Disability and Voting 

Accessibility in the 

2022 Elections

JULY 2023
2 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

The U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) 

commissioned Rutgers 

University to conduct 

this study

Dr. Lisa Schur

Professor

Co-Director, Program for Disability Research

School of Management and Labor Relations

Rutgers University

50 Labor Center Way

New Brunswick, 08901 

lschur@smlr.rutgers.edu

Dr. Douglas Kruse

Distinguished Professor

Co-Director, Program for Disability Research

School of Management and Labor Relations

Rutgers University

94 Rockafeller Road

Piscataway, NJ 08854

dkruse@smlr.rutgers.edu

Dr. Mason Ameri

Associate Professor of Professional Practice

Rutgers Business School

Rutgers University

100 Rockafeller Road

Piscataway, NJ 08854

mason.ameri@rutgers.edu

Dr. Meera Adya

Research Professor

Department of Administration, Rehabilitation, 

& Post-Secondary Education

Research Scientist, Interwork Institute

San Diego State University

meeraadya@gmail.com
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 5

1. Survey Method Overview 6

2. Key results 7

A. Demographic and Disability Characteristics

B. Voter Turnout

C. Voting Methods

D. Voting Difficulties

E. Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting

F. Voting Difficulty by Race and Ethnicity

I. Perceived Treatment by Election Officials

J. Information Sources on Voting Process

K. Confidence That Vote Was Accurately Counted

L. Voter Comparisons of 2022 Voting to Pre-pandemic Experience

M. Preference for How to Vote in Next Election

N. Non-voting Political Participation

O. Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy

P. Recruitment for Voting

Q. Other Facilitators of Political Participation

3. Conclusion 20

Appendix: Survey Questions to Identify Disability 21

List of Figures

Figure 1: Difficulties in Voting Across All Methods, 2020 and 2022 

Figure 2: Any Difficulty in Voting at Polling Place by Disability Type, 2022 

Figure 3: Any Difficulty in Voting with Mail Ballot by Disability Type, 2022 

Figure 4: Needing Assistance or Having Difficulty in Voting, 2022 

9

10

11

14
4 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

List of Tables

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics in 2022 Survey

Table 2: Disability Characteristics in 2022 Survey

Table 3: Voter Registration and Turnout in 2020 and 2022

Table 4: Voting Methods Among Those Who Voted, 2020 and 2022

Table 5: Voting Methods by Type of Disability, 2022

Table 6: Any Voting Difficulties in 2020 and 2022

Table 7: Specific In-Person Voting Difficulties in 2020 and 2022

Table 8: Specific In-Person Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2022

Table 9: Wait Time for In-Person Voting by in 2020 and 2022

Table 10: Wait Time for In-Person Voting by Disability Type in 2022

Table 11: Specific Mail Voting Difficulties in 2020 and 2022

Table 12: Specific Mail Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2022

Table 13: Expected Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2022

Table 14: Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting in 2020 and 2022

Table 15: Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting by Disability Type in 2022

Table 16: Voting Difficulty by Race and Ethnicity in 2022

Table 17: Need for Assistance in Voting in 2020 and 2022

Table 18: Need for Assistance in Voting by Disability Type in 2022

Table 19: Needing Assistance or Having Difficulty in Voting in 2022 

Table 20: Treatment by Election Officials in 2020 and 2022

Table 21: Treatment by Election Officials by Disability Type in 2022

Table 22: Sources of Information on Voting Process in 2022

Table 23: Accessibility of Information Sources in 2022

Table 24: Confidence That Vote was Accurately Counted in 2020 and 2022

Table 25: Confidence That Vote was Accurately Counted by Disability Type in 2022

Table 26: Voter Comparisons of 2022 Voting Experience to Pre-Pandemic Experience

Table 27: Preference for How to Vote in Next Election

Table 28: Non-voting Political Participation in 2020 and 2022

Table 29: Non-voting Political Participation by Disability Type in 2022

Table 30: Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy in 2020 and 2022

Table 31: Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy by Disability Type in 2022

Table 32: Recruitment for Voting in 2020 and 2022

Table 33: Recruitment for Voting by Disability Type in 2022

Table 34: Transportation by Disability Type in 2022

Table 35: Other Facilitators of Political Participation by Disability Type in 2022 
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 5

Executive Summary

Analysis of the 2022 Disability and Voting Accessibility Survey, based on representative samples of 

citizens with and without disabilities eligible to vote in the November 2022 elections, indicates similar 

voting accessibility as in the comparable 2020 survey and greater accessibility than in the 2012 survey. 

The disability sample includes people with a range of disabilities based on Census Bureau measures. 

Some key results include the following:

People with disabilities voted at a 3.6% lower rate overall than people without disabilities in 2022 according to this survey. In the 

supplemental report using Census data, the disability gap estimate is a narrower 1.5%. 

About one in seven voters with disabilities encountered difficulties voting in 2022, which was a slight increase from the one in nine voters 

with disabilities who encountered difficulties in 2020.

The likelihood of difficulties voting in person in 2022 was 20% among people with disabilities compared to 6% among people without 

disabilities. The likelihood of difficulties voting with a mail ballot was 6% among people with disabilities compared to fewer than 1% 

among people without disabilities.

One in five voters with a disability either needed assistance or had some difficulty in voting in 2022, which was three times the rate of 

voters without disabilities.

Voting difficulties were most common among people with vision and cognitive impairments.

Close to three-fifths of voters with disabilities voted with a mail ballot or early in person in 2022, compared to just over half of voters 

without disabilities. The shift in mail voting between 2020 and 2022 was similar between voters with and without disabilities.

Voters with disabilities were similar to voters without disabilities in perceived treatment by election officials, confidence that their votes 

were accurately counted in 2022, and the extent to which they report following politics.

Following the substantial drop from 2012 to 2020 in voting difficulties among people with disabilities 

(documented in our previous report), there was a slight uptick in 2022. This is partly explained by a 

shift toward voting in polling places in 2022, following the low rate of polling place voting in 2020 due 

to the pandemic. Voting difficulties are generally more likely in polling places than in voting by mail. 

The shift partly reflects reversals of eased pandemic-related voting rules in 2020. Another explanation 

includes changes in the composition of the voting electorate between 2020 and 2022, particularly a 

small increase in disability severity that may reflect the effects of long COVID-19. 

This report reviews other key results contained in 35 tables, making comparisons to the 2020 survey 

where available. These tables cover a variety of aspects of the voting experience, including specific 

difficulties, need for assistance, confidence that one’s vote was accurately counted, voter comparisons 

of 2022 voting to their pre-pandemic experience, and preferred method of voting in the next election. 

We also provide data on non-voting forms of political participation, political interest, recruitment for 

voting, and other facilitators of voting. We break out all results by major disability type (hearing, vision, 

cognitive, and mobility impairment) and need for help with daily activities. 
6 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

1 Survey Method Overview

With support from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Rutgers University worked with 

the survey firm SSRS to conduct a survey of voting-eligible citizens with and without disabilities 

following the 2022 national elections. The survey was designed to replicate the method and 

questions of our 2012 and 2020 post-election surveys that the EAC also sponsored. The 2022 

survey had 2,001 respondents, stratified to include 1,198 citizens with disabilities and 803 without 

disabilities. As in 2012 and 2020, the oversampling of citizens with disabilities was done to get a large 

enough sample for small margins of error and reliable breakdowns by major types of disability and 

demographic variables.

The survey was conducted by SSRS, the same firm that did the earlier surveys. SSRS is a wellestablished survey firm and a member of the American Association of Public Opinion Research 

(AAPOR). The surveys were conducted using representative samples combined with state-of-theart techniques and AAPOR standards. The survey samples are weighted to ensure they closely 

reflect the underlying populations of citizens with and without disabilities. 

Identification of disability is based on seven questions. The first six questions are used in the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and Current Population Survey Voting 

and Registration Supplement. These questions identify mobility, vision, hearing and cognitive 

impairments, and difficulty with self-care or going outside alone. As in earlier surveys, we added a 

seventh broad question to capture other types of disability. The seven questions are presented in the 

Appendix. For those identified with a disability, we asked several questions about the nature of the 

disability (condition, duration, and need for assistance). 

The questions about voting and voter engagement are based on validated measures from the Current 

Population Survey and American National Election Studies (sponsored by the National Science 

Foundation). Questions about difficulties in voting were developed in consultation with political 

scientists and representatives of disability organizations. 
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 7

2 Key results

The results are shown in 35 tables at the end of this document. The tables contain many detailed 

breakdowns. In the discussion below, we focus only on what we see as the key results, but we are 

glad to engage in discussion with the EAC and other interested parties on any of the outcomes. The 

tables contain asterisks indicating which differences are statistically significant—that is, large enough 

to be outside the margin of sampling error so that a difference of zero can be statistically rejected at 

a confidence level of at least 95%.

It is essential that the tables are fully accessible for all people with disabilities. We have used several 

techniques to increase the accessibility of the tables and are willing to take further steps to resolve 

any accessibility issues.

Following is an overview of the key results from the survey, organized by topic. The key result for 

each topic is presented in an initial bolded sentence.

A. Demographic and Disability Characteristics

The sample broadly reflects what we know about the disability population from many other data sources (Tables 1 

and 2). There appears to be a small increase in disability severity from 2020 to 2022.

People with disabilities are disproportionately likely to be older and non-married, less likely to have a high school or 

college degree, and less likely to be Hispanic/Latino (Table 1). They are similar, however, to people without disabilities 

on breakdowns of gender and geographic region. Within the disability sample in 2022 (Table 2), mobility impairments 

are most common (49%), followed by cognitive (24%), hearing (17%), and vision impairments (11%). (Note that a 

person may fall into more than one of these categories.) Three-fourths (76%) say they are limited in activities of daily 

living, and one-third (36%) report needing help in activities of daily living. Just over two-fifths (43%) report “a lot” of 

difficulty in daily activities.

The 2020 and 2022 disability samples are similar on most measures, except that there was an increase in the percent 

saying they are limited in activities of daily living (from 69% to 76%) and an increase in the reported level of difficulty 

with activities (an increase from 3.11 to 3.22 on a 4-point scale) (Table 2). These changes may reflect the effects of 

long Covid that appear to be responsible for increased disability prevalence in the past two years.1

1 National Center for Health Statistics, “Nearly One in Five American Adults Who Have Had COVID-19 Still Have ‘Long COVID’,” June 22, 2022; Louise Sheiner and Nasiha 

Salwati, “How Much is Long COVID Reducing Labor Force Participation? Not Much (So Far),” Brookings Institution, Hutchins Center Working Paper #80, October 2022.
8 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

B. Voter Turnout

Consistent with data from 2020 and prior elections, people with disabilities appear slightly less likely than those 

without disabilities to have voted in 2022 (Table 3). 

These results indicate a 3.6 percentage point gap between the turnout of people with and without disabilities in 2022. 

Our supplemental report analyzing the Census data indicates a slightly narrower disability gap of 1.5 percentage points 

in 2022, down from the 4.8 point gap in the 2018 midterm elections.2

While the 3.6-point disability gap is within the survey’s margin of error, the gap expands to 10.0 percentage points 

which is outside the margin of error when we adjust for age—that is when we account for the fact that older people 

are more likely to vote by comparing people with and without disabilities who are of the same age. The age-adjusted 

numbers also show that the lowest relative turnout in 2022 occurred among people with cognitive impairments (a 

13.4-point gap compared to people without disabilities) and mobility impairments (a 13.1-point gap).

The reported turnout numbers are higher than the actual turnout, reflecting the well-known phenomenon of survey 

respondents overreporting socially desirable activities such as voting. Past research on overreporting gives no reason 

to think that overreporting will differ by disability status.3 Overreporting may slightly decrease the overall estimates of 

voting difficulties. Still, there is no reason to believe it will create bias in comparing voting difficulties between people 

with and without disabilities.

C. Voting Methods

The shift to voting in person in 2022 compared to 2020 was similar between voters with and without disabilities 

(Tables 4 and 5). 

Following the high rate of voting by mail in 2020 due to the pandemic, the percentage voting in person at a polling 

place or election office increased in 2022 by nine percentage points among both voters without disabilities (56% 

to 65%) and voters with disabilities (49% to 58%) (Table 4, first row). While the size of the shift to using a mail 

ballot was similar, people with disabilities are generally more likely than those without disabilities to vote by mail.4

About two-fifths (42%) of voters with disabilities used a mail ballot in 2022, compared to one-third (35%) of voters 

without disabilities (Table 4, columns 4 and 5). Voters with disabilities were especially likely to return a mail ballot 

using the postal service. They were no more or less likely than voters without disabilities to use drop boxes or take a 

ballot to a polling place or election office. 

The use of mail ballots was higher for voters with disabilities than those without disabilities across the major disability 

types (Table 5). People with mobility impairments and those needing help with daily activities were the likeliest to 

use mail ballots (46% and 47%, respectively). 

Both early voting and voting by mail are designed to make voting easier. Two-fifths (61%) of voters with disabilities 

used one of these two methods in 2022 compared to just over half (54%) of voters without disabilities (Table 4, 

columns 4 and 5). 

2 Lisa Schur and Douglas Kruse, “Fact sheet: Disability and Voter Turnout in the 2018 Elections,” Rutgers University Program for Disability Research. 

3 While no studies have specifically related disability to overreporting, there are mixed results on characteristics related to both disability and overreporting such as age, education, 

income, religious attendance, and contact by political parties (e.g., Kanazawa, S., “Who Lies on Surveys, and What Can We Do About It.” Journal of Social, Political, and Economic 

Studies, 2005, 30(3):361; Holbrook, A., and J. Krosnick, “Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports: Tests Using the Item Count Technique.” Public Opinion Quarterly 2010, 

74(1):37–6l; Brenner, P. S., “Overreporting of Voting Participation as a Function of Identity.” Social Science Journal, 2012, 49(4):421–29).

4 See 2020 election figures at Lisa Schur and Douglas Kruse, “Fact Sheet: Disability and Voter Turnout in the 2020 Elections,” Program for Disability Research, Rutgers University.
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 9 

D. Voting Difficulties

The incidence of voting difficulties among voters with disabilities ticked up slightly from 2020 to 2022 

(Tables 6 to 12). 

Overall, the percent of voters with disabilities reporting voting difficulties across all methods increased from 11% to 

14%, while the rate dropped from 6% to 4% among voters without disabilities. See Figure 1 below.

Looking only at those who voted in person at a polling place or election office, reported difficulties among voters with 

disabilities increased from 18% to 20%. In comparison, the corresponding change in difficulties among voters using 

mail ballots was 5% to 6%. Both of these changes from 2020 to 2022 are within the survey’s margin of error. As 

noted in our previous report, voting difficulties for both methods decreased significantly from 2012 to 2020, and the 

2022 rates of voting difficulty continue to be well below the 2012 rates.

Because voting difficulties declined among voters without disabilities from 2020 to 2022, the gap in difficulties 

between voters with and without disabilities increased. In 2022 the overall rate of voting difficulties was over three 

times higher among people with disabilities than those without disabilities (14% compared to 4%). Among those voting 

in person, the rate of difficulties was over three times higher among people with disabilities (20% compared to 6% 

among voters without disabilities). Among those voting with a mail ballot, the rate of difficulties was twenty times 

higher (6.1% compared to 0.3% among voters without disabilities). These disability gaps in each year, and the increase 

in the gap between years, are strong enough to be outside the statistical margin of error.
10 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Why did the disability gap in voting difficulties apparently increase between 2020 and 2022? Our report on the 

2020 survey found that about half of the drop in polling place voting difficulties from 2012 to 2020 appeared 

to be due to a change in the composition of polling place voters, as people with the most severe disabilities were 

disproportionately likely to switch to voting by mail. Similarly, some of the differences in voting difficulties between 

2020 and 2022 appear to be due to a change in the composition of the voters between the two elections. It appears 

there was a slight increase in disability severity between 2020 and 2022, as reflected in Table 2 by an increase 

both in difficulty with and needing help with daily activities in the disability sample. This increase in severity may be 

because of long COVID-19 illness, which has increased over the past two years and is linked to some reduction in 

labor force participation and hours worked. Apart from this compositional change that is linked to increased voting 

difficulties, there was also a general shift toward voting in person in 2022. Since voting in person tends to involve 

more voting difficulties, this shift accounts for about one-third of the overall increase in voting difficulties. This shift 

may partly reflect the rollback of temporary state policies that expanded mail and early voting options in the early 

stages of the pandemic in 2020.

In sum, it appears that compositional and voting method changes among voters with disabilities can account for 

most or all of the slightly increased rate of voting difficulties among voters with disabilities between 2020 and 

2022. However, it is difficult to assign a precise number to these effects given the minor changes involved. In our 

2020 report, we attributed about half of the drop in in-person polling place difficulties between 2012 and 2020 to 

improved polling place accessibility, but we cannot make a firm declaration on the role of accessibility in the changes 

between 2020 and 2022.

Specific difficulties with voting in person

Looking at specific difficulties, in-person voters with disabilities in 2022 were more likely than those without disabilities 

to report difficulties waiting in line, getting inside the polling place, reading or seeing the ballot, or writing on the ballot 

(Table 7, column 6). The only significant change in voting difficulties between 2020 and 2022 is that voters without 

disabilities reported less difficulty waiting in line in 2022 (unlike voters with disabilities who did not report a 

significant change). 

Figure 2 shows the difficulty in voting broken down by disability type, summarized from Table 8. Just over one-half of 

people with vision impairments (53%) reported difficulty in voting at a polling place, although the rates of difficulty 

were also high for other disability types, particularly those needing help in daily activities (30%) and with cognitive 

impairments (28%).

5 Louise Sheiner and Nasiha Salwati, “How Much is Long COVID Reducing Labor Force Participation? Not Much (So Far),” Brookings Institution, Hutchins Center Working Paper 

#80, October 2022.
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 11

Wait times at polling places

The surveys asked polling place voters how long they had to wait in line to vote. As shown in Table 9, the average wait 

time in 2022 was 17 minutes for voters with disabilities, very close to that for voters without disabilities (columns 4 and 

5). These average wait times dropped significantly for voters with and without disabilities from 2020 to 2022. Table 10 

shows that while people with vision impairments appeared to have the highest average wait time (35 minutes), the wait 

times did not significantly vary by disability type.

Specific difficulties with mail ballots

Among voters with disabilities using mail ballots, the most commonly reported problem was difficulty receiving the 

ballot (2%, in Table 11, column 5). Just over 1% reported difficulty in reading the ballot, which, not surprisingly, was 

most common among voters with vision impairments (14% in Table 12, column 4). Counting all difficulties, voters with 

vision impairments were clearly the most likely to have difficulty voting with a mail ballot (38%, in Table 12, column 4). 

The distribution of mail voting difficulties by disability type is shown in Figure 3 below.

Expected voting difficulties among non-voters and those using a different method

As another way of assessing the importance of voting difficulties, the survey asked non-voters if they would expect 

voting difficulties if they voted either in person or using a mail ballot, and also asked in-person and mail voters if they 

would expect difficulties using the other method (the one they did not use). As shown in Table 13, non-voters with 

disabilities were significantly more likely than non-voters without disabilities to expect problems if they were to try 

to vote. Among people with disabilities who did not vote this year, about one-fourth (28%) would expect difficulties 

voting in person, and one-seventh (13%) would expect difficulties voting by mail. Among people with disabilities 

who voted by mail, about two-fifths (39%) would expect difficulties voting in person, while among those voting in 

person, about one-ninth (12%) would expect difficulties in voting by mail. These numbers for expected problems in 

voting in person or by mail are higher than the actual difficulty rates reported in Table 6, possibly reflecting a) more 

limiting disabilities that create greater difficulties among those not using a particular method, b) greater anxiety about 

expected difficulties among those not voting with a particular method, or c) or a tendency to justify one’s decision not 

to vote by reporting expected difficulties.
12 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

E. Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting

The perceived difficulty of voting was similar in both 2020 and 2022 between voters with and without disabilities, 

except that voters who need help in daily activities were less likely than those without disabilities to say that voting 

was easy in 2022 (Tables 14 and 15). 

Both the 2020 and 2022 surveys asked voters for their overall assessment of the voting experience, using the 

question, “Overall, how easy or difficult was your experience in voting at the polling place/by mail or drop box?” The 

answers were similar between people with and without disabilities in both years (Table 14). 

When broken down by type of disability, people who need help with daily activities were less likely than people without 

disabilities to say that voting in person or by mail in 2022 was easy, and people with cognitive impairments were less 

likely than people without disabilities to say that voting by mail was easy (Table 15, columns 5 and 8). 

F. Voting Difficulty by Race and Ethnicity

Voting difficulties and average wait times for in-person voting were especially high among Hispanic/Latino voters 

with disabilities. Reported voting difficulties were also higher among Black and White non-Hispanic people with 

disabilities relative to people without disabilities in those groups. However, perceptions of the ease or difficulty of 

voting did not differ by disability status within these groups. The comparisons are limited by small sample sizes 

(Table 16).

Hispanic/Latino voters with disabilities reported the highest rates of voting difficulties, relative both to Hispanic/Latino 

voters without disabilities and to Black and White non-Hispanic voters with and without disabilities. They also had the 

highest average wait time among all groups for in-person voting (37.4 minutes compared to 27.5 minutes for Hispanic/

Latino voters without disabilities). Black non-Hispanic voters with disabilities reported an average of 25.2 minutes 

waiting at a polling place compared to only 12.7 minutes among Black non-Hispanic voters without disabilities and 11.3 

minutes among White non-Hispanic voters with disabilities. The average wait time among White non-Hispanic voters 

without disabilities was 16.2 minutes, indicating that any preference people with disabilities received in moving to the 

front of the line was most common among White non-Hispanic voters. The differences in wait times between voters 

with and without disabilities in each group were within the margins of error.

Given the limited samples when broken down by disability, race, and ethnicity, these results should be treated as 

exploratory information on the voting experiences of people with disabilities by race and ethnicity. 
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 13

G. Need for Assistance in Voting

The percent of in-person voters with disabilities needing assistance increased between 2020 and 2022 from 6% to 

11% and stayed stable among mail voters with disabilities at 11%. Election officials were most likely to assist in-person 

voters, and family members were most likely to assist those voting by mail (Tables 17 and 18).

While our previous report found that the percent of people with disabilities needing assistance in voting in person 

dropped markedly from 2012 to 2020 (30% to 6%), the 2022 rate rebounded somewhat to 11% (columns 2 and 5, 

Table 17). 

Among those needing assistance at a polling place in 2022, election officials were the most likely to provide such help 

for voters both with and without disabilities (66% and 72%, respectively), though close to one-fourth of voters with 

disabilities relied on either a family member (19%) or friend (6%) (Table 17, columns 4 and 5).

The percent of voters with disabilities using mail ballots who needed assistance stayed stable from 2020 to 2022 at 

close to 11%, with 6% needing assistance in completing the ballot and 10% needing assistance in returning the ballot 

in 2022 (Table 17, column 5). Family members were the most likely to provide such assistance (34%), while one-fifth 

(21%) relied on friends or neighbors (Table 17, column 5).

When broken down by type of disability, people with vision impairments were the most likely to need assistance in 

voting. About two-fifths of them needed assistance whether voting in person (39%) or with a mail ballot (42%) (Table 

18, column 4).
14 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

H. Needing Assistance or Having Difficulty

About one-fifth of voters with disabilities in 2020 reported either needing assistance or having some type of 

difficulty in voting, which is twice the rate of voters without disabilities. This included about one-fourth of in-person 

voters with disabilities and one-seventh of mail voters with disabilities. The highest rate was among people with 

vision impairments, of whom over half reported needing assistance or having difficulty (Table 19).

Combining the survey measures on voting difficulties and the need for assistance, we can calculate what percentage 

of voters either needed assistance or had difficulty (adjusting for overlap). As shown in Figure 4 below, 20% of voters 

with disabilities needed assistance or had difficulty voting, compared to 6% without disabilities. 

Put another way, the number who voted independently without any difficulty was four out of five voters with 

disabilities (80%) compared to almost nineteen out of twenty (94%) voters without disabilities.

The likelihood of needing assistance or having difficulty was higher for people with disabilities than those without 

disabilities both among in-person voters (25% compared to 7%) and voters using mail ballots (14% compared to 4%). 

This rate was high across all the types of disability and was especially high for voters with vision impairments (54%) 

or cognitive impairments (32%) (Table 19, columns 4 and 5).
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 15

I. Perceived Treatment by Election Officials

Voters with disabilities were as likely as those without disabilities in 2020 and 2022 to report that election officials 

were “very respectful” toward them. The highest reports on this measure in 2022 occurred among people with vision 

impairments (Tables 20 and 21). 

While our previous report showed a decline in the reported respectfulness of election officials toward voters both with 

and without disabilities between 2012 and 2020 (possibly reflecting unusually high turnout and stress in the 2020 

election due in part to the pandemic), perceived respect levels increased slightly but not significantly for both groups 

in 2022. Voters with disabilities were as likely as those without disabilities in 2022 to report that election officials were 

“very respectful” toward them. The 2022 pattern is similar across disability types, with people with vision impairments 

being most likely to report that election officials were “very respectful” (90%) (Table 21, column 4).

J. Information Sources on Voting Process

People with and without disabilities were most likely to get information on the voting process in 2022 from printed 

mailings from the election office. People with disabilities were less likely than those without disabilities to use any 

internet-based sources and more likely to use non-internet-based sources such as printed mailings and television for 

such information. Both websites and print sources of voting information were rated as less accessible by people with 

disabilities than by those without disabilities (Tables 22 and 23). 

Two-fifths of people with disabilities in 2022 said they received information on the voting process and where to 

vote from printed mailings from the election office (41%), and just over one-fourth noted that they received it from 

communicating with people through email or texts (29%) or television (28%) (Table 21, column 2). 

The pattern was similar between people with and without disabilities, except that people with disabilities were less 

likely than people without disabilities to use internet-based sources (54% compared to 66%) and more likely to use 

non-internet-based sources (75% compared to 64%). This reflects the “digital divide” of lower internet access among 

people with disabilities, as explored in our 2022 EAC report “Disability, the Voting Process, and the Digital Divide.”

Looking specifically at internet-based sources, those with disabilities were significantly less likely than those without 

disabilities to have used the election office website (19% compared to 29%), social media or an online community (18% 

compared to 22%), a news website (12% compared to 18%), or another type of website (8% compared to 11%). Looking 

at non-internet-based sources, those with disabilities were significantly more likely to have used printed material from 

the election office (41% compared to 35%), television (28% compared to 22%), printed newspapers (18% compared to 

13%), and calling the election office (7% compared to 4%).

The use of internet-based sources was especially low among those with hearing impairments (48%) or mobility 

impairments (47%), while the use of non-internet-based sources was especially high among those with vision 

impairments (84%) or needing help with daily activities (78%).

Both websites and print sources of voting information were less likely to be rated as fully accessible by people with 

disabilities than by people without disabilities. Accessibility of both sources was rated lowest by people with vision or 

cognitive impairments. The most common complaint for both sources was that the material had small print or was 

otherwise difficult to read (Table 23).
16 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

K. Confidence That Vote Was Accurately Counted

Confidence that one’s vote was accurately counted increased among voters without disabilities from 2020 to 2022, 

and there was little difference in this confidence between voters with and without disabilities, or across disability 

types, in 2022 (Tables 24 and 25). 

In 2020 only 59% of voters without disabilities were highly confident their vote was accurately counted, which 

was less than the two-thirds (68%) of voters with disabilities who said this. Confidence increased among voters 

without disabilities in 2022, so there was little difference between voters with and without disabilities (65% and 67%, 

respectively, said they were “highly confident”). In 2022 there was little difference in such confidence between inperson and mail voters and among people with different types of disabilities.

L. Voter Comparisons of 2022 Voting to Pre-pandemic Experience

Asked to compare the ease or difficulty of voting in 2022 with the last time they voted before the pandemic, twothirds of voters with and without disabilities said it was about the same. Reports that voting was easier in 2022 were 

more common than reports that it was more difficult. This was especially true among those who voted by mail in 

2022 and in person before the pandemic, but it was also true among those who voted in person both times 

(Table 26).

We asked for voters’ subjective impressions of voting compared to the last time they voted before the pandemic. 

Overall about one-fourth said it was somewhat or much easier (25% of voters with disabilities and 24% of voters 

without disabilities), while similar numbers said it was “about the same” (69% and 70%) and 6% of each group said it 

was more difficult. Over half of those who voted by mail in 2022 but in person before the pandemic noted that voting 

was easier this year (60% of voters without disabilities and 54% of voters with disabilities).
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 17

M. Preference for How to Vote in Next Election

Just under half of people with disabilities, and over half without disabilities, would prefer voting in a polling place in 

the next election. About one-third of people with disabilities would prefer voting by mail, while a combined onesixth would prefer voting by other methods (Table 27).

Both 2022 voters and non-voters were asked, “If you wanted to vote in the next election, how would you prefer to 

cast your vote?” Five options were presented to the respondents, and the options were randomly rotated to avoid 

any bias from the order of the options. The most popular option was voting in person inside a polling place, chosen by 

close to half (47%) of people with disabilities and over half (56%) of people without disabilities. The next most popular 

option was receiving and sending a ballot by mail or drop box, chosen by one-third (34%) of people with disabilities and 

one-fourth (25%) of people without disabilities. Choices among the remaining three options did not differ significantly 

by disability status: about one-seventh (13-16%) chose voting fully online by personal computer or smartphone, 3-4% 

chose filling out a ballot online and then printing and mailing it, and 2-3% chose voting by drive through or curbside.

Comparing the preferences of 2022 voters and non-voters, in-person voting was most popular among both groups 

— except that non-voters without disabilities slightly preferred voting entirely online (37%). The relatively new option 

of filling out a ballot online and then printing it out and mailing it has promise in that it enables people with vision 

impairments to vote confidentially at home. That option was chosen by 9% of people with vision impairments, an 

increase over the 5% who chose this in the 2020 survey.

N. Non-voting Political Participation

Participation in non-voting political activities did not change significantly between 2020 and 2022 among people 

with and without disabilities, except that contributions to a political party or group declined among both groups. 

There were no general differences between people with and without disabilities, or by disability type, except that 

people with cognitive impairments were less likely than those without disabilities to engage in non-voting political 

activities in 2022 (Tables 28 and 29).

In addition to measuring voting, the survey measured several types of non-voting political activities, such as 

contributing to or working for a political candidate. Just under half of people with and without disabilities (44% and 

47%, respectively) engaged in at least one of the eight activities measured in 2022 (Table 28, columns 4 and 5). 

People with cognitive impairments were the least likely to engage in one or more of the activities (38%) (Table 29, 

column 5).

Apart from the clearly political activities, 5% of people with disabilities in 2022 reported having “worked to change a 

private organization’s policies or practices affecting people with disabilities, such as through talking to business owners 

or filing lawsuits.” 
18 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

O. Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy

While people with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities in 2020 to say they follow politics, 

the reported interest among people without disabilities increased in 2022 so that this disability gap mostly closed. 

In 2020 people with disabilities reported lower perceived ability to participate in politics and lower perceived 

responsiveness of the political system, but these disability gaps also narrowed in 2022. Perceptions of the influence 

and respect of people with disabilities in politics are similar between people with and without disabilities in 2022. 

Just under half (48%) of people with disabilities said they follow politics “most of the time” in 2022, slightly higher 

than among people without disabilities (44%) (Table 30, columns 4 and 5). This percentage was highest among those 

with mobility impairments (51%) and hearing impairments (50%) (Table 31, columns 3 and 6).

Perceptions of one’s political competence (“internal efficacy”) and the responsiveness of the political system (“external 

efficacy”) have both been found to strongly influence political participation. Past research has found people with 

disabilities to have lower average scores on both measures, helping to account for their lower voter turnout.6 Using 

standard measures of internal and external efficacy, this survey finds that people with disabilities had lower average 

scores on both measures in 2020, and the disability gaps closed somewhat so that they were within the margin of error 

in 2022 (Table 30, columns 3 and 6). 

The survey also asked specifically about the perceived influence of, and respect for, people with disabilities in politics. 

People both with and without disabilities reported similar views on these measures in both 2020 and 2022 (Table 30, 

columns 7 and 8), and the views did not vary significantly by disability type (Table 31).

P. Recruitment for Voting

Despite their greater social isolation, people with and without disabilities were equally likely to have someone talk to 

them about registering to vote or getting out to vote in both 2020 and 2022 (Tables 32 and 33). 

Having someone talk to you about voting strongly predicts voter turnout. While people with disabilities are more 

socially isolated in general, they were equally likely in both years to report that someone talked to them about 

registering or getting out to vote (close to 40% among both groups in both years) (Table 32, columns 1, 2, 4 and 5). 

People with vision and mobility impairments were the least likely to report being recruited for voting in 2022 (33% and 

36%, respectively) (Table 33, columns 4 and 6).

Not surprisingly, the low employment levels of people with disabilities led to especially low rates of being recruited for 

voting by co-workers (Table 32).

6

 Lisa Schur, Todd Shields, and Kay Schriner, “Can I Make A Difference? Efficacy, Employment, and Disability,” Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 1, March 2003, pp. 119-149; Lisa 

Schur, Todd Shields, Douglas Kruse, and Kay Schriner, “Enabling Democracy: Disability and Voter Turnout,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 1, March 2002, pp. 167-190.
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 19

Q. Other Facilitators of Political Participation

The political participation of people with disabilities is constrained by their lower access to personal vehicles for 

transportation, and lower employment, income, and education levels. They are, however, equally likely as people 

without disabilities to meet regularly with groups and more likely to attend religious services every week (Tables 34 

and 35).

Transportation access, social connections, and economic and educational resources shape political participation. People 

with disabilities are less likely than those without disabilities to have a car they can drive (71% compared to 91%) or to 

use their own or a family vehicle (79% compared to 90%) (Table 34, columns 1 and 2). Their transportation needs are 

disproportionately met by someone else’s vehicle, taxi or rideshare, or para-transit. They are similar to people without 

disabilities in their reports of transportation problems, except that people with cognitive impairments are less likely to 

say that they “never or rarely” have transportation problems (43% compared to 48% among people 

without disabilities).

Looking at other facilitators of participation, employment can provide both economic resources and social connections 

that encourage participation. People with disabilities have much lower employment levels than people without 

disabilities in 2020 (22% compared to 61%) (Table 35, columns 1 and 2). Also consistent with other data sources, they 

have lower average income levels and are less likely to have Bachelor’s or graduate degrees. 

People with disabilities do not appear to face gaps, however, in other measures of social connections: about one-third 

of people both with and without disabilities report meeting regularly with any groups or organizations (33% and 39% 

respectively), and people with disabilities are about as likely to say they attend religious services every week (20% 

compared to 21%) (Table 35, columns 1 and 2).

In follow-up research, we will use these data to examine how these and other facilitators help to shape voting and other 

political participation among people with and without disabilities.
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY 20 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

3 Conclusion

The results show that the significant progress in voting accessibility since 2012 (documented in 

our earlier 2020 report) has largely been sustained in 2022. This reflects well on the efforts of the 

EAC, election officials, policy-makers, and disability organizations. Nevertheless, voting difficulties 

increased slightly among voters with disabilities from 2020 to 2022, and they remain significantly 

more likely than those without disabilities to experience voting difficulties, indicating that more 

work needs to be done to improve accessibility. We are glad to answer any questions or provide 

clarification on these results. We look forward to working with the EAC to make these results as 

useful as possible.
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 21 

Appendix

Note: The first six questions are used by the U.S. Census Bureau in the American Community 

Survey and Current Population Survey. The seventh question was designed for the 2012 and 2020 

disability and voting accessibility surveys to capture other types of disability. A “yes” response to any 

of these questions qualifies a respondent as having a disability.

1. Are you deaf or have serious difficulty hearing?

2. Are you blind or have serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses?

3. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, do you have serious difficulty 

concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?

4. Do you have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs?

5. Do you have difficulty dressing or bathing?

6. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, do you have difficulty doing errands alone 

such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping?

7. Do you have a long-term health problem or impairment that limits the kind or amount of work, 

housework, or other activities you can do?
22 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics in 2022 Survey

Key results: People with disabilities in this sample are older and less likely to be married or have college degrees 

than those without disabilities, but are similar in gender and regional breakdown.

Non- disability sample Disability sample

Total 100% 100%

Female 51.2% 52.2%

Male 47.0% 44.9%

Black non-Hispanic/Latino 10.9% 12.8%

Hispanic/Latino 15.6% 11.0%*

White non-Hispanic/Latino 63.4% 68.0%

Other race/ethnicity 10.0% 7.9%

Age 18-34 23.3% 9.7%**

Age 35-49 36.4% 21.3%**

Age 50-64 21.2% 29.3%**

Age 65+ 19.2% 39.6%**

Married, spouse present 45.7% 37.1%**

Separated/divorced 16.4% 19.8%

Widowed 4.8% 16.4%**

Never married 33.1% 26.8%*

No HS degree 3.9% 8.5%**

HS degree/GED 27.0% 38.1%**

Some college, no degree 17.1% 199.6%

Associate’s degree 13.2% 11.6%

Bachelor’s degree 24.2% 13.3%**

Graduate degree 4.8% 2.7%

Northeast 17.4% 17.0%

Midwest 19.6% 22.6%

South 32.2% 39.7%

West 25.9% 20.7%*

Sample size 803 1,198

* Difference between disability and non-disability samples is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 23

Table 2: Disability Characteristics in 2020 and 2022

Key results: Half of those in the 2022 disability sample have mobility impairments, while one-eighth to onefourth have hearing, vision, or cognitive impairments. One-third need help in daily activities. There appears to 

be an increase in disability severity from 2020 to 2022.

All figures limited to the disability sample 2020 2022

100% 100%

Hearing impairment 17.8% 16.8%

Totally deaf 0.9% 0.9%

Vision impairment 12.0% 10.5%

Totally blind 1.4% 1.6%

Cognitive impairment 23.8% 23.8%

Mobility impairment 47.8% 49.3%

Wheelchair user 7.4% 8.3%

Cane or crutches user 26.1% 28.7%

Difficulty dressing or bathing 12.7% 12.6%

Difficulty going outside alone 26.6% 29.5%

Limited in activities of daily living 68.7% 76.4%**

Need help in activities of daily living 31.9% 36.3%

Level of difficulty with activities:

Hardly at all 6.4% 3.9%*

A little 16.5% 13.4%

Some 36.4% 39.4%

A lot 40.6% 43.1%

Mean of 1-4 scale 3.11 3.22*

Sample Size 1,782 1,198

* Change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence

 ** 99% level of confidence
24 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 3: Voter Registration and Turnout in 2020 and 2022

Key results: The turnout gap between people with and without disabilities was similar in 2020 and 2022, and 

slightly larger in 2022 after adjusting for age differences. 

Voting method

2012, 

No 

disabillity

2012, 

Disability

2012, 

Disability 

gap

2020, No 

disability

2020, 

Disability

2020, 

Disability 

gap

Change 

from 2012 

to 2020, No 

disability

Change 

from 2012 

to 2020, 

Disability

Change 

from 2012 

to 2020 in 

disability 

gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Registered to vote 90.9% 89.1% -1.7% 92.8% 91.9% -0.8% 1.9% 2.8% 0.9%

Voted 83.6% 80.0% -3.6% 81.0% 77.4% -3.6% -2.7% -2.7% 0.0%

Voted using provisional ballot 0.3% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1%

Tried to vote but were unable 2.0% 2.8% 0.8% 2.8% 4.9% 2.1%* 0.8% 2.1%* 1.3%

Offered provisional ballot 

but did not vote 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.6% 0.8% -0.2% 0.6% 0.8%

Not offered provisional 

ballot, not allowed to vote 0.7% 1.0% 0.4% 0.7% 2.1% 1.4%* 0.0% 1.1% 1.1%

Not able to vote for 

other reason 0.3% 0.8% 0.5% 1.2% 1.1% -0.1% 0.9% 0.3% -0.6%

Voting gap adjusted for age^

Any disability -7.1%** -10.0%**

 Hearing impairment -1.9% -9.9%*

Vision impairment -11.6%** -9.0%

Cognitive impairment -10.3%** -13.4%**

Mobility impairment -6.5% -13.1%**

Disability but no need for 

help with daily activities -5.6%* -9.5%**

Disability with need for 

help in daily activities -7.6%* -10.6%**

Sample size 787 1,782 803 1,198

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

** 99% level of confidence

^ Age-adjusted estimates represent comparisons between people with and without disabilities who are the same age. Based on probit regressions predicting voting that control for age and age squared.
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 25

Table 4: Voting Methods Among Those Who Voted, 2020 and 2022

Key results: The increase in voting in person was similar between voters with and without disabilities from 2020 

to 2022. People with disabilities were 7 points more likely to vote by mail in both years. The use of dropboxes 

was similar between the two groups. Three-fifths of people with disabilities either voted with a mail ballot or 

voted early at a polling place or election office in 2022.

Voting method

2020, 

No 

disabillity

2020, 

Disability

2020, 

Disability 

gap

2022, No 

disability

2022, 

Disability

2022, 

Disability 

gap

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability 

gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

In person at polling place or 

election office 56.1% 48.7% -7.3%* 65.0% 57.7% -7.4%* 9.0%** 8.9%** 0.0%

In person on 

election day 31.2% 24.8% -6.4%* 46.3% 39.0% -7.3%* 15.1%** 14.2%** -0.9%

In person before 

election day 24.8% 23.9% -0.9% 18.7% 18.7% -0.1 -6.1%* -5.2%* 0.8%

Mail ballot--any use 43.9% 51.3% 7.3%* 35.0% 42.3% 7.4% -9.0%** -8.9%** 0.0%

Received ballot by 

computer

1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% -0.9% -0.4% 0.5%

Sent ballot by 

postal service 17.5% 27.5% 10.0%** 18.8% 27.7% 8.9%** 1.2% 0.2% -1.1%

Delivered ballot 

to dropbox 17.7% 15.7% -2.0% 12.0% 10.1% -1.9% -5.8%* -5.6%** 0.2%

Took mail ballot to polling 

place or election office 

before election day

7.1% 5.2% -1.8%* 2.3% 2.9% 0.6%* -4.7%** -2.3%* 2.4%

Took mail ballot to polling 

place or election office on 

election day

1.0% 1.7% 0.7% 1.1% 1.4% 0.3% 0.1% -0.3% -0.4%

Voted early or with mail ballot 68.8% 74.2% 5.4%* 53.6% 60.9% 7.3%* -15.2%** -13.3%** 1.9%

Sample size 690 1,494 674 944

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

 ** 99% level of confidence
26 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 5: Voting Methods by Type of Disability, 2022

Key results: Voting by mail was most common among people with mobility impairments and those who need 

help in daily activities.

Voting method No disability Any disability Hearing 

Impairment

Vision 

Impairment

Cognitive 

Impairment

Mobility 

Impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need for 

help in daily 

activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

In person at polling place 65.0% 57.7%* 60.8% 57.7% 58.7% 53.6%** 59.7% 52.8%**

In person on election day 46.3% 39.0%* 40.1% 39.6% 43.1% 35.9%** 38.0%* 39.2%

In person before 

election day 18.7% 18.7% 20.7% 18.2% 15.6% 17.6% 21.7% 13.6%

Mail ballot--any use 35.0% 42.3%* 39.2% 42.3% 41.3% 46.4%** 40.3% 47.2%**

Received ballot 

by computer 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 1.3% 2.0% 1.5% 0.3% 1.9%

Sent ballot by 

postal service 18.8% 27.7%** 26.4% 30.3% 26.4% 32.5%** 25.2%* 32.8%**

Delivered ballot to dropbox 12.0% 10.1% 9.8% 7.5% 10.2% 8.6% 10.7% 9.3%

Took mail ballot to polling 

place or election office 

before election day

2.3% 2.9% 0.9% 0.5% 1.9% 2.9% 2.6% 3.5%

Took mail ballot to polling 

place or election office on 

election day

1.1% 1.4% 1.9% 3.2% 1.9% 2.2% 1.5% 1.3%

Voted early or with mail ballot 53.6% 60.9%* 59.9% 60.4% 56.9% 64.0%** 61.9%* 60.7%

Sample size 676 946 135 91 176 453 600 340

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level of confidence
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 27

Table 6: Any Voting Difficulties in 2020 and 2022

Key results: The percent of voters with disabilities reporting any voting difficulties ticked up slightly from 

2020 to 2022. One-fifth (20%) of voters with disabilities reported difficulties voting in person in 2022, and 

6% reported difficulties in voting by mail, which were more than three times the rates among voters without 

disabilities. Specific voting difficulties are presented in Tables 7 to 12.

Voting method 2020, 

No disabillity

2020, 

Disability

2020, 

Disability gap

2022, No 

disability

2022, 

Disability

2022, 

Disability gap

Change from 

2020 to 

2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Any difficulty in voting 

across all methods 6.4% 11.4% 5.0%** 4.1% 14.0% 10.0%** -2.4% 2.6% 5.0%*

Any difficulty if voted 

in person 9.8% 18.0% 8.1%** 6.1% 19.9% 13.8%** -3.7% 1.9% 5.7%

Any difficulty if used 

mail ballot 2.1% 5.4% 3.3%* 0.3% 6.1% 5.7%** -1.7% 0.6% 2.4%

Sample size 690 1,503 676 946

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

 ** 99% level of confidence
28 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 7: Specific In-Person Voting Difficulties in 2020 and 2022

Key results: The only significant decline in voting difficulties among voters with disabilities was in waiting in line. 

Voters with disabilities are also significantly more likely to report difficulties in getting inside the polling place, 

reading or seeing the ballot, and writing on the ballot.

Types of 

voting difficulties

2020, 

No disability

2020, 

Disability

2020 

Disability 

Gap

2022, 

No disability

2022, 

Disability

2022 

Disability 

Gap

Change from 

2020 to 

2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Any difficulty in 

voting in person 

at polling place or 

election office

9.8% 18.0% 8.1%** 6.1% 19.9% 13.8%** -3.7% 1.9% 5.7%

1. Difficulty in 

finding or getting to 

the polling place

2.3% 1.4% -0.9% 2.0% 1.9% -0.2% -0.3% 0.5% 0.7%

2. Difficulty getting 

inside the polling place 

(for example, steps)

0.4% 3.2% 2.7%** 0.2% 1.9% 2.1%** -0.3% -0.9% -0.7%

3. Difficulty waiting 

in line 6.2% 7.4% 1.2% 1.6% 7.4% 5.8%** -4.5%* 0.1% 4.6%

4. Difficulty reading or 

seeing the ballot 0.0% 3.8% 3.8%** 0.5% 5.9% 5.4%** 0.5% 2.1% 1.6%

5. Difficulty 

understanding how 

to vote or use the 

voting equipment

2.9% 2.7% -0.2% 2.2% 4.6% 2.4% -0.7% 1.9% 2.6%

6. Difficulty 

communicating 

with poll workers or 

other officials at the 

polling place

0.6% 2.1% 1.5% 1.0% 1.9% 1.0% 0.4% -0.1% -0.6%

7. Difficulty writing on 

the ballot 0.0% 1.2% 1.2%* 0.0% 2.5% 2.5%* 0.0% 1.2% 1.2%

8. Difficulty operating 

the voting machine 0.9% 1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% 0.8% -0.6% 0.2% 0.8%

9. Other type of 

difficulty in voting 0.3% 1.8% 1.5%* 0.0% 1.7% 1.7%* -0.3% -0.1% 0.2%

Sample size 371 697 442 523

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

** 99% level of confidence
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 29

Table 8: Specific In-Person Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: The most common in-person voting difficulty was waiting in line, for people both with and 

without disabilities. Just over half of people with vision impairments, and one-fourth of people with cognitive 

impairments, had difficulties voting in person.

Types of voting difficulties No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Any difficulty in voting in 

person at polling place or 

election office

6.1% 19.9%** 19.0%* 52.5%** 27.7%** 17.7%** 14.0%* 29.7%**

1. Difficulty in finding or 

getting to the polling place 2.0% 1.9% 4.7% 4.8% 4.7% 3.0% 0.7% 4.3%

2. Difficulty in getting 

inside the polling place 

(for example, steps)

0.2% 2.2%** 2.6% 3.4% 3.3%* 4.1%** 1.2% 4.4%**

3. Difficulty waiting in line 1.6% 7.4%** 7.2% 15.5% 11.8%** 7.2%** 6.7%* 8.6%**

4. Difficulty reading or 

seeing the ballot 0.5% 5.9%** 5.4% 39.5%** 9.7%* 3.9%** 2.4% 11.5%**

5. Difficulty understanding 

how to vote or use the voting 

equipment

2.2% 4.6% 4.9% 16.0%* 7.7% 2.8% 2.2% 7.4%*

6. Difficulty communicating 

with poll workers or other 

officials at the polling place

1.0% 1.9% 0.0% 3.4% 7.8% 2.5% 2.0% 1.9%

7. Difficulty writing on 

the ballot 0.0% 2.5%* 2.2% 9.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.7% 6.1%*

8. Difficulty operating the 

voting machine 0.3% 1.1% 2.9% 8.4% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 1.8%

9. Other type of difficulty 

in voting 0.0% 1.7%* 2.2% 6.5% 4.3% 2.8%** 0.8% 3.7%*

Sample size 442 523 85 53 105 236 344 174

*Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
30 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 9: Wait Time for In-person Voting in 2020 and 2022

Key results: Voters both with and without disabilities experienced a decline in average waiting times in 2022 

compared to 2020. There was no significant gap in average waiting time between voters with and without 

disabilities in either year.

Types of 

voting difficulties

2020, 

No disability

2020, 

Disability

2020 

Disability 

Gap

2022, 

No disability

2022, 

Disability

2022 

Disability 

Gap

Change from 

2020 to 

2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Average wait time 

in minutes 28.8 23.7 -5.1 16.7 16.5 -0.3 -12.1** -7.3* 4.8

Median wait time 

in minutes 10.0 10.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 -5.0 -5.0 0.0

Less than 10 minutes 52.3% 57.3% 5.0% 74.7% 73.9% -0.5% 22.1%** 16.6%** -5.5%

11-20 minutes 15.5% 17.3% 1.8% 9.8% 12.7% 2.8% -5.7%* -4.7% 1.0%

21-30 minutes 10.7% 8.5% -2.2% 6.5% 4.3% -2.2% -4.3% -4.2%* 0.0%

31-60 minutes 11.2% 10.0% -1.2% 4.2% 4.8% 0.7% -7.0%** -5.1%** 1.9%

61-120 minutes 7.3% 4.5% -2.9% 2.5% 3.0% 0.5% -4.8%* -1.5% 3.3%

More than two hours 3.0% 2.4% -0.6% 2.7% 1.4% -1.3% -0.3% -1.1% -0.7%

Sample size 363 650 287 442 521 79

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

** 99% level of confidence
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 31

Table 10: Wait Time for In-Person Voting by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: The average wait time for in-person voting was slightly lower for voters with disabilities, and 

especially low for people with vision impairments, compared to voters without disabilities.

Length of time 

waiting to vote among 

in-person voters

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Average wait time 

in minutes 16.7 16.5 18.2 34.5 30.5 16.8 15.6 18.3

Median wait time 

in minutes 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Less than 10 minutes 74.4% 73.9% 73.8% 70.4% 66.7% 75.9% 74.8% 73.3%

11-20 minutes 9.8% 12.7% 16.0% 15.1% 12.7% 10.4% 12.2% 12.9%

21-30 minutes 6.5% 4.3% 1.4%* 1.8%* 7.4% 6.2% 3.5% 4.7%

31-60 minutes 4.2% 4.8% 2.3% 7.1% 6.6% 3.2% 5.1% 4.7%

61-120 minutes 2.5% 3.0% 4.7% 1.5% 1.9% 2.5% 3.0% 3.1%

More than two hours 2.7% 1.4% 1.8% 4.1% 4.7% 1.8% 1.4% 1.3%

Sample size 442 521 85 53 105 236 343 173

*Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
32 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 11: Specific Mail Voting Difficulties in 2020 and 2022

Key results: Voters with disabilities using mail ballots were significantly more likely than those without 

disabilities to have difficulties voting by mail in both 2020 and 2022. There was little change in mail voting 

difficulties between 2020 and 2022. 

Types of mail

voting difficulties

2020, 

No disability

2020, 

Disability

2020 

Disability 

Gap

2022, 

No disability

2022, 

Disability

2022 

Disability 

Gap

Change from 

2020 to 

2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Any difficulty receiving, 

returning, reading, 

understanding, or filling 

out ballot

2.1% 5.4% 3.3%* 0.3% 6.1% 5.7%** -1.7% 0.6% 2.4%

Difficulty reading 

mail ballot 0.0% 1.4% 1.4%* 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%

Difficulty understanding 

mail ballot 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% -0.2% -0.1% 0.0%

Difficulty filling out 

mail ballot 0.0% 0.8% 0.8%* 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% -0.4% -0.4%

Other difficulty 

completing mail ballot 1.7% 1.9% -0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% -0.4% 0.2% 0.6%

Difficulty receiving 

mail ballot 1.7% 1.9% 0.2% 0.1% 2.3% 2.2% -1.6% 0.4% 1.9%

Difficulty returning 

mail ballot 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% -0.3% -0.3%

Sample size 319 797 232 421

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

** 99% level of confidence
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 33

Table 12: Specific Mail Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: People with vision impairments were the most likely to have difficulty in voting with a mail ballot, 

with close to two-fifths having such difficulty. 

Types of mail

voting difficulties

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Any difficulty receiving, 

returning, reading, 

under-standing, or filling 

out ballot

0.3% 6.1%** 8.5% 38.0%** 16.6%* 7.8%** 3.9%* 9.2%*

Difficulty reading 

mail ballot 0.0% 1.7% 1.8% 13.7%* 1.5% 2.4% 0.5% 3.5%

Difficulty understanding 

mail ballot 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

Difficulty filling out 

mail ballot 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 1.0%

Other difficulty 

completing mail ballot 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.5% 0.2% 0.6%

Difficulty receiving 

mail ballot 0.1% 2.3% 6.7% 21.2% 11.3% 4.0% 1.4% 3.6%

Difficulty returning 

mail ballot 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0%

Sample size 232 421 50 38 71 216 255 165

*Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
34 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 13: Expected Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: Among people with disabilities who did not vote this year, about one-fourth would expect 

difficulties voting in person, and one-seventh would expect difficulties voting by mail. Among people with 

disabilities who voted by mail, about two-fifths would expect difficulties voting in person, while among those 

voting in person, about one-ninth would expect difficulties in voting by mail.

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

If didn’t vote this year

Would expect 

difficulties voting 

in person

7.4% 27.5%** 15.3% 38.7% 26.8%* 36.7%** 13.5% 49.0%**

Would expect 

difficulties voting 

by mail

6.0% 13.1% 7.0% 19.9% 20.0%* 6.6% 6.0% 25.7%**

If voted by mail this year

Would expect 

difficulties voting 

in person

12.1% 39.1%** 17.7% 56.5%** 39.1%* 49.0%** 19.8% 57.3%**

If voted in person this year

Would expect 

difficulties voting 

by mail

5.4% 11.6%* 9.4% 32.8%** 25.8%** 10.2% 8.3% 16.8%*

Sample size

Didn’t vote, expect 

difficulties at poll 62 122 15 14 53 53 69 51

Didn’t vote, expect 

difficulties by mail 96 194 23 17 79 85 116 76

Voted by mail, expect 

difficulties at poll 108 205 26 22 38 113 113 92

Voted in person, 

expect difficulties 

by mail

337 391 65 45 86 183 256 131

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level of confidence
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 35

Table 14: Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting in 2020 and 2022

Key results: The perceived difficulty of voting in both 2020 and 2022 was similar between people with and 

without disabilities, among both in-person and mail voters. 

“Overall, how easy 

or difficult was your 

experience in voting [at 

the polling place/by mail 

or dropbox]?”

2012, 

No disability

2012, 

Disability

2020 

Disability 

Gap

2022, 

No disability

2022, 

Disability

2022 

Disability 

Gap

Change from 

2020 to 

2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

If voted in-person 

in polling place or 

election office 

Average score 

on 1-5 scale 1.22 1.25 0.04 1.19 1.22 0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.01

1. Very easy 83.0% 82.1% -0.09% 85.9% 83.3% -2.6% 2.9% 1.2% -1.7%

2. Somewhat easy 12.6% 13.4% 0.9% 11.4% 12.7% 1.2% -1.2% -0.8% 0.4%

3. Neither easy 

nor difficult 4.2% 2.1% -2.1% 0.9% 3.0% 2.0%* -3.2%* 0.8% 4.1%*

4. Somewhat 

difficult 0.2% 1.9% 1.7%* 1.1% 0.9% -0.2% 0.9% -1.0% -1.9%

5. Very difficult 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.2% -0.4% 0.6% -0.2% -0.8%

If voted using mail ballot

Average score 

on 1-5 scale 1.28 1.30 0.02 1.25 1.36 0.11 -2.7% 1.8% 8.7%

1. Very easy 81.2% 79.0% -2.2% 81.4% 75.1% -6.3% 0.2% -3.9% -4.1%

2. Somewhat easy 12.8% 14.3% 1.5% 13.6% 17.0% 3.3% 0.8% 2.7% 1.8%

3. Neither easy 

nor difficult 3.7% 4.9% 1.2% 3.8% 4.9% 1.1% 0.2% 0.1% -0.1%

4. Somewhat 

difficult 2.0% 1.5% -0.5% 1.0% 2.9% 1.9% -0.9% 1.4% 2.3%

5. Very difficult 0.4% 0.3% -0.1% 0.1% 0.1% -0.1% -0.3% -0.3% 0.0%

Sample size

In-person voters 371 697 441 523

Voters using 

mail ballots 318 794 232 420

*Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

** 99% level of confidence
36 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 15: Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: The perceived difficulty of voting in 2022 was similar across disability types, except people who 

need help with daily activities were less likely to say voting in person or by mail was easy.

“Overall, how easy or 

difficult was your experience 

in voting [at the polling 

place/by mail or dropbox]?”

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

If voted in-person 

in polling place or 

election office

Average score 

on 1-5 scale 1.19 1.22 1.18 1.38 1.23 1.15 1.35* 49.0%**

1. Very easy 85.9% 83.3% 91.2% 74.4% 81.3% 82.3% 88.4% 74.1*

2. Somewhat easy 11.4% 12.7% 3.1%* 20.0% 13.2% 14.3% 8.9% 19.0%

3. Neither easy 

nor difficult 0.9% 3.0%* 3.3% 0.7% 4.0% 1.8% 1.9% 5.2%*

4. Somewhat difficult 1.1% 0.9% 1.6% 3.5% 1.4% 1.7% 0.7% 1.2%

5. Very difficult 0.6% 0.2% 0.8% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

If voted using mail ballot

Average score 

on 1-5 scale 1.25 1.36 1.43 1.65 1.60* 1.33 1.24 1.54

1. Very easy 81.4% 75.1% 65.9% 61.5% 64.1%* 77.2% 80.4% 67.1%*

2. Somewhat easy 13.6% 17.0% 29.0% 16.8% 17.3% 14.3% 15.6% 19.2%

3. Neither easy 

nor difficult 3.8% 4.9% 1.8% 16.6% 12.8% 7.0% 3.8% 6.6%

4. Somewhat difficult 1.0% 2.9% 3.3% 5.2% 5.7% 1.4% 0.1% 7.1%

5. Very difficult 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 7.1%

Sample size

In-person voters 441 523 85 53 105 236 344 174

Voters using 

mail ballots 232 420 50 38 71 216 254 165

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 37

Table 16: Voting Difficulty by Race and Ethnicity in 2022

Key results: Voting difficulties and average wait times for in-person voting were especially likely among Hispanic/Latino voters 

with disabilities. Reported voting difficulties were also higher among Black and White non-Hispanic people with disabilities 

relative to people without disabilities in those groups. Perceptions of the ease or difficulty of voting, however, did not differ by 

disability status within these groups. The comparisons are limited by small sample sizes.

Black non-Hispanic Hispanic / Latino White non-Hispanic

(1) (2) (3)

Any voting difficulty across all methods

If no disability 5.5% 8.1% 3.0%

If have disability 17.2%* 24.1%* 11.4%**

If voted in-person, any difficulty

If no disability 6.7% 12.4% 4.4%

If have disability 22.5%* 30.3% 18.0%**

If voted in-person, average wait time in minutes

If no disability 12.7 27.5 16.2

If have disability 25.2 37.4 11.3

If voted with mail ballot, any difficulty

If no disability 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

If have disability 1.8% 17.2% 3.2%*

If voted in person, perceived difficulty 

(mean of 1-5 scale)

If no disability 1.14 1.22 1.16

If have disability 1.31 1.28 1.19

If voted with mail ballot, perceived difficulty 

(mean of 1-5 scale)

If no disability 1.56 1.17 1.21

If have disability 1.06 1.50 1.36

Sample size

All voters, no disability 79 52 489

All voters, disability 104 90 678

In-person voters, no disability 63 36 312

In-person voters, disability 71 44 368

Mail voters, no disability 16 16 175

Mail voters, disability 33 46 308

*Difference between voters with and without disabilities in this group is significant at 95% level 

**99% level
38 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 17: Need for Assistance in Voting in 2020 and 2022

Key results: The percent of voters with disabilities needing assistance increased between 2020 and 2022 from 

6% to 11% among in-person voters with disabilities, and dropped only slightly among mail voters with disabilities 

from 9% to 8%. Election officials were most likely to assist in-person voters, and family members were most 

likely to assist those voting by mail.

2020, 

No disability

2020, 

Disability

2020 

Disability 

Gap

2022, 

No disability

2022, 

Disability

2022 

Disability 

Gap

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability 

gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

If voted in-person, needed 

assistance in voting 3.7% 6.2% 2.5% 1.9% 10.7% 8.7%** -1.8 4.5%* 6.2%*

If needed, 

who assisted

Election official 89.7% 53.8% -35.9%** 72.0% 65.5% -6.5% -17.7% 11.7% 29.4%

Family member 0.0% 18.5% 18.5% 0.0% 18.5% 18.5%** 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Friend 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 6.3% 6.3% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0%

Home aide 0.0% 6.1% 6.1% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% -5.1% -5.1%

Other 5.9% 3.8% -2.1% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% -5.9% -2.7% 3.3%

Needed but 

none provided 0.0% 16.5% 16.5%* 28.0% 7.6% -20.4% 28.0% -8.9% -36.9%

If voted using mail ballot, 

needed assistance in voting

With completing or 

returning ballot 1.1% 10.5% 9.3%** 3.5% 11.1% 7.6%** 2.4% 0.6% -1.7%

With completing ballot 0.6% 5.1% 4.4%** 0.7% 5.6% 4.9%** 0.1% 0.5% 0.4%

With returning ballot 0.5% 9.5% 8.9%** 3.5% 9.9% 6.4%** 3.0% 0.5% -2.5%

If needed, who assisted

Family member 

who lives with voter 66.6% 55.8% -10.8% 79.3% 33.9% -45.4%* 12.6% -21.9%* -34.5%

Family member 

who does not live 

with voter

0.0% 18.7% 18.7% 0.0% 11.0% 11.0%* 0.0% -7.7% -7.7%

Other person who 

lives with voter 0.0% 4.1% 4.1% 0.0% 11.3% 11.3%* 0.0% 7.2% 7.2%

Friend or neighbor 0.0% 8.0% 8.0% 20.7% 20.6% -0.2% 20.7% 12.6% -8.1%

Home aide 0.0% 6.6% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -6.6%* -6.6%*

Other 33.4% 6.0% -27.4% 0.0% 13.8% 13.8% -33.4% 7.9% 41.2%

Sample size

In-person voters 370 696 442 523

Voters using 

mail ballots 319 797 231 419

*Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

**99% level of confidence
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 39

Table 18: Need for Assistance in Voting by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: People with vision impairments were the most likely to need assistance in voting. About two-fifths of them needed 

assistance voting either in person or with a mail ballot.

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

If voted in-person, needed 

assistance in voting 1.9% 10.7%** 9.7% 38.5%** 6.8% 9.3%** 5.2% 20.5%**

If needed, 

who assisted

Election official 72.0% 65.5% 58.3% 48.4% 71.6% 69.2% 91.1% 57.7%

Family member 0.0% 18.5%** 38.2% 33.1%* 0.0% 22.3%* 6.1% 18.3%*

Friend 0.0% 6.3% 3.6% 9.5% 20.0% 1.5% 1.9% 9.0%

Home aide 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 1.6%

Other 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 2.9% 8.3% 2.8% 0.0% 1.8%

Needed but 

none provided 28.0% 7.6% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 1.9% 0.9% 11.6%

If voted using mail ballot, 

needed assistance in voting

With completing or 

returning ballot 3.5% 11.1%** 8.6% 42.4%** 28.1%** 14.4%** 4.7% 20.8%**

With completing 

ballot 0.7% 5.6%** 2.1% 30.9%** 16.4%* 7.6%* 2.0% 11.0%**

With returning ballot 3.5% 9.9%* 8.6% 33.9%** 26.6%** 13.6%** 4.4% 18.3%**

If needed, 

who assisted

Family member 

who lives with voter 79.3% 33.9%* 17.4%** 31.9% 2.7%** 22.9%** 19.3%* 38.8%

Family member 

who does not live 

with voter

0.0% 11.0%* 24.7% 9.7% 9.9% 15.2%* 1.5% 14.3%*

Other person who 

lives with voter 0.0% 11.3%* 16.1% 13.2% 9.7% 11.3% 0.0% 15.1%*

Friend or neighbor 20.7% 20.6% 3.3% 9.8% 31.5% 21.1% 49.7% 10.8%

Home aide 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other 0.0% 13.8% 38.6% 12.2% 27.5% 16.1% 29.5% 8.6%

Sample size

In-person voters 442 523 85 53 105 236 344 174

Voters using 

mail ballots 231 419 49 38 70 216 253 165
40 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 19: Needing Assistance or Having Difficulty in Voting in 2022

Key results: About one-fifth of voters with disabilities reported either needing assistance or having difficulty in 

voting in 2022, which is three times the rate of voters without disabilities. This included about one-fourth of 

in-person voters with disabilities and one-seventh of mail voters with disabilities. The highest rate of needing 

assistance or having difficulty was among people with vision impairments.

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Needed assistance or had 

difficulty in voting

Among all voters 6.0% 20.2%** 19.8%** 54.3%** 32.4%** 20.0%** 13.9%** 30.2%**

Among in person voters 7.2% 24.6%** 22.8%* 52.5%** 30.5%** 22.4%** 17.5%** 37.2%**

Among mail voters 3.6% 14.1%** 15.2% 56.7%** 35.0%** 17.3%** 8.5%* 22.5%**

Sample size

All voters 676 946 135 91 176 453 600 340

In-person voters 442 523 85 53 105 236 344 174

Mail voters 232 421 50 38 71 216 253 165

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level

Note: These figures combine those who experienced any difficulty in voting (Tables 6-12) or had any need for assistance in voting (Tables 17-18).
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 41

Table 20: Treatment by Election Officials in 2020 and 2022

Key results: Most voters with and without disabilities reported that election officials were very respectful toward them in both 

2020 and 2022, with no gap in 2022.

2020, 

No disability

2020, 

Disability

2020 

Disability 

Gap

2022, 

No disability

2022, 

Disability

2022 

Disability 

Gap

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability 

gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

How respectful were 

election officials

Average score 

on 1-5 scale 4.52 4.67 0.15 4.68 4.71 0.03 0.15 0.04 -0.11

1. Very disrespectful 4.4% 3.0% -1.4% 2.4% 2.5% 0.1% -2.0% -0.5% 1.5%

2. Somewhat 

disrespectful 1.0% 0.5% -0.5% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.5%

3. Neither respectful 

nor disrespectful 9.2% 6.8% -2.4% 5.0% 4.9% -0.1% -4.2% -1.9% 2.3%

4. Somewhat 

respectful 8.9% 6.0% -2.8% 9.3% 6.0% -3.4% 0.5% 0.0% -0.5%

5. Very respectful 76.6% 83.7% 7.1%* 82.1% 85.6% 3.4% 5.6% 1.9% -3.7

Sample size 371 693

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

** 99% level of confidence

Note: Answer options were randomly rotated to control for any order effects.
42 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 21: Treatment by Election Officials by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: Voters with disabilities were just as likely as those without disabilities in 2022 to report that 

election officials were “very respectful” toward them, with the highest reports on this measure among people 

with vision impairments. 

“In your opinion, how respectful 

were the election officials to you?” 

(note: answer options were rotated 

to avoid order effects)

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

How respectful were 

election officials

Average score on 1-5 scale 4.68 4.71 4.62 4.80 4.55 4.66 4.72 4.69

1. Very disrespectful 2.4% 2.5% 5.7% 2.6% 5.6% 4.1% 2.6% 2.4%

2. Somewhat 

disrespectful 1.1% 1.1% 3.0% 0.4% 1.7%* 1.4% 0.3% 1.9%

3. Neither respectful 

nor disrespectful 5.0% 4.9% 2.2% 1.7% 7.2% 3.8% 5.3% 4.3%

4. Somewhat respectful 9.3% 6.0% 2.0%** 5.2% 2.9%** 5.9% 5.3% 7.6%

5. Very respectful 82.1% 85.6% 87.1% 90.0% 82.6% 84.8% 86.4% 83.8%

Sample size 442 521 85 53 105 235 342 174

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 43

Table 22: Sources of Information on Voting Process in 2022

Key results: People both with and without disabilities were most likely to get information on the voting process in 2022 

from printed mailings from the election office. People with disabilities were less likely than those without disabilities to use 

any internet-based sources, and more likely to use non-internet-based sources such as printed mailings and television for 

such information. 

Any information on voting 

process or where to vote in 2022:

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Any internet-based source 66.0% 54.0%** 47.7%** 55.1%* 55.0%** 47.1%** 51.1%** 60.4%

Any non-internet-based source 63.8% 74.9%** 76.8%** 84.2%** 68.9% 76.5%** 72.9%** 78.0%**

Printed mailings from 

election office 34.5% 40.6%** 41.3% 40.6% 31.7% 38.6% 41.7% 39.5%

Communicating with people 

through email or texts 31.2% 28.6% 30.9% 34.3% 34.1% 24.5%* 25.0%* 35.8%

Election office website 29.0% 19.4%** 15.9%** 18.3%* 13.8%** 17.1%** 20.1%** 18.5%**

Television 21.9% 27.9%** 27.9% 42.6%** 26.5% 28.8%** 24.1% 34.6%**

Social media or 

online community 21.8% 17.7%* 12.5%** 23.1% 23.1% 11.7%** 17.8% 18.2%

Talking in person to family 

members, friends, neighbors, 

or colleagues

19.8% 21.5% 21.9% 20.4% 18.8% 23.0% 18.0% 27.6%**

News website 17.6% 12.3%** 12.4% 15.6% 10.3% 9.5%** 13.1%* 11.2%**

Printed letters or newsletters 

from candidates or organizations 17.2% 15.3% 11.2% 15.7% 16.6% 13.8% 12.4% 20.9%

Printed newspaper 12.6% 17.9%** 22.9%** 20.6%* 10.5% 20.4%** 17.4%* 17.9%*

Radio 12.2% 13.4% 15.6% 24.9%** 13.3% 12.9% 13.0% 14.5%

Other type of website 11.2% 8.0%* 7.9% 10.2% 4.1% 6.8% 8.1% 8.0%

Emails or texts from 

political organizations 9.8% 7.8% 5.9% 9.3% 13.7% 5.0% 6.3%* 10.3%

Already knew 5.0% 5.6% 4.9% 2.8% 8.6% 6.9% 6.3% 4.7%

Calling election office 3.9% 7.3%** 11.1%** 24.0%** 10.1%** 7.7%** 7.5%* 7.1%*

Polling place 0.4% 0.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.9%

Ballot 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8%

In person at govt office 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

Mail (unspecified) 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5%

Other 2.5% 4.4%* 3.7% 2.4% 2.8% 5.8%** 4.2% 4.2%

Don't know 0.0% 0.2% 0.9%* 0.0% 0.8% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5%

Sample size 676 946 135 91 176 453 600 340

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
44 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 23: Accessibility of Information Sources in 2022

Key results: Accessibility of both websites and print sources of voting information were rated lower by people 

with disabilities than by people without disabilities. Accessibility of both sources was rated lowest by people with 

vision or cognitive impairments. The most common complaint for both sources was that the material had small 

print or was otherwise difficult to read. Accessibility of both websites and print sources of voting information 

were rated lower by people with disabilities than by people without disabilities. Accessibility of both sources was 

rated lowest by people with vision or cognitive impairments. The most common complaint for both sources was 

that the material had small print or was otherwise difficult to read.

Any information on voting process 

or where to vote in 2022:

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Accessibility for website users

Yes, fully accessible 84.3% 77.8%* 82.2% 62.0%** 68.4%** 77.4% 81.2% 72.8%**

Mostly, but not fully 

accessible 8.6% 13.1%* 6.1% 23.9%** 18.0% 13.4% 11.6% 15.4%*

Somewhat accessible 6.9% 8.7% 11.8% 14.1% 12.3% 9.2% 7.2% 11.0%

Not accessible at all 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%

Sample size 328 434 54 42 79 195 266 168

If not fully accessible, 

problem was:

Difficult to read/

small print 0.0% 13.2%* 0.0% 55.0%** 1.4% 10.7%* 5.0% 21.3%**

Difficult to find voting 

process info 7.2% 12.5% 33.0%* 0.0% 13.4% 6.2% 18.4% 6.6%

Website difficult 

to navigate 1.8% 10.0% 0.0% 10.1% 6.9% 6.9% 8.3% 11.7%*

Info was difficult to find 12.5% 7.1% 11.3% 0.0% 2.8% 9.4% 11.3% 2.9%

Incomplete information 15.8% 5.7%* 0.0% 7.1% 14.5% 11.5% 1.4%** 10.0%

Difficult to find 

candidate info 5.5% 5.0% 3.2% 0.0% 1.8% 7.2% 8.0% 2.0%

Given incorrect/

misleading info 14.9% 1.5%* 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 1.7%* 2.5%* 0.5%**

Difficult to find 

sample ballot 9.9% 1.2%* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 2.5% 0.0%*

Sample size 53 97 11 10 28 40 55 46
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 45

Any information on voting process 

or where to vote in 2022:

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

Accessibility for users of 

print material

Yes, fully accessible 86.7% 81.5% 84.9% 63.1%** 75.4%** 79.3%** 84.9% 76.2%**

Mostly, but not 

fully accessible 7.5% 12.0% 10.1% 22.7%** 12.5% 13.2%* 10.5% 13.8%*

Somewhat accessible 5.7% 5.7% 5.0% 14.2%** 10.7% 6.6% 3.8% 9.3%

Not accessible at all 0.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.9% 0.7%

Sample size 399 595 89 58 95 289 371 220

If not fully accessible, 

problem was:

Difficult to read/

small print 0.9% 13.4% 0.0% 43.1%** 5.9% 9.5%* 6.1% 21.9%**

Difficult to find voting 

process info 2.0% 8.4% 22.9%** 2.2% 16.0%* 3.8% 8.8% 8.5%

Distrust media 1.0% 7.7% 32.0%** 17.7%** 0.0% 12.7%* 12.8%* 2.6%

Difficult to find 

candidate info 11.8% 6.9% 2.1% 1.9% 0.0% 10.5% 4.2% 10.3%

Incomplete information 12.3% 5.1% 3.9% 0.0% 13.4% 5.8% 5.5% 4.8%

Info was difficult to find 11.3% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 4.9% 6.6% 0.0%**

Given incorrect/

misleading info 9.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 2.6% 4.4% 0.4%*

Sample size 58 109 13 17 26 53 61 42

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
46 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 24: Confidence That Vote was Accurately Counted in 2020 and 2022

Key results: Confidence that one’s vote was accurately counted increased among voters without disabilities from 

2020 to 2022, and there was little difference in this confidence between voters with and without disabilities in 2022.

2020, 

No disability

2020, 

Disability

2020 

Disability 

Gap

2022, 

No disability

2022, 

Disability

2022 

Disability 

Gap

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability 

gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

All voters

Average score 

on 1-4 scale 3.40 3.49 0.08 3.56 3.50 -0.06 0.16** 0.02 -0.14

1. Not at all confident 5.8% 6.1% 0.3% 3.0% 4.5% 1.5% -2.8% -1.6% 1.2%

2. Not very confident 6.7% 6.8% 0.2% 5.5% 5.3% -0.2% -1.1% -1.5% -0.4%

3. Somewhat 

confident 29.1% 19.5% -9.6%** 24.0% 25.7% 1.7% -5.1% 6.2%** 11.2%**

4. Highly confident 58.5% 67.6% 9.1%** 67.4% 64.5% -2.9% 9.0%** -3.1% -12.1%**

In-person voters

Average score 

on 1-4 scale 3.36 3.45 0.09 3.54 3.51 -0.02 0.18* 0.06 -0.12

1. Not at all confident 5.8% 6.2% 0.5% 3.3% 3.1% -0.2% -2.5% -3.2%* -0.7%

2. Not very confident 8.0% 7.7% -0.3% 6.1% 4.9% -1.2% -1.9% -2.7% -0.9%

3. Somewhat 

confident 30.6% 20.5% -10.2%** 24.1% 29.5% 5.4% -6.5% 9.0%** 15.5%**

4. Highly confident 55.6% 65.6% 10.0%* 66.4% 62.5% -3.9% 10.9%* -3.1% -14.0%*

Mail voters

Average score 

on 1-4 scale 3.45 3.53 0.07 3.60 3.48 -0.11 0.14 -0.05 -0.19

1. Not at all confident 5.9% 5.6% -0.2% 2.5% 6.5% 4.0% -3.3% 0.8% 4.2%

2. Not very confident 5.0% 5.7% 0.7% 4.5% 5.9% 1.5% -0.5% 0.2% 0.7%

3. Somewhat 

confident 27.0% 18.8% -8.2%* 23.9% 20.5% -3.5% -3.1% 1.6% 4.7%

4. Highly confident 62.1% 69.8% 7.7% 69.1% 67.1% -2.0% 7.0% -2.7% -9.6%

Sample size

All voters 689 1,495 675 941

In-person voters 371 693 442 522

Mail voters 318 794 231 417

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

** 99% level of confidence
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 47

Table 25: Confidence That Vote was Accurately Counted by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: There were no substantial differences across disability types in the confidence one’s vote was accurately 

counted in 2022.

“How confident are you that 

your vote was accurately 

counted?” (note: options were 

rotated to avoid order effects)

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

All voters

Average score 

on 1-4 scale 3.56 3.50 3.37 3.35 3.44 3.54 3.52 3.48

1. Not at all confident 3.0% 4.5% 5.6% 5.9% 5.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.4%

2. Not very confident 5.5% 5.3% 8.8% 8.3% 5.5% 4.3% 4.6% 6.4%

3. Somewhat 

confident 24.0% 25.7% 28.2% 30.9% 28.5% 23.8% 25.4% 25.6%

4. Highly confident 67.4% 64.5% 57.4% 54.9% 60.5% 67.4% 65.4% 63.5%

In-person voters

Average score 

on 1-4 scale 3.54 3.51 3.41 3.49 3.36 3.57 3.51 3.53

1. Not at all confident 3.3% 3.1% 5.3% 0.8% 6.5% 2.4% 4.1% 1.1%

2. Not very confident 6.1% 4.9% 6.0% 4.9% 4.4% 5.5% 3.6% 7.2%

3. Somewhat 

confident 24.1% 29.5% 31.3% 38.2% 35.8% 24.9% 29.4% 28.9%

4. Highly confident 66.4% 62.5% 57.4% 56.0% 53.3% 67.2% 62.9% 62.8%

Mail voters

Average score 

on 1-4 scale 3.60 3.48 3.32 3.12 3.57 3.50 3.52 3.42

1. Not at all confident 2.5% 6.5% 6.0% 13.8% 3.9% 7.2% 5.3% 8.3%

2. Not very confident 4.5% 5.9% 13.3% 13.6% 7.2% 2.8% 6.2% 5.5%

3. Somewhat 

confident 23.9% 20.5% 23.3% 19.3% 17.5% 22.5% 19.5% 22.0%

4. Highly confident 69.1% 67.1% 57.4% 53.2% 71.5% 67.5% 69.0% 64.2%

Sample size

All voters 675 941 134 87 174 450 597 338

In-person voters 442 522 85 52 105 236 343 174

Mail voters 231 417 49 35 69 213 253 163

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
48 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 26: Voter Comparisons of 2022 Voting Experience to Pre-Pandemic Experience

Key results: Voters both with and without disabilities were more likely to say that voting was easier than difficult in 2022 

compared to before the pandemic. This was especially true among those who voted by mail in 2022 and in person before the 

pandemic, but it was also true among those who voted in person both times. There was little difference by disability type.

“How easy or difficult was 

your experience in voting this 

year compared to the last time 

you voted before the COVID 

pandemic?” (Note: Answer 

options were rotated to avoid order 

effects)

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

All voters

Average difficulty 

on 1-5 scale 2.67 2.67 2.74 2.84 2.67 2.71 2.61 2.79

1. Much easier 15.4% 15.0% 9.2% 10.5% 18.6% 13.9% 16.6% 12.5%

2. Somewhat easier 8.7% 10.3% 12.4% 19.2% 10.1% 9.3% 10.3% 9.9%

3. About the same 69.8% 68.9% 75.1% 54.7%* 61.4% 70.8% 69.1% 68.3%

4. Somewhat 

more difficult 5.8% 3.8% 1.5%* 6.8% 5.2% 3.4% 3.6% 4.2%

5. Much more difficult 0.4% 2.0%* 1.8% 8.8% 4.6% 2.6% 0.4% 5.0%*

Voted by mail this time, 

in-person last time

Average difficulty 

on 1-5 scale 1.98 2.18 1.95 1.65 1.93 2.09 2.05 2.45

1. Much easier 45.6% 38.5% 41.9% 39.5% 46.6% 40.1% 39.5% 36.3%

2. Somewhat easier 14.4% 15.6% 22.3% 56.3%* 30.3% 15.7% 17.1% 12.4%

3. About the same 36.3% 38.5% 34.6% 4.1%** 7.2%** 39.4% 42.5% 29.9%

4. Somewhat 

more difficult 3.7% 4.3% 1.1% 0.0% 15.9% 4.8% 0.5% 12.5%

5. Much more difficult 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 9.0%

Voted in-person both times

Average difficulty 

on 1-5 scale 2.79 2.72 2.90 2.91 2.70 2.72 2.69 2.78

1. Much easier 10.6% 11.6% 2.3% 3.4% 15.3% 12.0% 13.6% 8.2%

2. Somewhat easier 6.7% 10.0% 7.3% 12.7% 7.2% 7.9% 9.0% 10.9%

3. About the same 76.1% 73.5% 88.2% 75.3% 71.3% 76.2% 72.3% 76.1%

4. Somewhat 

more difficult 6.2% 4.5% 2.2% 6.5% 4.5% 3.4% 4.8% 4.1%

5. Much more difficult 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 2.0% 1.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.7%
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 49

“How easy or difficult was 

your experience in voting this 

year compared to the last time 

you voted before the COVID 

pandemic?” (Note: Answer 

options were rotated to avoid order 

effects)

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

Voted by mail both times

Average difficulty 

on 1-5 scale 2.70 2.85 2.92 3.24 2.96 2.92 2.81 2.91

1. Much easier 10.9% 8.4% 0.0%* 11.0% 11.3% 7.4% 7.6% 9.5%

2. Somewhat easier 11.5% 8.3% 19.6% 10.6% 8.1% 9.2% 7.9% 8.9%

3. About the same 74.7% 77.1% 74.8% 45.2%* 67.1% 74.1% 81.4% 71.6%

4. Somewhat 

more difficult 2.2% 1.8% 0.0% 9.6% 0.7% 2.3% 2.6% 0.8%

5. Much more difficult 0.6% 4.3% 5.6% 23.6% 12.7% 6.9% 0.5% 9.3%

Voted in-person this time, by 

mail last time

Average difficulty 

on 1-5 scale 2.69 2.53 2.46 3.27 2.21 2.76 2.18 2.95

1. Much easier 24.6% 23.8% 39.2% 0.0% 55.3% 14.5% 33.0% 13.9%

2. Somewhat easier 6.8% 11.6% 4.9% 52.0% 0.0% 5.4% 21.3% 0.0%

3. About the same 43.7% 54.9% 41.2% 0.0%** 13.7% 69.4% 40.3% 69.9%

4. Somewhat 

more difficult 24.9% 6.9% 0.0% 17.4% 31.1% 10.7% 5.4% 9.4%

5. Much more difficult 0.0% 2.8% 14.7% 30.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7%

Sample size

All voters 662 916 133 86 161 440 588 322

By mail this time, inperson last time 83 128 16 10 17 56 84 44

In-person both times 403 470 76 48 93 211 318 148

By mail both times 143 280 33 25 46 156 165 114

In-person this time, by 

mail last time 31 36 8 3 5 16 20 15
50 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 27: Preference for How to Vote in Next Election

Key results: Just under half of people with disabilities, and over half of people without disabilities, would prefer voting 

in a polling place in the next election. About one-third of people with disabilities would prefer voting by mail, while a 

combined one-sixth would prefer voting by other methods.

“If you wanted to vote in the 

next election, how would you 

prefer to cast your vote?” (Note: 

Options were presented to 

respondents in random order to 

avoid any order effects)

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

All respondents

In-person inside the 

polling place 55.7% 46.6%** 54.1% 50.8% 43.0%** 42.2%** 48.3%** 42.5%**

Receive and send ballot

by mail or 

drop box

24.6% 33.8%** 33.4%* 30.7% 29.5% 39.0%** 34.0%** 34.3%**

Vote fully online, 

using personal computer 

or smartphone

15.5% 12.9% 9.1%* 4.7%** 15.0% 12.7% 11.6%* 15.7%

Fill out ballot online, 

print it and mail 2.6% 3.7% 3.2% 9.1%** 8.6%** 3.2% 3.8% 3.6%

Voting by drive through 

or curbside 1.6% 3.0%* 0.2% 4.7%* 3.9%* 2.9% 2.4% 3.9%**

Voters in 2022

In-person inside the 

polling place 60.4% 50.3%** 57.1% 56.9% 51.0% 45.4% 52.2%* 45.4%**

Receive and send ballot 

by mail or drop box 26.0% 34.8%** 33.0% 27.5% 30.2% 39.9% 35.4%** 34.7%*

Vote fully online, 

using personal computer 

or smartphone

10.4% 10.3% 6.8% 3.0%** 9.8% 10.8% 8.3% 14.0%

Fill out ballot online, 

print it and mail 2.4% 2.2% 2.9% 8.9% 5.0% 1.7% 2.2% 2.1%

Voting by drive through 

or curbside 0.8% 2.5%* 0.2% 3.7% 4.0% 2.2% 1.8% 3.8%*

Non-voters in 2022

In-person inside the 

polling place 35.8% 34.0% 40.3% 29.3% 27.4% 30.9% 34.7% 33.0%

Receive and send ballot 

by mail or drop box 18.5% 30.4% 35.1% 41.9% 28.2% 36.0%** 29.3% 32.7%

Vote fully online, 

using personal computer 

or smartphone

37.4% 22.1% 19.6% 10.5%** 25.2% 19.4%* 22.8%* 21.3%*

Fill out ballot online, 

print it and mail 3.2% 9.0% 4.9% 10.0% 15.5%* 8.4% 9.0% 8.7%

Voting by drive 

through or curbside 5.1% 4.5% 0.0% 8.3% 3.7% 5.3% 4.3% 4.3%
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 51

“If you wanted to vote in the 

next election, how would you 

prefer to cast your vote?” (Note: 

Options were presented to 

respondents in random order to 

avoid any order effects)

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

Sample size

All respondents 801 1,190 167 112 272 560 750 432

Voters in 2022 676 942 134 89 175 452 597 339

Non-voters in 2022 125 248 33 23 97 108 153 93

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
52 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 28: Non-voting Political Participation in 2020 and 2022

Key results: People with and without disabilities were equally likely to engage in non-voting political activities in 2022, 

and had similar changes in activities from 2020 to 2022. 

2020, 

No disability

2020, 

Disability

2020 

Disability 

Gap

2022, 

No disability

2022, 

Disability

2022 

Disability 

Gap

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability 

gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Any of activities 1 to 8 below 43.4% 44.9% 1.4% 46.7% 43.8% -2.9% 3.3% -1.1% -4.4%

Average number of activities 1 

to 8 below 1.02 1.07 0.05 0.98 0.99 0.02 -0.05 -0.08 -0.03

Any of activities 1 to 

8 on disability issues N/A 6.2% N/A N/A 8.5% N/A N/A 2.3% N/A

1. Contributed money to 

political party 

or candidate

21.0% 22.3% 1.2% 12.3% 16.5% 4.2%* -8.7%** -5.7% 3.0%

2. Written or spoken to 

elected representative or 

public official

25.6% 28.7% 3.1% 30.9% 30.8% -0.1% 5.2% 2.0% -3.2%

3. Attended a 

political meeting 10.4% 9.5% -0.9% 12.0% 11.1% -0.9% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0%

4. Written a letter to a 

newspaper

2.9% 3.8% 0.8% 4.5% 4.1% -0.4% 1.6% 0.3% -1.2%

5. Contributed money to 

political group 15.7% 18.1% 2.3% 12.7% 15.0% 2.3% -3.1% -3.1% -0.1%

6. Worked for 

political candidate 3.9% 2.9% -1.0% 2.9% 2.4% -0.4% -1.0% -0.5% 0.5%

7. Took part in protest on 

national or local issue 11.7% 8.7% -2.9% 9.3% 6.4% -2.9% -2.4% -2.3% 0.0%

8. Otherwise worked to 

change govt. laws/policies 11.2% 13.3% 2.1% 13.9% 13.4% -0.6% 2.8% 0.0% -2.7%

Worked with others on 

community problem 14.4% 14.0% -0.4% 18.3% 15.2% -3.1% 3.9% 1.2% -2.7%

Worked to change 

private organization's policies 

on disability

N/A 4.3% N/A N/A 5.4% N/A N/A 1.2% N/A

Sample size 465 972 803 1,198

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

** 99% level of confidence
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 53

Table 29: Non-voting Political Participation by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: People with cognitive impairments were less likely than those without disabilities to engage in non-voting political 

activities in 2022, while people with other types of disability did not differ from those with no disabilities.

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Any of activities 1 to 8 below 46.7% 43.8% 46.1% 41.1% 37.6%* 44.9% 44.4% 42.5%

Average number of activities 1 

to 8 below 0.98 0.99 1.17 0.94 0.82 0.99 1.04 0.91

Any of activities 1 to 8 on 

disability issues N/A 8.5% 9.6% 12.6% 12.4% 9.3% 6.2% 11.8%

1. Contributed money to 

political party or candidate 12.3% 16.5%* 24.5%** 16.2% 12.0% 18.7%* 17.1%* 15.3%

2. Written or spoken to 

elected rep-resentative or 

public official

30.9% 30.8% 35.5% 30.8% 28.3% 31.2% 31.6% 29.0%

3. Attended a 

political meeting 12.0% 11.1% 11.9% 12.1% 6.8% 10.8% 11.2% 10.8%

4. Written a letter to a 

newspaper

4.5% 4.1% 5.6% 1.5%* 1.1% 4.8% 3.8% 4.7%

5. Contributed money to 

political group 12.7% 15.0% 16.7% 8.1% 11.5% 14.8% 15.9% 13.0%

6. Worked for political 

candidate 2.9% 2.4% 1.6% 4.3% 0.7%** 3.5% 2.0% 3.3%

7. Took part in protest on 

national or local issue 9.3% 6.4% 4.5% 7.1% 9.8% 4.1%** 7.8% 4.2%**

8. Otherwise worked to 

change govt. laws/policies 13.9% 13.4% 18.3% 13.3% 11.9% 11.2% 15.2% 10.0%

Worked with others on 

community problem 18.3% 15.2% 14.7% 16.5% 13.9% 14.0% 16.5% 13.4%

Worked to change 

private organization's policies 

on disability

N/A 5.4% 5.1% 7.7% 6.2% 6.2% 4.3% 7.3%

Sample size 803 1,198 170 114 275 562 755 435

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence 

** 99% level of confidence
54 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 30: Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy in 2020 and 2022

Key results: While people with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities in 2020 to say they follow politics, 

this gap mostly closed in 2022. People with disabilities reported lower perceived ability to participate in politics, and lower 

perceived responsiveness of the political system, in 2020 — yet these disability gaps also narrowed in 2022. Perceptions of 

the influence and respect of people with disabilities in politics are similar between people with and without disabilities in 2020. 

2020, 

No disability

2020, 

Disability

2020 

Disability 

Gap

2022, 

No disability

2022, 

Disability

2022 

Disability 

Gap

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability 

gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Follow politics:

Mean of 1-4 scale 3.13 3.23 0.10 3.18 3.20 0.02 0.06 -0.03 -0.08

1. Hardly at all 7.2% 9.4% 2.2% 5.5% 6.4% 0.9% -1.7% -3.0%* -1.3%

2. Only now 

and then 15.3% 11.0% -4.3%* 14.3% 14.8% 0.5% -1.0% 3.8%* 4.8%

3. Some of the time 35.1% 26.7% -8.4%** 36.5% 30.9% -5.6% 1.5% 4.2% 2.7%

4. Most of the time 42.4% 52.9% 10.5%** 43.6% 47.9% 4.2% 1.2% -5.0%* -6.3%

Perceived Efficacy

Internal efficacy--Personal 

ability to participate (mean of 

2-10 scale)

7.07 6.70 -0.37** 7.06 6.86 -0.20 -0.01 0.16 0.17

External efficacy--

responsiveness of political 

system (mean of 2-10 scale)

5.62 5.38 -0.25* 5.41 5.25 -0.17 -0.21 -0.13 0.08

Influence of people with 

disabilities in politics (mean of 

1-5 scale)

3.44 3.36 -0.09 3.40 3.38 -0.01 -0.05 0.03 0.07

Govt. officials treat people 

with disabilities with same 

respect as others 

(mean of 1-5 scale)

3.21 3.15 -0.06 3.17 3.05 -0.12 -0.04 -0.10 -0.06

Sample size 1,020 787 1,776 802 1,197

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 55

Table 31: Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy by Disability 

Type in 2022

Key results: People with cognitive impairments were less likely than those without disabilities to engage in non-voting political 

activities in 2022, while people with other types of disability did not differ from those with no disabilities.

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Follow politics:

Mean of 1-4 scale 3.18 3.20 3.13 3.08 2.95** 3.24 3.21 3.19

1. Hardly at all 5.5% 6.4% 9.5% 3.9% 10.0% 6.9% 5.4% 8.4%

2. Only now 

and then 14.3% 14.8% 18.3% 26.8%* 20.9% 13.3% 16.1% 11.9%

3. Some of 

the time 36.5% 30.9% 22.2%** 26.4% 33.3% 28.8%* 30.4% 31.7%

4. Most of 

the time 43.6% 47.9% 49.9% 42.9% 35.9% 51.0%* 48.1% 47.9%

Perceived Efficacy

Internal efficacy--

Personal ability to 

participate 

(mean of 2-10 scale)

7.06 6.86 6.80 30.8% 6.11** 6.93 6.90 6.80

External efficacy-

-responsiveness of 

political system 

(mean of 2-10 scale)

5.41 5.25 5.07 12.1% 5.15 5.40 5.23 5.27

Influence of people with 

disabilities in politics 

(mean of 1-5 scale)

3.40 3.38 3.71* 3.59 3.23 3.50 3.33 3.49

Govt. officials treat people 

with disabilities with same 

respect as others 

(mean of 1-5 scale)

3.17 3.05 3.25 3.32 3.00 3.14 3.07 3.02

Sample size 802 1,197 170 114 275 562 755 435

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
56 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 32: Recruitment for Voting in 2020 and 2022

Key results: About two-fifths of people both with and without disabilities were contacted about voting during the 2022 

campaign, which was close to the rate of contact in 2020 among both groups. 

2020, 

No disability

2020, 

Disability

2020 

Disability 

Gap

2022, 

No disability

2022, 

Disability

2022 

Disability 

Gap

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, No 

disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022, 

Disability

Change 

from 2020 

to 2022 in 

disability 

gap

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Anyone talk to you about 

registering or voting during 

campaign this fall

42.6% 38.1% -4.5% 43.5% 41.4% -2.1% 1.0% 3.3% 2.4%

Talked to by:

Friends 21.4% 18.1% -3.3% 18.9% 16.6% -2.4% -2.5% -1.5% 1.0%

Family members 20.7% 16.1% -4.6%* 18.8% 14.5% -4.3% -1.9% -1.6% 0.3%

Co-workers 14.5% 5.8% -8.7%** 9.6% 5.2% -4.4%* -4.9%* -0.6% 4.3%

Representatives from 

political parties 21.7% 20.1% -1.6% 24.5% 24.9% 0.4% 2.8% 4.7%* 2.0%

Representatives from 

other organizations 14.8% 13.5% -1.4% 14.7% 16.2% 1.5% -0.1% 2.7% 2.8%

Someone else 2.6% 3.6% 1.0% 1.1% 2.4% 1.3% -1.5%* -1.1% 0.4%

Sample size 787 1,773 800 1,192

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 57

Table 33: Recruitment for Voting by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: The likelihood of being contacted about voting in 2022 was lowest among people with mobility impairments. Being 

contacted by co-workers was especially low among all disability groups due to their low employment rate.

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Anyone talk to you about 

registering or voting during 

campaign this fall

43.5% 41.4% 43.7% 33.3% 45.4% 36.0%* 44.7% 35.0%*

Talked to by:

Friends 18.9% 16.6% 16.2% 7.4%** 17.6% 12.0%** 17.3% 15.0%

Family members 18.8% 14.5% 12.7% 15.0% 19.5% 12.4%* 14.8% 14.2%

Co-workers 9.6% 5.2%* 5.9% 2.1%** 6.0% 1.3%** 6.4% 3.2%**

Representatives from 

political parties 24.5% 24.9% 24.6% 20.3% 24.5% 21.1% 28.5% 17.9%*

Representatives from 

other organizations 14.7% 16.2% 18.4% 9.9% 16.1% 11.8% 18.2% 12.5%

Someone else 1.1% 2.4% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.0% 3.2%

Sample size 800 1,192 170 114 274 556 753 431

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
58 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION | RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Table 34: Transportation by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: People with disabilities are less likely than people without disabilities to be able to drive or to have their own or a 

family vehicle for basic transportation. They are similar to people without disabilities in likelihood of transportation problems, 

except that people with vision and cognitive impairments — and those needing help in daily activities — are more likely to 

encounter transportation problems.

No disability Any disability Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Can drive own or 

family vehicle 90.5% 70.8%** 74.9%** 50.8%** 62.5%** 66.5% 80.2%** 54.9%**

Most often use for 

basic transportation:

Own or family vehicle 90.2% 79.1%** 78.8%** 62.2%** 70.7%** 75.6%** 83.6%** 72.2%**

Someone else's vehicle 2.4% 6.1%** 6.9% 14.9%** 8.1%* 6.3%** 4.1% 9.2%**

Taxi or rideshare 0.4% 3.4%** 3.4% 5.5%* 2.8%* 4.1%** 2.4%* 5.3%**

Para-transit 0.2% 2.1%** 3.2% 7.0%* 3.0%* 3.1%** 1.0% 3.6%**

Other public 

transportation 5.6% 7.6% 4.6% 7.8% 13.6%* 8.9% 7.8% 7.3%

Other 1.2% 1.7% 3.2% 2.7% 1.8% 2.1% 1.2% 2.6%

Problems in transportation:

Never or rarely 57.7% 56.0% 63.0% 49.6% 42.7%** 56.8% 61.2% 47.5%**

Occasionally 29.2% 29.9% 25.7% 30.9% 35.5% 29.5% 26.9% 35.5%

Often 9.1% 8.8% 4.8% 9.5% 12.9% 8.1% 7.8% 10.3%

Very often 1.9% 3.5% 3.5% 5.7% 6.3%* 3.3% 3.0% 3.8%

Always 2.2% 1.8% 2.9% 4.3% 2.6% 2.2% 1.2% 2.9%

Sample size 803 1,198 170 114 275 562 755 435

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
DISABILITY AND VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE 2022 ELECTIONS 59

Table 35: Other Facilitators of Political Participation by Disability Type in 2022

Key results: People with disabilities are less likely than those without disabilities to be employed or have college degrees, 

and they have lower average incomes, but they are equally likely to meet regularly with any groups and more likely to attend 

religious services every week.

No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairment

Vision 

impairment

Cognitive 

impairment

Mobility 

impairment

No need for 

help in daily 

activities

Need help in 

daily activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Employed 61.1% 21.8% 21.0%** 15.4% 26.0%** 10.8%** 26.6%** 13.0%**

If employed: 

work full-time 74.1% 53.0% 44.9%* 75.6% 54.7%* 55.1%* 57.0%** 41.4%**

If employed: 

union member 10.8% 13.6% 13.4% 40.3% 18.8% 13.8% 13.6% 14.1%

Resources

Household income 

(average) $85,122 $50,293** $57,236** $39,178** $39,429** $45,880** $55,998** $40,299**

Bachelor's or 

graduate degree 29.0% 16.0%** 13.3%** 6.9%** 11.0%** 14.6%** 17.4%** 13.8%**

Social connections

Groups and organizations

Regularly meet in any 

groups/orgs. 39.0% 33.4% 38.8% 27.6% 29.7%* 31.7%* 35.3% 30.1%*

Regularly meet in 

disability group/org. N/A 9.9% 11.1% 19.6% 14.9% 8.4% 8.6% 11.7%

Attend religious services

Every week 21.4% 20.4% 22.5% 23.1% 16.2% 23.6% 21.3% 18.5%

Almost every week 9.6% 7.6% 4.7%* 2.4%** 6.8% 5.7%* 8.5% 6.3%

Once or twice a month 5.7% 7.0% 4.3% 12.8% 5.7% 7.0% 5.7% 8.8%

A few times a year 5.3% 6.9% 7.6% 4.6% 5.6% 6.8% 7.6% 5.7%

Never 57.9% 58.2% 60.9% 57.2% 65.7% 56.9% 57.0% 60.6%

Sample size 803 1,198 170 114 275 562 755 435

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level 

** 99% level
WWW.EAC.GOV/VOTING-ACCESSIBILITY