the unit of our analysis, we used a sampling 

method known as probability proportionate to size with replacement. In 

this method, the probability of selecting any county, or cluster, varies with 

the size of the county, giving larger counties a greater probability of 

selection and smaller counties a lower probability. The measure of size is 

the population of the county divided by the total population of all the 

states in our sample. Each time a county was selected, we returned it to 

the sample universe, which gave it an additional chance of being selected. 

Therefore, it was possible that we could select any one county multiple 

times in the sample. This method allowed us to select a sample that was 

representative of polling places across the country on Election Day. Using 

this sampling method, we selected 84 unique counties in 31 states, or the 

 

2

We selected counties and cities that are county-equivalents for Census purposes. In 8 

counties in our sample, officials at the subcounty level, such as towns and cities, 

administer elections. 

Page 42 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

equivalent of 100 counties, with 12 counties being selected more than 

once.3

In the second stage, we selected a random sample of polling places in each 

county selected in stage one. To do this, we searched the Internet to 

determine whether each county posted a listing of its polling places. If the 

information was posted, we downloaded the list.4

 If not, we contacted 

county or state officials to obtain a list of polling places. For each county, 

we selected a random sample of 8 polling places for each time the county 

was selected in our sample. For example, if a county was selected once, 

we selected 8 polling places, and if a county was selected twice, we 

selected 16 polling places. Election officials in 79 of 84 unique counties 

(the equivalent of 94 of 100 counties) in our sample granted us permission 

to visit on Election Day,5

 for a total of 746 polling places.6

Description of Site Visits 

and the Data Collection 

Instrument 

On Election Day, November 4, 2008, we sent out teams of two GAO staff to 

each county in our sample.7

 Each team was equipped with data collection 

instruments (DCI) on which to record their observations and the 

necessary measurement tools: the ADA Accessibility Stick IITM , a fish 

scale, and a tape measure.8

 We monitored the activities of the teams 

throughout Election Day and provided assistance by telephone from our 

Washington, D.C., office. 

 

3

See appendix III for a list of the counties we visited. 

4

In cases where we downloaded a list of polling places from the Internet, we confirmed 

with county election officials that this was the most current list. In counties where 

township or city officials administered elections, we contacted all townships or cities 

within the county and asked for their lists of polling places as well as their permission to 

visit polling places in their jurisdiction. 

5

One county where we did not gain access was selected twice in our sample. 

6

Two counties had less than 8 polling places: One county only had 3 polling places because 

it is in a primarily vote-by-mail state, and, in another county, 1 of the 8 polling places was a 

mail-in-only location. 

7

Representatives of state or county election officials accompanied GAO teams in 6 

counties, but they did not participate in the teams’ observations or interviews with polling 

place officials. 

8

The ADA Accessibility Stick IITM is a tool designed to measure potential structural 

impediments in buildings and on walkways. This tool was designed and manufactured by 

Access, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. The fish scale was used to measure the force required to 

open a door and was included in our study as a pilot measure. 

Page 43 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To ensure uniform data collection across the country, we trained all teams 

in how to 

• properly fill out each question on the DCI, 

• use the necessary measurement tools, and 

• interview the chief poll worker in each polling place about the accessible 

voting systems as well as accommodations for voters with disabilities. 

See figure 14 for examples of measurements and items for observation 

that were used to train GAO teams for Election Day visits. We also 

instructed teams on the appropriate times for visiting polling places and 

not to approach voters or interfere with the voting process in any way 

during their visits. 

Page 44 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Figure 14: Examples of Some Measurements and Items for Observation That Were Used to Train GAO Teams for Election Day 

Visits 

Width of inside door Signs designating route for people with disabilities

Height of uneven pavement or door threshold

Source: GAO.

Voting table with accessible voting machine

Height of outside elevator 

call buttons

Each GAO team that visited a county on Election Day received a list of up 

to 8 polling places to visit.9

 The first polling place on their list was 

randomly determined. We then used geocoding software and the address 

of the polling places to determine the latitude and longitude coordinates 

for all of the polling places they were scheduled to visit. The latitude and 

 

9

The types of buildings used for polling places varied widely but typically included houses 

of worship, schools, libraries, courthouses, police or fire stations, and community centers. 

Page 45 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

longitude coordinates were used to determine the ordering after the first 

polling place, which minimized the net travel distance. This geocoding of 

the addresses allowed the GAO teams to minimize the travel distance 

between their polling places on Election Day. To maintain the integrity of 

the data collection process, GAO teams were instructed not to disclose the 

location of the selected polling places before their visits. 

In some cases, states or counties placed restrictions on our visits to 

polling places. For example, laws in some states prohibit nonelection 

officials from entering the voting room or voting area. Election officials in 

several counties granted us access on the condition that we not interview 

polling place officials on Election Day, and, in several polling places, 

officials were too busy assisting voters to be interviewed.10 In these cases, 

we e-mailed and called chief polling place officials after Election Day to 

complete the interview. Polling place officials contacted after Election Day 

were asked the same questions as the officials interviewed on Election 

Day. Due to the constraints of time and geography, some teams were not 

able to visit all 8 polling places, but overall, GAO teams were able to visit 

98 percent of the randomly selected polling places, or 730 of 746 polling 

places in 79 counties across 31 states. 

GAO teams used a DCI that was similar to the one used in our 2000 study 

of polling places to record observations and measurements taken inside 

and outside of the polling place and to capture responses from our 

interviews with chief polling place officials. However, we updated the DCI 

on the basis of changes that have occurred in federal laws and guidance 

since 2000. The primary sources we used to determine the most current 

requirements and standards for evaluating polling place accessibility were 

the voting system requirements specified in HAVA11 and polling place 

accessibility guidance in the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA 

Checklist for Polling Places, issued by the Department of Justice in 2004.12

 

10State or county election officials restricted GAO teams from interviewing polling place 

officials in 10 counties on Election Day, although we were allowed to interview officials in 

all but 1 county after Election Day. 

11HAVA requires that each polling place have at least one voting system for use in federal 

elections that is accessible for voters with disabilities and provides the same opportunity 

for people with disabilities to vote privately and independently as is afforded by voting 

systems available to other voters. 

12See Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section: Americans 

with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places (Washington, D.C.: February 2004). 

This checklist is a self-help survey that voting officials can use to determine whether a 

polling place has basic accessible features needed by most voters with disabilities. 

Page 46 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

In addition, disability advocates and representatives of the U.S. Access 

Board reviewed a draft version of our DCI, and we incorporated their 

comments as appropriate. We also received input from officials at Justice 

and the EAC and from national organizations that represented election 

officials. Finally, to ensure that GAO teams could fill out the instrument in 

the field and complete it in a reasonable amount of time, we pretested the 

DCI during the presidential primary election in South Dakota in June 2008 

and during the congressional primary election in Wisconsin in September 

2008. 

In analyzing the data collected on Election Day, we first examined features 

that might facilitate or impede access on the path to the voting area.13 In 

doing so, we looked at features at four different locations at the polling 

place: the parking area, the path from the parking area to the building 

entrance, the building entrance, and the path from the building entrance to 

the voting area. These features included the following: 

Analysis of Election 

Day Data 

• Slope of ramps or cut curbs along the path are no steeper than 1:12. 

• Surface is paved or has no abrupt changes over 1⁄2 inch. 

• Doorway threshold does not exceed 1⁄2 inch in height. 

• Single- or double-door openings are 32 inches or more wide. 

Therefore, the percentage of polling places cited as having one or more 

potential impediments was based on whether a polling place was found to 

have at least one feature that might impede access to voting in any of the 

four locations we examined and does not include potential impediments 

associated with the voting area itself. 

While features of the voting area were not included in our summary 

measure of whether a polling place had a potential impediment, we did 

look for features that might facilitate or impede private and independent 

voting inside the voting area. We identified the types of voting methods 

available to voters with and without disabilities and took measurements of 

the voting station or table used by people with disabilities to determine 

 

13We did not assess polling places’ legal compliance with HAVA accessible voting system 

requirements. 

Page 47 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

whether wheelchairs could fit inside the station or under the table and 

whether equipment was within reach for wheelchair users. We collected 

information on the accessible voting systems required under HAVA to 

determine the extent to which the system had features that might facilitate 

voting for people with disabilities and allow them to vote privately and 

independently. We also briefly interviewed chief poll workers at most of 

the polling places we visited to find out whether curbside voting was 

available and how the poll workers would handle voter requests for 

assistance from a friend, relative, or election official. 

Sampling Errors All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, which is the extent to 

which the survey results differ from what would have been obtained if the 

whole universe of polling places had been observed. Measures of sampling 

error are defined by two elements—the width of the confidence interval 

around the estimate (sometimes called precision of the estimate) and the 

confidence level at which the interval is computed. The confidence 

interval refers to the range of possible values for a given estimate, not just 

a single point. This interval is often expressed as a point estimate, plus or 

minus some value (the precision level). For example, a point estimate of 

75 percent plus or minus 5 percentage points means that the true 

population value is estimated to lie between 70 percent and 80 percent, at 

some specified level of confidence. 

The confidence level of the estimate is a measure of the certainty that the 

true value lies within the range of the confidence interval. We calculated 

the sampling error for each statistical estimate in this report at the 95-

percent confidence level and present this information throughout the 

report. 

To learn more about states’ actions to facilitate voting access and 

perspectives on Justice’s oversight of HAVA voting access provisions, we 

administered a Web-based survey of officials responsible for overseeing 

elections from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories 

(American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Survey 

topics included (1) state requirements and policies for early voting, 

absentee voting, and voter identification; (2) state voting accommodations 

for people with disabilities; (3) state funding and experiences 

implementing HAVA voting access requirements; (4) level of interaction 

with Justice officials and usefulness of Justice guidance; and (5) state and 

local actions to facilitate voting in long-term care facilities. The survey was 

conducted using a self-administered electronic questionnaire posted on 

Survey of States, 

District of Columbia, 

and Territories 

Page 48 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

the Web. We collected the survey data between December 2008 and 

February 2009. We received completed surveys from all 50 states, 4 

territories, and the District of Columbia, for a 100-percent response rate. 

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. 

However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents interpret 

questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. To minimize 

nonsampling errors, we pretested draft survey instruments with state 

election officials in Kansas, Virginia, and Wisconsin to determine whether 

(1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) 

respondents were able to provide the information we were seeking, and 

(4) the questions were unbiased. We made changes to the content and 

format of the questionnaire on the basis of pretest results. Because 

respondents entered their responses directly into our database of 

responses from the Web-based surveys, possibility of data entry errors was 

greatly reduced. We also performed computer analyses to identify 

inconsistencies in responses and other indications of error. In addition, a 

second independent analyst verified that the computer programs used to 

analyze the data were written correctly. We also searched state election 

Web sites to illustrate their respective approaches, and obtained and 

reviewed relevant documentation for selected states. The scope of this 

work did not include contacting election officials from each state and local 

jurisdictions to verify survey responses or other information provided by 

state officials. In addition, we did not analyze states’ requirements to 

determine what they require, but instead relied on the states’ responses to 

our survey.14

To specifically determine what actions Justice has taken to enforce HAVA 

voting access provisions, we interviewed Justice officials and reviewed 

relevant federal laws, guidance, and other documentation. Specifically, we 

spoke with Justice officials in the Voting and Disability Rights Sections of 

the Civil Rights Division to document Justice’s internal process for 

handling HAVA matters and cases and to review the department’s actions 

to monitor and enforce HAVA voting access provisions (see app. IV for an 

overview of this process). We reviewed the Americans with Disabilities 

Federal Officials and 

Expert Interviews and 

Review of 

Documentation 

 

14For the purposes of our study, we defined “requirements” as requirements under state 

law, regulation, or executive order/directive. Our definition does not include federal 

requirements. 

Page 49 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places and informal guidance, such as 

letters responding to state election officials’ requests for additional 

guidance on HAVA voting access requirements. We also reviewed citizen 

complaints from Election Day 2008 that were provided to us by Justice and 

all three complaints containing a HAVA voting access claim that Justice 

has filed against states or election jurisdictions since HAVA was enacted in 

2002. 

In addition, to learn more about the federal role in providing assistance 

and funding to states under HAVA, we interviewed officials from the EAC, 

HHS, the National Association of Secretaries of State, and the National 

Association of State Election Directors. 

Page 50 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II: List of Counties Randomly 

Selected for Site Visits on Election Day, 

November 4, 2008 

Number of county 

selected County State 

Number of times county 

was selected in random sample

1 AlleganyaMaryland 1

2 Allegheny Pennsylvania 3

3 Anderson Texas 1

4 Anoka Minnesota 2

5 Ashland Ohio 1

6 Bannock Idaho 1

7 BerksaPennsylvania 2

8 Brazoria Texas 1

9 Bristol Massachusetts 1

10 Broward Florida 1

11 Centre Pennsylvania 1

12 Clarion Pennsylvania 1

13 Columbiana Ohio 1

14 Cumberland Maine 1

15 Cuyahoga Ohio 1

16 Dallas Texas 1

17 Del Norte California 1

18 Denton Texas 1

19 Denver Colorado 1

20 District of Columbia Washington, D.C. 1

21 Douglas Colorado 1

22 East Baton Rouge Parish Louisiana 1

23 Elkhart Indiana 1

24 Estill Kentucky 1

25 Fairfax Virginia 1

26 Franklin Ohio 1

27 FranklinaPennsylvania 1

28 Greenville South Carolina 1

29 Gwinnett Georgia 2

30 Harris Texas 1

31 Hillsborough Florida 1

32 Howard Maryland 1

33 Huntington Indiana 1

34 Indiana Pennsylvania 1

35 Lafayette Mississippi 1

Appendix II: List of Counties Randomly 

Selected for Site Visits on Election Day, 

November 4, 2008 

Page 51 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities 
Appendix II: List of Counties Randomly 

Selected for Site Visits on Election Day, 

November 4, 2008 

Number of county 

selected County State 

Number of times county 

was selected in random sample

36 Lake Ohio 1

37 Lancaster Nebraska 1

38 Lancaster South Carolina 1

39 Lauderdale Alabama 1

40 Lincoln Kentucky 1

41 Lincoln Maine 1

42 Los Angeles California 2

43 Macon Illinois 1

44 Madison Ohio 1

45 Mahoning Ohio 1

46 Maricopa Arizona 2

47 Marion Indiana 1

48 McPherson Kansas 1

49 Medina Ohio 1

50 Miami-Dade Florida 2

51 Middlesex Massachusetts 1

52 Mitchell Georgia 1

53 Monmouth New Jersey 2

54 Monterey California 1

55 Montgomery Maryland 1

56 New York Cityb New York 5

57 Newton Georgia 1

58 Ocean New Jersey 1

59 PhiladelphiaaPennsylvania 1

60 Pima Arizona 1

61 Pinellas Florida 2

62 Rice Minnesota 1

63 Rockford City Illinois 1

64 Russell Kansas 1

65 Sacramento California 2

66 San Diego California 2

67 San Luis Obispo California 1

68 Santa Clara California 1

69 Saratoga New York 1

70 Sherburne Minnesota 1

71 Stafford Virginia 1

Page 52 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix II: List of Counties Randomly 

Selected for Site Visits on Election Day, 

November 4, 2008 

Number of county 

selected County State 

Number of times county 

was selected in random sample

72 Stark Ohio 1

73 Sullivana New York 1

74 Swisher Texas 1

75 Travis Texas 1

76 Tulsa Oklahoma 1

77 Virginia Beach city Virginia 1

78 Wake North Carolina 1

79 Washington Utah 1

80 Wayne Michigan 1

81 Weber Utah 1

82 Westmoreland Pennsylvania 1

83 Will Illinois 1

84 Yakima Washington 1

Total 100

Source: GAO. 

Note: We selected counties and cities that are county-equivalents for Census purposes. 

a

We were not granted permission to visit polling places in this county on Election Day. 

b

Because New York City manages elections at the city level, we treated it as 1 county when selecting 

our random sample. 

Page 53 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix III: S

Sectio

HAVA-Related 

ummary Of Justice Voting

n’s Internal Process For Handling

Matters And Cases 

Page 54 GAO-09-941 

Appendix III: Summary Of Justice Voting 

Section’s Internal Process For Handling 

HAVA-Related Matters And Cases 

Within Justice, the Voting Section’s internal process for initiating HAVArelated matters and handling cases consists of four phases: initiation, 

investigation, complaint justification, and litigation. 

While the Voting Section generally does not receive referrals from other 

federal agencies, many matters are initiated by allegations from a variety 

of sources, including citizens, advocacy and community organizations, 

Members of Congress, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and news articles or 

through election monitoring. The Voting Section also sometimes initiates 

matters to monitor private lawsuits and to observe elections. The matter is 

assigned to an attorney under the supervision of a deputy chief or special 

litigation counsel for review to determine if further action is warranted. If 

so, a memorandum is prepared for the section chief and final approval 

from the Assistant Attorney General or his or her designee is required 

before an investigation can begin. 

Once the decision is made to investigate a matter, the section chief will 

assign a trial attorney, who conducts an investigation. When the 

investigation is complete, the trial attorney makes a recommendation to 

the section chief on whether Justice should file a lawsuit, close the matter, 

or participate in some other manner. The section chief is responsible for 

making the final decision about closing an investigation authorized by the 

Assistant Attorney General or recommending a lawsuit or other 

participation to the Assistant Attorney General. If a referral or allegation of 

a HAVA violation is not pursued, all appropriate parties are notified, and 

the matter is closed. 

If a decision is made to pursue a matter and recommend filing a formal 

complaint to initiate a lawsuit, then the trial attorney prepares a 

justification package. An attorney manager and the section chief are 

responsible for reviewing and approving the justification package. A 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General reviews the justification package, 

which is then forwarded to the Assistant Attorney General for final review 

and approval. The justification package is also sent to the U.S. Attorney’s 

office for the district where the lawsuit is to be filed for review and 

concurrence. If the justification package is not approved, the trial attorney 

generally prepares a closing memorandum and notifies the charging party, 

respondent, and/or referring agency, as appropriate, that Justice is not 

filing a lawsuit. The matter is then closed. 

Initiation 

Investigation 

Complaint 

Justification 

 Voters With Disabilities 
Appendix III: Summary Of Justice Voting 

Section’s Internal Process For Handling 

HAVA-Related Matters And Cases 

If the justification package is approved, the Civil Rights Division notifies 

the defendant by letter of Justice’s intent to file a lawsuit. After the 

defendant has been notified, the trial attorney and the defendant often 

have presuit settlement discussions. If a presuit settlement is reached, a 

settlement document stating the points of agreement is prepared, 

reviewed, and approved by the Office of the Assistant Attorney General 

and signed by all parties. If the presuit settlement discussions do not result 

in a settlement, the complaint is filed in federal district court and the 

parties engage in litigation. Filing a complaint and the beginning of legal 

proceedings do not preclude the trial attorney and defendant from 

continuing negotiations and reaching a settlement. According to Voting 

Section officials, defendants often settle prior to, or during, a trial. If a trial 

is held, the plaintiff or defendant can often appeal the decision. If the 

decision is appealed, the Voting Section works closely with the Appellate 

Section of Civil Rights Division, which assumes responsibility for the 

appeal stage of the case. 

Litigation 

Page 55 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV: List of Potential Features That 

Might Impede Access to Voting in a Polling 

Place 

2008 

Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling place 

2000 

Percentagea

2008 

Percentage

Lower 

bound 

(LB)

Upper 

bound 

(UB)

Parking area 

One or more ramps or cut curbs steeper than 1:12b c 24.0% 18.5% 29.5%

No designated parking for people with disabilities 32.2% 3.3 1.6 6.0 

One or more unramped or uncut curbs b 8.1 2.6 1.5 4.3 

No parking for any voters 1.2 0.6 0.1 2.2 

One or more unramped or uncut curbs <36 inches wideb0.1 0.5 0.1 1.4 

Other potential impediments in parking lot 4.1 8.2 6.0 11.0 

Path from parking area to building entrance 

Unpaved or poor surface in parking lot or route to building entrance 23.2 23.5 19.4 27.7 

Ramp in path from parking area to building entrance is steeper than 1:12 21.5 16.4 12.6 20.8 

Sidewalk/path is steeper than 1:12d19.6 12.0 9.0 15.5 

Improper or no handrails on ramp 5.8 8.2 5.3 12.1 

No sidewalk/path from parking area to building entrance 8.2 4.2 2.2 7.0 

Ramps in path from parking area to building entrance do not have a level landing at 

the top and bottom of each section is < 60 inches long 

c 4.0 2.5 5.9 

Leaves, snow, litter in path from parking area to building entrance 1.5 2.0 1.0 3.6 

Sidewalk/path from parking area to building entrance <36 inches wide 1.4 1.5 0.6 2.9 

Ramps in path from parking area to building entrance is < 36 inches wide 0.5 1.4 0.4 3.3 

Steps required in path from parking area to building entrance 7.1 1.3 0.5 2.7 

Other potential impediments in path from parking area to building entrance 9.8 6.4 3.7 10.3 

Building entrance 

Doorway threshold exceeds 1⁄2 inch in height 37.4 23.3 16.2 31.8 

Single doorway opening is < 32 inches wide 9.6 6.5 4.4 9.2 

Doors that would be difficult for a person using a wheelchair to open 25.7 6.3 3.7 9.9 

Double door opening is <32 inches wide, including situations in which one of the 

doors cannot be opened 

5.0 3.4 1.7 6.2 

Other potential impediments at the building entrance 6.1 4.7 2.4 8.4 

Path from building entrance to voting area 

Doorway threshold exceeds 1⁄2 inch in height 2.3 3.7 1.9 6.3 

Single doorway opening is < 32 inches wide 4.8 3.6 1.6 6.9 

Corridors that do not provide an unimpeded width of at least 36 inches, but can go 

down to 32 inches for two feet. 

0.9 2.7 1.1 5.4 

Ramp is steeper than 1:12 2.4 2.7 1.5 4.4 

Improper or no handrails on ramp 0.7 1.8 0.9 3.2 

Appendix IV: List of Potential Features That 

Might Impede Access to Voting in a Polling 

Place 

Page 56 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities 
Appendix IV: List of Potential Features That 

Might Impede Access to Voting in a Polling 

Place 

 2008 

Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling place 

2000 

Percentagea

2008 

Percentage

Lower 

bound 

(LB)

Upper 

bound 

(UB)

Doors that would be difficult for a person using a wheelchair to open 3.2 0.5 0.1 1.6 

Double door opening is <32 inches wide, including situations in which one of the 

doors cannot be opened 

1.8 0.5 0.1 1.6 

Steps are required to gain access to voting area 2.1 0.5 0.1 1.5 

Elevator is not operational or is not properly equipped for people with disabilities c 0.5 0.1 1.4 

• The elevator is not operational 

• The center of the top outside call button in the hall is higher than 42 inches 

from the ground or floor 

 

• The elevator opening is less than 36 inches wide 

• The center of the top floor button(s) in the elevator is higher than 48 inches 

from the floor of the elevator 

• The panel surrounding the elevator car buttons lacks raised lettering or 

Braille 

 

• Outside or inside elevator buttons requires a human touch to operate 

• The inside elevator car is less than 48 inches by 48 inches 

• The elevator is not equipped with audible tones or bells or verbal 

annunciators that signal each floor as it passes 

 

One or more ramps that are < 36 inches wide or can go down to 32 inches wide 

for 2 feet 

1.4 0.3 0.0 1.5 

Wheelchair lift or buttons are not proper dimensions c 0.3 0.0 1.1 

• The lift is not operational or the lift requires a key which is not present 

• The outside call button in the hall is higher than 42 inches from the ground or 

floor 

• The lift clear opening is less than 32 inches wide 

• There is less than a 30-inch by 48-inch clear floor space on the lift 

• The controls and operating mechanisms inside the lift are more than 48 

inches from the floor of the lift 

• Outside or inside lift buttons requires a human touch to operate 

• The lift requires a third party to operate 

Other potential impediments with corridors 1.0 3.1 1.3 6.3 

Other potential impediments at doorways and entrances 1.3 2.9 1.6 4.8 

Other potential impediments with ramps 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.1 

Source: GAO analysis of polling place data collected on Nov. 7, 2000, and Nov. 4, 2008 

a

The margin of error for 2000 data is between 2 to 8 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence 

level. 

b

This feature was listed in the path from parking to building entrance in 2000 study. 

c

We did not measure these items in 2000. We collected data on this item in 2008, following our review 

based on the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places and per interviews 

with experts. 

Page 57 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IV: List of Potential Features That 

Might Impede Access to Voting in a Polling 

Place 

d

We based this measurement on Justice’s ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, 

Appendix A, which states that any part of an accessible route with a slope greater than 1:20 shall be 

considered a ramp and the maximum slope of a ramp is 1:12, except in certain cases where space 

limitations prohibit the use of 1:12 slope or less. 

Page 58 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix V: State Requirements for 

Accessibility of Polling Places, Alternative 

Voting Methods, and Accommodations to 

Facilitate Voting 

Appendix V: State Requirements for 

Accessibility of Polling Places, Alternative 

Voting Methods, and Accommodations to 

Facilitate Voting 

Table 6: Summary of Changes in State Requirements Concerning Accessibility of Polling Places from the 2000 to the 2008 

General Elections 

Number of states 

State requirement 2000 2004 2008

Polling place accessibility 

Polling place accessibility standards 23 41 43

Inspections of polling place accessibility 15 28 34

Reporting by local jurisdictions to the state on polling place accessibility 10 32 29

Voting booth areas and equipment 

Accommodation of wheelchairs in voting areas 17 39 38

Aids for visually impaired voters 

Provision of ballot or methods of voting in Braille 3 1 6

Provision of ballots with large type 2 5 11

Provision of magnifying instruments 7 8 12

Sources: Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450, 

(Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006) and GAO analysis of data from its 2008 survey of state election officials. 

Note: Not all states answered every question for the surveys we conducted of state officials. 

Page 59 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities 
Appendix V: State Requirements for 

Accessibility of Polling Places, Alternative 

Voting Methods, and Accommodations to 

Facilitate Voting 

Table 7: State Provisions Concerning Accessibility of Polling Places and Accommodations for Individuals with Disabilities as 

of the November 2004 and 2008 Federal Elections 

Required Allowed Not allowed Not addressed Not applicable 

Required or 

allowed 

Provision 2004 2008 2004 2008 2004 2008 2004 2008 2004 2008a2004 2008

Polling place 

accessibility 

standards 

41 43 6 6 0 0 2 0 1 0 47 49

Inspections of 

polling place 

accessibility 

28 34 16 11 0 0 6 4 1 1 44 45

Reporting by 

local 

jurisdictions to 

the state on 

polling place 

accessibility 

32 29 8 12 0 0 9 8 2 0 40 41

Accommodation 

of wheelchairs 

in voting areas 

39 38 4 9 0 0 7 3 1 0 43 47

Curbside voting 

available on 

Election Day 

17 23 13 6 18 12 2 8 1 8 30 29

Ballot can be 

taken to voter’s 

residence on or 

before Election 

Day 

5 9 20 15 18 14 8 12 0 0 25 24

Notification of 

voters of any 

inaccessible 

polling places 

16 16 11 12 1 1 16 20 6 1 27 28

Provision of 

ballot or 

methods of 

voting in Braille 

1 6 13 14 2 0 33 30 1 30 14 20

Provision of 

ballots with 

large type 

5 11 17 13 3 0 26 26 0 0 22 24

Provision of 

magnifying 

instruments 

8 12 34 29 0 0 7 9 1 0 42 41

Sources: Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450, 

(Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006) and GAO analysis of data from its 2008 survey of state election officials. 

Note: Not all states answered every question for the surveys we conducted of state officials. 

a

For the 2008 survey, we considered state officials’ responses as “not applicable” if they checked the 

“don’t know” option for this survey question. 

Page 60 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix V: State Requirements for 

Accessibility of Polling Places, Alternative 

Voting Methods, and Accommodations to 

Facilitate Voting 

Table 8: Changes in State Requirements Concerning Alternative Voting Methods 

from the 2000 to the 2008 General Elections 

Number of states that required 

or permitted 

Methods and accommodations 2000 2004 2008

Absentee voting by mail 51 51 51

Permanent absentee voting 17 17 Not available

Curbside voting on Election Day 28 30 29

Ballot can be taken to voter’s residence on or 

before Election Day 

21 25 24

Early voting 39a25 23

Sources: Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450, 

(Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006) and GAO analysis of data from its 2008 survey of state election officials. 

Note: Not all states answered every question for the surveys we conducted of state officials. 

a

In our report on the 2000 general election, we did not identify states that offered early voting as we 

defined it in our report on the 2004 election. Rather, we reported on absentee and early voting 

together. 

Page 61 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department Appendix VI: Comments from the of Justice 

Department of Justice 

Page 62 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities 
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 63 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 64 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 65 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VII: Comments from the Election Appendix VII: Comments from the Election Assistance Commission 

Assistance Commission 

Page 66 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities 
Appendix VII: Comments from the Election 

Assistance Commission 

Page 67 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 68 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 69 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
Appendix IX: 

A

GAO Contacts and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 70 GAO-09-941 

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Barbara D. Bovbjerg, (202) 512-7215, bovbjergb@gao.gov 

William O. Jenkins, Jr., (202) 512-8777, jenkinswo@gao.gov 

Brett Fallavollita, Assistant Director, and Laura Heald, Analyst-in-Charge 

managed this assignment. Carolyn Blocker, Katherine Bowman, Ryan 

Siegel, and Amber Yancey-Carroll made significant contributions to this 

report in all aspects of the work. Jason Palmer, Susan Pachikara, Gretta 

Goodwin, Matthew Goldstein, and numerous staff from headquarters and 

field offices provided assistance with Election Day data collection. Carl 

Barden, Cathy Hurley, Stu Kaufman, George Quinn, and Walter Vance 

provided analytical assistance; Alex Galuten provided legal support; Paula 

Moore provided technical support; Jessica Orr provided assistance on 

report preparation; Mimi Nguyen developed the report’s graphics; and 

Anna Bonelli, Caitlin Croake, Kim Siegal, and Paul Wright verified our 

findings. 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

 Voters With Disabilities 
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Voters with Disabilities: More Polling Places Had No Potential 

Impediments Than In 2000, But Challenges Remain. GAO-09-685. 

Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2009. 

Elections: States, Territories, and the District Are Taking a Range of 

Important Steps to Manage Their Varied Voting System Environments. 

GAO-08-874. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2008. 

Elections: 2007 Survey of State Voting System Programs. 

GAO-08-1147SP. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2008. 

Elections: Federal Program for Certifying Voting Systems Needs to Be 

Further Defined, Fully Implemented, and Expanded. GAO-08-814. 

Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2008. 

Election Assistance Commission—Availability of Funds for Purchase of 

Replacement Voting Equipment. B-316107. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 

2008. 

Elderly Voters: Some Improvements in Voting Accessibility from 2000 to 

2004 Elections, but Gaps in Policy and Implementation Remain. 

GAO-08-442TT. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2008. 

Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic 

Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-741T. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2007. 

Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the 

November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 

2006. 

Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of 

Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be 

Completed. GAO-05-956. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005. 

Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents 

Challenges. GAO-04-975T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004. T

Elections: A Framework for Evaluating Reform Proposals. GAO-02-90. 

Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001. 

Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting 

Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001 

(130838) Page 71 GAO-09-941 Voters With Disabilities
GAO’s Mission 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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

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

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 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 Web site, 

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. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

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

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper