Disability and Voting Accessibility in the 2020 Elections: 

Final Report on Survey Results

Submitted to the Election Assistance Commission

February 16, 2021

Dr. Lisa Schur

Professor

Co-Director, Program for Disability Research

School of Management and Labor Relations

Rutgers University

50 Labor Center Way

New Brunswick, NJ 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
 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

1. Survey Method Overview........................................................................................................... 2

2. Key results.................................................................................................................................. 3

A. Demographic and Disability Characteristics........................................................................ 3

B. Voter Turnout........................................................................................................................ 3

C. Voting Methods ..................................................................................................................... 4

D. Voting Difficulties.................................................................................................................. 5

E. Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting.................................................................................. 8

F. Voting Difficulty by Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................... 8

G. Need for Assistance in Voting ............................................................................................... 9

H. Voting Independently Without Difficulty............................................................................10

I. Perceived Treatment by Election Officials...........................................................................11

J. Received Accessible Voting Information Before 2020 Election ...........................................11

K. Confidence That Vote Was Accurately Counted ................................................................11

L. Voter Comparisons of 2020 Voting to Pre-pandemic Experience.......................................12

M. Preference for How to Vote in Next Election......................................................................12

N. Non-voting Political Participation........................................................................................13

O. Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy .......................................................13

P. Recruitment for Voting.........................................................................................................14

Q. Other Facilitators of Political Participation........................................................................14

3. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................15

Appendix: Survey Questions to Identify Disability......................................................................16
 

List of Figures

Figure 1: Difficulties in Voting Across All Methods, 2012 and 2020 

Figure 2: Any Difficulty in Voting at Polling Place by Disability Type, 2020

Figure 3: Any Difficulty in Voting with Mail Ballot by Disability Type, 2020

Figure 4: Needing Assistance or Having Difficulty in Voting, 2020 

List of Tables

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics in 2020 Survey

Table 2: Disability Characteristics in 2020 Survey

Table 3: Voter Registration and Turnout in 2020

Table 4: Voting Methods Among Those Who Voted, 2012 and 2020

Table 5: Voting Methods by Type of Disability, 2020

Table 6: Any Voting Difficulties in 2012 and 2020

Table 7: Specific In-Person Voting Difficulties in 2012 and 2020

Table 8: Specific In-Person Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2020

Table 9: Wait Time for In-Person Voting by Disability Type in 2020

Table 10: Specific Mail Voting Difficulties in 2012 and 2020

Table 11: Specific Mail Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2020

Table 12: Expected Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2020

Table 13: Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting in 2012 and 2020

Table 14: Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting by Disability Type in 2020

Table 15: Voting Difficulty by Race and Ethnicity in 2020

Table 16: Need for Assistance in Voting in 2012 and 2020

Table 17: Need for Assistance in Voting by Disability Type in 2020

Table 18: Voting Independently Without Difficulty in 2020

Table 19: Treatment by Election Officials in 2012 and 2020

Table 20: Treatment by Election Officials by Disability Type in 2020

Table 21: Received Accessible Voting Information Before Election in 2020

Table 22: Confidence That Vote was Accurately Counted in 2020

Table 23: Voter Comparisons of 2020 Voting Experience to Pre-Pandemic Experience

Table 24: Preference for How to Vote in Next Election

Table 25: Non-voting Political Participation in 2012 and 2020

Table 26: Non-voting Political Participation by Disability Type in 2020

Table 27: Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy in 2012 and 2020

Table 28: Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy by Disability Type in 2020

Table 29: Recruitment for Voting in 2012 and 2020

Table 30: Recruitment for Voting by Disability Type in 2020

Table 31: Transportation by Disability Type in 2020

Table 32: Other Facilitators of Political Participation by Disability Type in 2020
 

1

Executive Summary

Analysis of the 2020 Disability and Voting Accessibility Survey, based on representative 

samples of citizens with and without disabilities who were eligible to vote in the November 2020 

elections, indicates strong progress in voting accessibility since the comparable 2012 survey. The 

disability sample includes people with a variety of disabilities, based on Census Bureau measures. 

Some key results include:

• Voting difficulties among people with disabilities declined markedly from 2012 to 2020.

• About one in nine voters with disabilities encountered difficulties voting in 2020. This is 

double the rate of people without disabilities.

• Among people with disabilities who voted in person, 18% reported difficulties, compared 

to 10% of people without disabilities. The disability number is down from 30% in 2012.

• During a general election that saw a shift to voting by mail, 5% of voters with disabilities 

had difficulties using a mail ballot, compared to 2% of voters without disabilities.

• Five of six (83%) of voters with disabilities voted independently without any difficulty in 

2020, compared to over nine of ten (92%) of voters without disabilities.

• One in seven (14%) of voters with disabilities using a mail ballot needed assistance or 

encountered problems in voting, compared to only 3% of those without disabilities. 

• Voting difficulties were most common among people with vision and cognitive 

impairments.

• Close to three-fourths (74%) of voters with disabilities voted with a mail ballot or early inperson in 2020. This represents a significant increase from 2012 and is higher than the 

two-thirds of non-disabled voters who did so in 2020.

• People with disabilities voted at a 7% lower rate than people without disabilities of the 

same age, pointing toward a continuing disability gap in voter turnout.

The decrease in voting difficulties from 2012 to 2020 is good news, though it should be noted 

that about half of the decrease in polling place difficulties appears due to a change in composition of 

voters, as those who were most likely to have difficulties at polling places shifted to using mail 

ballots in the 2020 pandemic. The other half of the decrease, however, appears due to improved

polling place accessibility that represents progress by election officials and policy-makers. This 

interpretation is supported by the finding that among those who voted at a polling place both before 

and after the pandemic, those with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities to say 

that voting in 2020 was easier than before the pandemic.

This report reviews other key results contained in 32 tables, making comparisons to the 2012 

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, treatment 

by election officials, voter comparisons of 2020 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 
 

2

break out all results by major disability type (hearing, vision, cognitive, and mobility impairment) 

and need for help with daily activities.

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 2020 national elections. The survey was designed to replicate the method 

and questions of our 2012 post-election survey that was also sponsored by the EAC, with a number of 

questions added to more fully assess voting by mail ballot which expanded greatly in 2020 due to the 

COVID pandemic. The 2020 survey has 2,569 respondents, stratified to include 1,782 citizens with 

disabilities and 787 citizens without disabilities. As in 2012, the oversampling of citizens with 

disabilities was done in order to get a large enough sample for small margins of error and reliable 

breakdowns by major type of disability and demographic variables.

The survey was conducted by SSRS, which is the same firm that did the 2012 survey. The 

2012 survey results were published in peer-reviewed political science journals.1 SSRS is a wellestablished survey firm that is a member of the American Association of Public Opinion Research 

(AAPOR). The 2012 and 2020 surveys were conducted using representative samples combined with 

state-of-the-art techniques and AAPOR standards. The survey samples are weighted to ensure that 

they closely reflect the underlying populations of citizens with and without disabilities. 

In preparing for the 2020 survey, we conducted two focus groups of voters with disabilities in 

the 2020 primary elections in order to inform survey design and craft new questions on mail voting, 

electronic ballot delivery, and preferred methods of voting in the future.

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

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 2012, 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. 

1 Lisa Schur, Meera Adya, and Mason Ameri. "Accessible Democracy: Reducing Voting Obstacles for People with 

Disabilities." Election Law Journal Vol. 14, No. 1, 2015, pp. 60-65; Lisa Schur, Mason Ameri, and Meera Adya. 

“Disability, Voter Turnout, and Polling Place Accessibility,” Social Science Quarterly Vol. 98, No. 5, November 2017, 

pp. 1374-1390. 
 

3

2. Key results

The results are shown in 32 tables at the end of this document. The tables contain a large 

number of 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 results. 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 important that the tables be fully accessible for all people with disabilities. We have used 

several techniques to increase 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 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).

People with disabilities are disproportionately likely to be older and non-married, less likely 

to have high school or college degrees, 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 (Table 2), mobility impairments are most common 

(48%), followed by cognitive (24%), hearing (18%), and vision impairments (12%). (Note 

that a person may fall into more than one of these categories.) Over two-thirds (69%) say they 

are limited in activities of daily living, and one-third (32%) report needing help in activities of 

daily living. Just over two-fifths (41%) report “a lot” of difficulty in daily activities.

B. Voter Turnout

Consistent with past patterns, people with disabilities appear slightly less likely than 

those without disabilities to have voted this year (Table 3). 

These results indicate a 3.6 percentage point gap between the turnout of people with and 

without disabilities, which is lower than the 6.3 point gap found using Census data in 2016.

2

It should be cautioned, however, that the two data sources use somewhat different methods. 

We will have a much better sense of the 2020 turnout of people with disabilities when the 

larger Census sample becomes available for analysis in April, 2021.

2 Lisa Schur and Douglas Kruse, “Fact sheet: Disability and Voter Turnout in the 2016 Elections,” Rutgers University, 

https://smlr.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/documents/PressReleases/kruse_and_schur_-_2016_disability_turnout.pdf. 
 

4

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

7.1 percentage points that is outside the margin of error when we adjust for age—that is, when 

we take account of 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 turnout occurred among people with vision impairments (an 11.6 point gap 

compared to people without disabilities) and cognitive impairments (10.3 point gap), while 

those with hearing impairments voted at close to the same rate as people without disabilities.

The reported turnout numbers are higher than 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, but there is no reason to think that it will create any bias in comparing voting 

difficulties between people with and without disabilities.

C. Voting Methods

The substantial shift to mail voting in 2020 compared to 2012 was similar between voters 

with and without disabilities (Tables 4 and 5). 

Between 2012 and 2020 the percentage voting in person at a polling place or election office 

dropped 28 percentage points both among voters without disabilities (84% to 56%) and voters 

with disabilities (76% to 49%)(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

 Just under half (49%) of voters with disabilities voted at a 

polling place or election office in 2020, compared to over half (56%) of voters without

disabilities (Table 4). Voters with disabilities were especially likely to return a mail ballot 

using the postal service, and were no more or less likely than voters without disabilities to use 

dropboxes or take a ballot to a polling place or election office. 

The use of mail ballots was higher for voters with disabilities than for voters without 

disabilities across the major disability types (Table 5). People with mobility impairments and 

those needing help with daily activities were the most likely to use mail ballots (55% for each 

group, compared to 44% among voters without disabilities). 

Both early voting and voting by mail are designed to make voting easier. Three-fourths 

(74%) of voters with disabilities used one of these two methods in 2020, compared to just 

over two-thirds (69%) of voters without disabilities (Table 4, columns 4 and 5). 

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 2016 election figures at Schur and Kruse, Op. Cit.
 

5 

D. Voting Difficulties

The incidence of voting difficulties dropped markedly for voters with disabilities from 

2012 to 2020 (Tables 6 to 12). 

Overall, the percent of voters with disabilities reporting voting difficulties across all methods 

dropped from 26% to 11%, compared to a non-significant drop from 7% to 6% among voters 

without disabilities. This is shown in Figure 1.

Looking just at those who voted in person at a polling place or election office, reported 

difficulties among voters with disabilities dropped significantly from 30% to 18%, while the 

corresponding significant drop among voters using mail ballots was 13% to 2%. A broader 

measure of mail ballot difficulties that includes difficulties in receiving or returning the ballot 

brings the 2020 disability figure up to 5%.

While the drop in reported difficulties is obviously good news, it is nonetheless noteworthy 

that the overall rate of difficulties for voters with disabilities in 2020 is almost twice the rate 

for voters without disabilities (11% compared to 6%). In addition, the rate of difficulties for 

voters with disabilities is about twice as high both among in-person voters (18% compared to 

10%) and mail voters (5% compared to 2%). These disability gaps are outside the margin of

error. 

Improvements in accessibility versus composition changes among polling place voters

The drop in voting difficulties at polling places may not all be due to improvement in polling 

place accessibility. A contributing factor may be a composition change, if those who 

expected the most difficulty in voting, or those who faced the greatest risk from the COVID 

pandemic, were disproportionately likely to switch to mail ballots in 2020. This would result 
 

6 

in people with less severe disabilities using polling places in 2020, and consequently having 

fewer reported difficulties. We can estimate this by comparing the actual 2020 polling place 

difficulties to the number that would be predicted from 2012 data among people with similar 

disability types and severity. Using this method, we predict that 24% of polling place voters 

with disabilities would have difficulties in 2020, which is significantly more than the 18% 

who actually reported difficulties. 

In other words, about half of the 12-point drop in polling place difficulties from 2012 to 2020 

(from 30% to 18%) appears due to people with more severe disabilities switching to voting by 

mail in 2020. The other half of the drop appears due to improved polling place accessibility 

since 2012, reflecting progress from the efforts of election officials and policy-makers. 

Specific difficulties with voting in person

The largest drops in difficulties voting in person in a polling place for voters with disabilities 

were in difficulty reading or seeing the ballot, and difficulty understanding how to vote or use 

the voting equipment (Table 7, column 8). 

Figure 2 shows difficulty in voting broken down by disability type, summarized from Table 8. 

Almost one-third of people with cognitive impairments (30%) 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 (25%) and with vision impairments (24%).
 

7 

Wait times at polling places

The 2020 survey asked polling place voters how long they had to wait in line to vote. As 

shown in Table 9, the average wait time was 24 minutes for voters with disabilities, slightly 

but not significantly less than the average of 29 minutes for voters without disabilities. 

People with vision impairments had a significantly lower average wait of 13 minutes, perhaps 

reflecting some of them being taken to the front of the line. Wait times did not otherwise vary 

significantly 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 10, column 5). Just over 1% reported difficulty in 

reading the ballot, which not surprisingly was most common among voters with vision 

impairments (6% in Table 11, column 4). Counting all difficulties, voters with vision 

impairments were clearly the most likely to have difficulty voting with a mail ballot (22%, in 

Table 11, 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 a final way to assess the importance of voting difficulties, the survey asked non-voters if 

they would expect voting difficulties both in person and using a mail ballot, and asked inperson and mail voters if they would expect difficulties using the other method. As shown in 

Table 12, about one-fourth of both non-voters and mail voters with disabilities said they 

would expect difficulties in voting at a polling place (24% and 25% respectively), which were 

both significantly higher than for people without disabilities. These numbers are only slightly 

higher than the actual difficulty rate of 18% reported by polling place voters in Table 6. In 
 

8

contrast, about one-tenth of non-voters and polling place voters with disabilities said they 

would expect difficulties in voting by mail (10% and 12% respectively), which is higher than 

the actual 5% rate reported in Table 6.

E. Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting

The perceived difficulty of voting was similar in 2020 between voters with and without 

disabilities, in contrast to 2012 when voters with disabilities were more likely to perceive 

voting as difficult (Tables 13 and 14). 

Both the 2012 and 2020 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?" In 2020 a similar question was used to ask about the experience in 

voting by mail or dropbox. 

While there was a significant 10-point gap in 2012 between people with and without 

disabilities saying that voting at a polling place was “very easy” (76% compared to 86%), the 

percentage giving this response in 2020 was nearly identical (82% compared to 83%, in Table 

13 columns 4 and 5). 

Among voters using mail ballots in 2020, people with disabilities were similar to people 

without disabilities in reporting that voting was “very easy” (79% compared to 81%)(Table 

13). However, those with vision or cognitive impairments were significantly less likely to 

report this (64% and 67% respectively)(Table 14, columns 4 and 5). 

F. Voting Difficulty by Race and Ethnicity

Among voters with disabilities in 2020, the average wait time at a polling place was 

higher for Black non-Hispanic voters, and perceived difficulty in voting at a polling 

place was higher for Hispanic/Latino voters, relative to White non-Hispanic voters. 

Other reported voting difficulties did not differ significantly among these groups, but 

comparisons are limited by small sample sizes (Table 15).

Asked to identify specific voting difficulties in 2020, Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic/Latino, 

and White non-Hispanic voters with and without disabilities did not vary significantly in their 

responses, whether voting in person or with a mail ballot. 

Asked about wait times, however, Black non-Hispanic voters with disabilities reported an 

average 45.3 minutes waiting at a polling place compared to only 19.2 minutes among White 

non-Hispanic voters with disabilities (Table 15, columns 1 and 3). Also, while their cites of 

specific difficulties were not significantly higher, Hispanic/Latino voters with disabilities had 

a higher average score on perceived difficulty in voting in a polling place relative to White 

non-Hispanic voters with disabilities (columns 2 and 3).
 

9

The estimates for Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic/Latino voters should be treated with 

caution since the sample sizes are small when broken down by disability status. While the 

samples are large enough to produce two significant differences, some of the other observed 

differences would likely be significant with larger sample sizes. These results should 

therefore be treated as exploratory information on the voting experiences of people with 

disabilities by race and ethnicity.

G. Need for Assistance in Voting

Fewer voters with disabilities reported needing assistance in 2020 compared to 2012 

when voting at a polling place or using a mail ballot (Tables 16 and 17).

Among those voting at a polling place, the percent of people with disabilities needing 

assistance dropped markedly from 2012 to 2020 (30% to 6%)(columns 2 and 5, Table 16). 

There was also a drop in voters using mail ballots who needed assistance in completing the 

ballot (11% to 5%). The 2020 figure for mail ballots, however, increases to 11% when also 

including need for assistance in returning the ballot (which was not asked about in the 2012 

survey).

Among those needing assistance at a polling place in 2020, election officials were the most 

likely to provide such assistance for voters both with and without disabilities (54% and 90% 

respectively), though close to one-fourth of voters with disabilities relied on either a family 

member (19%) or home aide (6%)(Table 16, columns 4 and 5).

One concern is that among those saying they needed assistance, one-sixth (17%) of voters 

with disabilities at a polling place said they did not receive it (Table 16, column 5).

A breakdown of need for assistance at a polling place by disability type shows that the need 

was highest among those with vision impairments (16%)(Table 17, column 4).

Among voters using mail ballots, close to one-ninth (11%) of voters with disabilities reported 

needing assistance in voting, with 5% needing assistance in completing the ballot and 10% 

needing assistance in returning the ballot (Table 16, column 5). Family members were the 

most likely to provide such assistance, though just under one-tenth (8%) relied on friends or 

neighbors and 7% relied on home health aides (Table 16, column 5).

A breakdown of need for assistance with a mail ballot by disability type shows that the need 

was highest among those with vision impairments (25%) and those needing help with daily 

activities (22%)(Table 17, columns 4 and 8).
 

10 

H. Voting Independently Without Difficulty

Close to five-sixths of voters with disabilities in 2020 reported voting independently (not 

needing assistance) without any difficulty, compared to over nine-tenths of voters 

without disabilities. The rate was lower among in-person voters than among mail voters 

with disabilities, and was lowest among voters with vision impairments (Table 18).

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

calculate what percentage of voters were able to vote independently without difficulty. As 

shown in Figure 4 below, 83% of voters with disabilities were able to vote independently 

without difficulty, compared to 92% of voters without disabilities. 

Put another way, about one-sixth (17%) of voters with disabilities needed assistance and/or 

had difficulty voting, which was twice as high as among voters with disabilities (8%). 

The likelihood of voting independently without difficulty was lower for people with 

disabilities than for people without disabilities both among in-person voters (79% compared 

to 88%) and voters using mail ballots (86% compared to 97%). This likelihood was low 

across all the types of disability, and was especially low for mail voters with vision 

impairments (65%) and in-person voters with cognitive impairments (67%)(Table 18, 

columns 4 and 5).
 

11

I. Perceived Treatment by Election Officials

While the perceived respect from election officials appeared to decline for both voters 

with and without disabilities from 2012 to 2020, voters with disabilities were more likely 

than those without disabilities in 2020 to report that election officials in polling places 

were “very respectful” toward them (Tables 19 and 20).

The comparison between 2012 and 2020 is limited by the rotation of answer options in 2020 

to control for order effects (not done in 2012). Using the same option orders in 2012 and 

2020, there was a decline in the reported respectfulness of election officials toward voters 

both with and without disabilities (Table 19, columns 7 and 8). This may be related to 

unusually high turnout and stress in the 2020 election due in part to the pandemic.

When using the full 2020 sample that included the rotation of answer options, voters with 

disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities to report that election officials 

were “very respectful” toward them in 2020 (84% compared to 77%). The 2020 pattern is 

similar across disability types, with people with mobility impairments being most likely to 

report that election officials were “very respectful” (87%)(Table 20, column 6).

J. Received Accessible Voting Information Before 2020 Election

Most voters with and without disabilities said they received information on their voting 

options that was accessible and met their needs, but voters with cognitive impairments 

were less likely to report this (Table 21). 

Voters were asked “Before you cast your vote in the 2020 elections, did you get information 

about your voting options that was accessible and met your needs?” Just over four-fifths of 

voters with and without disabilities replied yes (82% and 83% respectively), while close to 

12% of each group said they did not get any information on voting options, 3-4% said that the 

information did not meet their needs, and about 1% said the information was not accessible. 

The only disability group with significantly worse scores on this question was people with 

cognitive impairments, of whom only 77% said they received accessible information that 

meet their needs, and 20% said they did not receive any information on their voting options.

K. Confidence That Vote Was Accurately Counted

Voters with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities to say they are 

“highly confident” their vote was accurately counted in 2020 (Table 22). 

Two-thirds (68%) of voters with disabilities said they are highly confident their vote was 

accurately counted in 2020, compared to 59% of voters without disabilities. Close to oneeighth (13%) of each group said they are “not very confident” or “not at all confident” their 

vote was accurately counted. The results are very similar for in-person voters and mail voters 

among those both with and without disabilities.
 

12

L. Voter Comparisons of 2020 Voting to Pre-pandemic Experience

Asked to compare voting in 2020 with the last time they voted before the pandemic, most

voters with and without disabilities saw little difference in the ease or difficulty of voting 

in 2020, though reports of easier voting in 2020 were most likely for those who voted by 

mail in 2020 but in person before the pandemic (Table 23).

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 (27% of 

voters with disabilities and 24% of voters without disabilities), while similar numbers said it 

was “about the same” (63% and 64%), and voters with disabilities were slightly less likely to 

say it was somewhat or much more difficult (10% compared to 12%). Close to half of people 

who voted by mail in 2020 but in person before the pandemic said that voting was easier this 

year (49% of voters without disabilities and 53% of voters with disabilities).

Another noteworthy result is that among those who voted in person both in 2020 and before 

the pandemic, voters with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities to say 

that voting was somewhat or much easier in 2020 (23% compared to 13%). This is consistent 

with the decreased reports of voting difficulties since 2012, and the idea that polling places 

are becoming more accessible.

M. Preference for How to Vote in Next Election

About half of citizens with disabilities would prefer to vote in person in the next election, 

compared to three-fifths of citizens without disabilities (Table 24).

Both 2020 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 (49%) of 

people with disabilities and three-fifths (61%) of people without disabilities. The next most 

popular option was receiving and sending a ballot by mail or dropbox, chosen by one-third 

(32%) of people with disabilities and one-fifth (19%) of people without disabilities. Choices

among the remaining three options did not differ significantly by disability status: about oneeighth (12-14%) chose voting fully online by personal computer or smartphone, 4-5% chose 

filling out a ballot online and then printing and mailing it, and 3% chose voting by drive 

through or curbside.

Comparing the preferences of 2020 voters and non-voters, in-person voting was most popular 

among both groups, but in place of mail voting as a second choice, the next most popular 

choice for non-voters with and without disabilities was voting fully online (27% and 20% 

respectively). The relatively new option of filling out a ballot online, and then printing it out

and mailing it, has promise for enabling people with vision impairments to vote confidentially 
 

13

at home. It was chosen by only 5% of people with disabilities, and people with vision 

impairments, perhaps reflecting lack of familiarity.

N. Non-voting Political Participation

Several forms of non-voting political participation stayed constant among people with 

disabilities from 2012 to 2020, but declined among people without disabilities (Tables 25

and 26).

In addition to measuring voting, the survey measured several other types of non-voting 

political participation, such as contributing to or working for a political candidate. Just under 

half of people with and without disabilities (45% and 43% respectively) engaged in at least 

one of the eight activities measured. People with hearing impairments were most likely to 

engage in one or more of the activities (58%), and people with cognitive impairments were 

least likely to do so (28%)(Table 26, columns 3 and 5).

Apart from the clearly political activities, 4% of people with disabilities 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.” 

O. Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy

People with disabilities expressed more political interest than did people without 

disabilities in 2020. While they express lower perceptions of political efficacy than do 

people without disabilities, these disability gaps narrowed from 2012 to 2020 (Tables 27 

and 28). 

Just over half (53%) of people with disabilities said they follow politics “most of the time” in 

2020, compared to only two-fifths (42%) of people without disabilities (Table 27, columns 4 

and 5). This percentage was highest among those with hearing impairments (61%) and 

mobility impairments (58%)(Table 28).

Perceptions of one’s personal 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.5

Using standard measures of internal and external efficacy, this survey finds that people with 

5 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.
 

14

disabilities have lower average scores on both measures. Perceptions of internal efficacy, 

however, significantly improved among people with disabilities from 2012 to 2020, while 

perceptions of external efficacy changed very little (Table 27, column 8).

The survey also asked specifically about the perceived influence of, and respect for, people 

with disabilities in politics. People both with and without disabilities perceived lower 

influence of people with disabilities in 2020 compared to 2012, while the perceived respect of 

government officials for people with disabilities did not change significantly among either 

group (Table 27, columns 7 and 8). Both measures had the lowest scores in 2020 among 

people with cognitive impairments (Table 28, column 5).

P. Recruitment for Voting

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 2012 and 2020 (Tables 29 and 30). 

Having someone talk to you about voting is a strong predictor of 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 29, columns 1, 2, 4 and 5). 

People with hearing and mobility impairments were the least likely to report being recruited 

for voting in 2020 (29% and 33% respectively)(Table 30, columns 3 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 30).

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 31 and 32).

Political participation is shaped by transportation access, social connections, and economic 

and educational resources. People with disabilities are less likely than those without 

disabilities to have a car they can drive (70% compared to 90%) or to use their own or a 

family vehicle (83% compared to 93%)(Table 31, 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 they are more likely to say that they “always” have transportation problems (3% 

compared to 1%), and those with vision and cognitive impairments are less likely to say they 

“never or rarely” have transportation problems (47% and 59%)(Table 31, columns 4 and 5).
 

15

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 do people without disabilities in 2020 (24% compared to 

60%)(Table 32). 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: just over one-fourth of people both with and without disabilities report meeting 

regularly with any groups or organizations (28% and 27% respectively), and people with 

disabilities are more likely to say they attend religious services every week (18% compared to 

12%)(Table 32, 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.

3. Conclusion

The results show significant progress has been made in voting accessibility since 2012. This reflects 

well on the efforts of the EAC, election officials, policy-makers, and disability organizations. 

Nevertheless voters with disabilities 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.
 

16

Appendix: Survey Questions to Identify Disability

Note: The first six questions are used by the 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 in order 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?
 

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics in 2020 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.

Nondisability 

sample

Disability 

sample

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Female 51.4% 52.4%

Male 48.5% 47.0%

Black non-Hispanic/Latino 13.1% 12.2%

Hispanic/Latino 14.3% 10.1% *

White non-Hispanic/Latino 64.7% 70.7% *

Other race/ethnicity 7.8% 6.0%

Age 18-34 25.3% 10.2% **

Age 35-49 39.7% 18.6% **

Age 50-64 22.7% 29.2% **

Age 65+ 12.3% 42.1% **

Married, spouse present 52.4% 41.5% **

Separated/divorced 10.6% 20.9% **

Widowed 4.9% 15.0% **

Never married 32.1% 22.6% **

No HS degree 7.8% 14.7% **

HS degree/GED 27.9% 32.2%

Some college, no degree 18.8% 20.2%

Associate's degree 12.4% 10.7%

Bachelor's degree 22.0% 13.8% **

Graduate degree 11.1% 8.5%

Northeast 18.7% 16.2%

Midwest 20.6% 22.1%

South 37.6% 39.7%

West 23.0% 22.0%

Sample size 787 1,782

* Difference between disability and non-disability samples is significant at 

95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 2: Disability Characteristics in 2020 Survey

Key results: Half of those in the disability sample have 

mobility impairments, while one-eighth to one-fourth have 

hearing, vision, or cognitive impairments. One-third need 

help in daily activities.

Disability 

Sample

Total 100.0%

Hearing impairment 17.8%

 Totally deaf 0.9%

Vision impairment 12.0%

 Totally blind 1.4%

Cognitive impairment 23.8%

Mobility impairment 47.8%

 Wheelchair user 7.4%

 Cane or crutches user 26.1%

Difficulty dressing or bathing 12.7%

Difficulty going outside alone 26.6%

Limited in activities of daily living 68.7%

Need help in activities of daily living 31.9%

Level of difficulty with activities:

 Hardly at all 6.4%

 A little 16.5%

 Some 36.4%

 A lot 40.6%

Sample size 1,782
 

Table 3: Voter Registration and Turnout in 2020

Key results: People with disabilities were 7 points less likely to vote than those without disabilities after 

adjusting for age. The voting gaps were largest for people with vision and cognitive impairments.

Non- disability 

sample

Disability 

sample

Disability gap

(1) (2) (3)

Registered to vote 90.9% 89.1% -1.7%

Voted 83.6% 80.0% -3.6%

Disability voting gap adjusted for age^

Any disability -7.1% **

Hearing impairment 1.9%

Vision impairment -11.6% **

Cognitive impairment -10.3% **

Mobility impairment -6.5%

Disability but no need for help with daily 

activities

-5.6% *

Disability with need for help in daily 

activities

-7.6% *

Sample size 787 1,782

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level

^ 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.
 

Table 4: Voting Methods Among Those Who Voted, 2012 and 2020

Key results: The increase in mail voting was identical between voters with and without disabilities from 2012 to 2020. Just over half of people with 

disabilities voted by mail in 2020, compared to 44% of voters without disabilities. The use of dropboxes was similar between the two groups. Three-fourths 

of people with disabilities either voted with a mail ballot or voted early at a polling place or election office.

Voting method 2012, No 

disability

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)

In person at polling place or 

election office

83.6% 76.2% -7.4% ** 56.1% 48.7% -7.3% * -27.5% ** -27.5% ** 0.0%

In person on election day 65.3% 56.6% -8.7% ** 31.2% 24.8% -6.4% * -34.1% ** -31.8% ** 2.3%

In person before election day 18.2% 19.4% 1.2% 24.8% 23.9% -0.9% 6.6% * 4.5% -2.1%

Mail ballot--any use 16.4% 23.8% 7.4% ** 43.9% 51.3% 7.3% * 27.5% ** 27.5% ** 0.0%

 Received ballot by computer na na na 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% na na na

 Sent ballot by postal service na na na 17.5% 27.5% 10.0% ** na na na

 Delivered ballot to dropbox na na na 17.7% 15.7% -2.0% na na na

 Took mail ballot to polling 

place or election office before 

election day

na na na 7.1% 5.2% -1.8% * na na na

 Took mail ballot to polling 

place or election office on 

election day

na na na 1.0% 1.7% 0.7% na na na

Voted early or with mail ballot 34.7% 43.2% 8.5% * 68.8% 74.2% 5.4% * 34.1% ** 31.0% ** -3.1%

Sample size 865 1,505 690 1,494

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence ** 99% level of confidence
 

Table 5: Voting Methods by Type of Disability, 2020

Key results: Mail voting 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 help 

in daily 

activities

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

In person at polling place 56.1% 48.7% * 52.0% 51.5% 49.9% 45.3% ** 50.4% 45.1% **

 In person on election day 31.2% 24.8% * 27.7% 24.6% 28.3% 24.1% * 25.8% 22.6% *

 in person before election day 24.8% 23.9% 24.3% 27.0% 21.6% 21.1% 24.5% 22.5%

Mail ballot--any use 43.9% 51.3% * 48.0% 48.5% 50.1% 54.7% ** 49.6% 54.9% **

 Received ballot by computer 1.3% 1.3% 1.9% 3.0% 1.1% 1.2% 0.9% 2.2%

 Sent ballot by postal service 17.5% 27.5% 28.2% ** 26.2% 27.6% ** 31.0% ** 26.0% ** 31.1% **

 Delivered ballot to dropbox 17.7% 15.7% 11.8% * 14.9% 15.0% 16.9% 15.8% 15.5%

 Took mail ballot to polling 

place or election office before 

election day

7.1% 5.2% 5.2% 2.3% ** 5.3% 3.9% * 5.4% 4.7%

 Took mail ballot to polling 

place or election office on 

election day

1.0% 1.7% 1.9% 2.7% 0.9% 1.4% 1.4% 2.1%

Voted early or with mail ballot 68.8% 74.2% * 71.1% 71.9% 69.2% 74.6% 73.8% 75.1%

Sample size 690 1,494 243 147 294 696 1,032 456

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 6: Any Voting Difficulties in 2012 and 2020

Key results: The percent of voters with disabilities reporting any voting difficulties declined from 26% in 2012 to 11% in 2020, but changed little for voters 

without disabilities. Over one-sixth (18%) of voters with disabilities reported difficulties voting in person in 2020, and 5% reported difficulties in voting by 

mail, which were about twice the rates among voters without disabilities. Specific voting difficulties are presented in Tables 7 to 11.

Voting difficulties 2012, No 

disability

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)

Any difficulty in voting 

across all methods

7.4% 26.1% 18.7% ** 6.4% 11.4% 5.0% ** -1.0% -14.7% ** -13.8% **

If voted in person: any 

difficulty in voting

8.4% 30.1% 21.7% ** 9.8% 18.0% 8.1% ** 1.4% -12.2% ** -13.6% **

If used mail ballot: any 

difficulty in voting 

(receiving, reading, 

understanding, filling out, or 

returning ballot)

na na na 2.1% 5.4% 3.3% * na na na

If used mail ballot: any 

difficulty in reading, 

understanding, or filling out 

mail ballot

2.2% 13.4% 11.2% ** 0.7% 2.3% 1.6% -1.4% -11.1% ** -9.7% **

Sample size 865 1505 619 986

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence ** 99% level of confidence
 

Table 7: Specific In-Person Voting Difficulties in 2012 and 2020

Key results: The biggest declines in voting difficulties for people with disabilities between 2012 and 2020 were in difficulty reading or seeing the ballot, and 

difficulty understanding how to vote or use the voting equipment.

Types of voting difficulties 2012, No 

disability

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)

Any difficulty in voting in person 

at polling place or election office

8.4% 30.1% 21.7% ** 9.8% 18.0% 8.1% ** 1.4% -12.2% ** -13.6% **

1. Difficulty in finding or getting 

to the polling place

1.6% 5.9% 4.4% 2.3% 1.4% -0.9% 0.7% -4.5% -5.3%

2. Difficulty getting inside the 

polling place (for example, steps)

0.2% 3.5% 3.3% ** 0.4% 3.2% 2.7% ** 0.3% -0.3% -0.5%

3. Difficulty waiting in line 3.5% 8.3% 4.8% * 6.2% 7.4% 1.2% 2.7% -0.9% -3.6%

4. Difficulty reading or seeing 

the ballot

0.9% 11.7% 10.8% ** 0.0% 3.8% 3.8% ** -0.9% * -7.9% ** -7.0% *

5. Difficulty understanding how 

to vote or use the voting 

equipment

1.3% 10.3% 9.0% ** 2.9% 2.7% -0.2% 1.6% -7.6% ** -9.2% **

6. Difficulty communicating with 

poll workers or other officials at 

the polling place

1.2% 1.6% 0.4% 0.6% 2.1% 1.5% -0.7% 0.5% 1.1%

7. Difficulty writing on the ballot 0.3% 4.5% 4.3% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% * -0.3% -3.3% -3.0%

8. Difficulty operating the voting 

machine

0.9% 1.3% 0.4% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.4% -0.3%

9. Other type of difficulty in 

voting

0.6% 3.8% 3.2% 0.3% 1.8% 1.5% * -0.3% -2.0% -1.7%

Sample size 710 1,038 371 697

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence ** 99% level of confidence
 

Table 8: Specific In-Person Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2020

Key results: The most common in-person voting difficulty was waiting in line, for people both with and without disabilities. Close to one-third of people 

with cognitive impairments, and one-fourth of people with vision impairments, had difficulties voting in person.

Types of voting difficulties No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairme

nt

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

9.8% 18.0% ** 19.3% 23.5% 30.0% ** 17.2% * 15.2% 24.8% **

1. Difficulty in finding or getting 

to the polling place

2.3% 1.4% 1.0% 3.8% 3.6% 1.2% 0.8% 3.1%

2. Difficulty in getting inside the 

polling place (for example, steps)

0.4% 3.2% ** 1.6% 1.1% 2.4% 5.1% ** 2.1% 6.0% *

3. Difficulty waiting in line 6.2% 7.4% 8.5% 1.4% ** 11.2% 5.1% 7.1% 8.1%

4. Difficulty reading or seeing 

the ballot

0.0% 3.8% ** 4.1% 20.5% ** 7.4% * 5.2% ** 1.5% * 9.7% **

5. Difficulty understanding how 

to vote or use the voting 

equipment

2.9% 2.7% 0.9% 2.2% 3.5% 2.9% 2.6% 2.9%

6. Difficulty communicating with 

poll workers or other officials at 

the polling place

0.6% 2.1% 3.2% 1.1% 2.5% 2.6% 1.3% 3.8%

7. Difficulty writing on the ballot 0.0% 1.2% * 0.9% 1.2% 2.3% 2.2% 0.5% 3.2%

8. Difficulty operating the voting 

machine

0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 4.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.9% 1.2%

9. Other type of difficulty in 

voting

0.3% 1.8% * 4.0% 2.2% 4.3% 1.2% 1.7% 2.0%

Sample size 371 697 124 72 139 298 506 189

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 9: Wait Time for In-Person Voting by Disability Type in 2020

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

28.8 23.7 29.1 12.5 ** 21.5 22.9 25.2 20.0

Median wait time in 

minutes

10 10 10 10 10 5 10 6

 Less than 10 minutes 52.3% 57.3% 59.8% 64.1% 55.8% 63.3% * 54.7% 64.0% *

 11-20 minutes 15.5% 17.3% 20.6% 22.7% 24.2% 14.1% 19.8% 11.0%

 21-30 minutes 10.7% 8.5% 4.3% * 6.8% 7.3% 7.9% 6.8% 12.9%

 31-60 minutes 11.2% 10.0% 6.9% 5.4% 8.1% 7.8% 11.2% 6.7%

 61-120 minutes 7.3% 4.5% 2.5% * 1.0% ** 2.3% ** 3.8% 4.9% 3.3%

 More than two hours 3.0% 2.4% 6.0% 0.0% ** 2.2% 3.1% 2.5% 2.1%

Sample size 363 650 108 69 126 277 474 175

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 10: Specific Mail Voting Difficulties in 2012 and 2020

Key results: Reported difficulty in reading or filling out a mail ballot dropped between 2012 and 2020 from 11% to 2% among mail voters with disabilities, 

while 5% reported difficulty receiving, reading, understanding, filling out, or returning a mail ballot in 2020. The most common problem was receiving the 

ballot, followed by filling out and returning the ballot.

Types of mail voting 

difficulties

2012, No 

disability

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)

Any difficulty receiving, 

returning, reading, understanding, or filling out ballot

na na na 2.1% 5.4% 3.3% * na na na

Any difficulty reading, understanding, or filling out ballot2.2% 13.4% 11.2% ** 0.7% 2.3% 1.6% -1.4% -11.1% ** -9.7% **

Difficulty reading mail ballot 1.7% 7.4% 5.7% ** 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% * -1.7% -6.0% ** -4.3% *

Difficulty understanding mail 

ballot

1.0% 3.8% 2.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% -0.6% -3.4% ** -2.8%

Difficulty filling out mail 

ballot

0.0% 2.6% 2.6% * 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% -1.8% -1.8%

Other difficulty completing 

mail ballot

0.3% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% -0.2% 0.1% -0.6% -0.7%

Difficulty receiving mail ballot na na na 1.7% 1.9% 0.2% na na na

Difficulty returning mail 

ballot

na na na 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% * na na na

Sample size 154 462 319 797

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence ** 99% level of confidence
 

Table 11: Specific Mail Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2020

Key results: People with vision impairments were the most likely to have difficulty in voting with a mail ballot, with over one-fifth having such 

difficulty. 

Types of mail voting difficulties No 

disability

Any 

disability

Hearing 

impairme

nt

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, understanding, or filling out ballot

2.1% 5.4% * 5.1% 22.1% ** 6.3% 6.4% * 3.8% 8.9% **

Any difficulty reading, understanding, or filling out ballot0.7% 2.3% 1.6% 7.9% * 2.5% 2.5% 1.8% 3.3%

Difficulty reading mail ballot 0.0% 1.4% * 1.6% 5.7% * 1.9% 1.2% 1.0% 2.3%

Difficulty understanding mail 

ballot

0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.5%

Difficulty filling out mail ballot 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 2.2% 0.6% 1.3% 0.4% 1.7%

Other difficulty completing mail 

ballot

0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0%

Difficulty receiving mail ballot 1.7% 1.9% 2.5% 5.9% 3.0% 1.9% 1.7% 2.5%

Difficulty returning mail ballot 0.0% 0.7% * 1.6% 6.7% 2.0% 0.9% * 0.2% 1.9%

Sample size 319 797 119 75 155 398 526 267

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 12: Expected Voting Difficulties by Disability Type in 2020

Key results: About one-fourth of people with disabilities who didn’t vote in person in 2020 would expect difficulties in doing so, while about one-tenth of 

those who didn’t vote by mail would expect difficulties in doing so.

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

1.7% 23.8% ** 35.7% ** 13.1% 31.3% ** 32.5% ** 13.7% ** 43.9% **

Would expect difficulties voting 

by mail

3.7% 10.3% 16.9% 19.9% 18.3% * 8.2% 8.9% 13.0%

If voted by mail this year

Would expect difficulties voting 

in person

7.3% 24.6% ** 20.9% * 33.0% ** 17.9% 32.2% ** 16.0% 45.7% **

If voted in person this year

Would expect difficulties voting 

by mail

9.9% 12.2% 8.5% 17.1% 19.0% 10.9% 12.0% 12.4%

Sample size

Didn't vote, expect difficulties at 

poll

73 189 23 25 71 84 121 68

Didn't vote, expect difficulties 

by mail

92 253 28 36 87 108 161 91

Voted by mail, expect 

difficulties at poll

117 354 59 39 76 184 235 117

Voted in person, expect 

difficulties by mail

335 612 103 65 122 267 443 168

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
Table 13: Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting in 2012 and 2020

Key results: The perceived difficulty of voting in 2020 was similar between people with and without disabilities, among both in-person and mail voters. 

This contrasts with 2012 when people with disabilities perceived more difficulty voting in person than did people without disabilities.

"Overall, how easy or 

difficult was your 

experience in voting [at the 

polling place/by mail or 

dropbox]?"

2012, No 

disability

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)

If voted in-person in polling

place or election office

Average score on 1-5 

scale

1.19 1.39 0.21 ** 1.22 1.25 0.04 0.03 -0.14 -0.17

1. Very easy 86.4% 76.0% -10.4% ** 83.0% 82.1% -0.9% -3.4% 6.1% 9.4% *

2. Somewhat easy 11.2% 17.6% 6.4% ** 12.6% 13.4% 0.9% 1.4% -4.1% -5.5%

3. Neither easy nor 

difficult

0.7% 0.6% 0.0% 4.2% 2.1% -2.1% 3.5% * 1.5% * -2.0%

4. Somewhat difficult 0.8% 2.7% 1.8% ** 0.2% 1.9% 1.7% * -0.7% -0.7% -0.1%

5. Very difficult 0.9% 3.1% 2.2% ** 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% -0.9% -2.7% -1.8%

If voted using mail ballot

Average score on 1-5 

scale

na na na 1.28 1.30 0.02 na na na

1. Very easy na na na 81.2% 79.0% -2.2% na na na

2. Somewhat easy na na na 12.8% 14.3% 1.5% na na na

3. Neither easy nor 

difficult

na na na 3.7% 4.9% 1.2% na na na

4. Somewhat difficult na na na 2.0% 1.5% -0.5% na na na

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

Sample size

In-person voters 709 1037 332 431

Voters using mail ballots na na 318 794

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence ** 99% level of confidence
 

Table 14: Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting by Disability Type in 2020

Key results: The perceived difficulty of voting in 2020 was similar across disability types, except people with vision impairments were less likely to say 

voting was very easy whether in person or by mail, and people with cognitive impairments were less likely to say voting by mail was very 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 1.22 1.25 1.33 1.41 1.31 1.26 1.20 1.38

1. Very easy 83.0% 82.1% 78.1% 64.2% * 80.7% 84.2% 84.6% 75.6%

2. Somewhat easy 12.6% 13.4% 15.6% 31.3% * 11.0% 9.7% 12.5% 15.9%

3. Neither easy nor 

difficult

4.2% 2.1% 2.3% 4.3% 4.9% 2.4% 1.5% 3.9%

4. Somewhat difficult 0.2% 1.9% * 3.4% 0.0% 3.3% 3.1% * 0.9% 4.6% *

5. Very difficult 0.0% 0.4% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.1%

If voted using mail ballot

Average score on 1-5 scale 1.28 1.30 1.18 1.52 * 1.54 ** 1.32 1.27 1.37

1. Very easy 81.2% 79.0% 86.8% 63.8% * 66.5% ** 78.8% 80.9% 74.9%

2. Somewhat easy 12.8% 14.3% 8.0% 24.2% 20.4% 12.8% 14.1% 14.8%

3. Neither easy nor 

difficult

3.7% 4.9% 5.2% 8.8% 7.1% 6.0% 2.7% 9.3% *

4. Somewhat difficult 2.0% 1.5% 0.0% * 2.4% 4.9% 2.2% 1.9% 0.8%

5. Very difficult 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Sample size

In-person voters 371 697 124 72 139 298 506 189

Voters using mail ballots 318 794 118 75 154 397 524 266

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
Table 15: Voting Difficulty by Race and Ethnicity in 2020

Key results: Among people with disabilities, the average wait time for voting was higher among Blacks 

than among White non-Hispanics, and Hispanics/Latinos were more likely than White non-Hispanics to 

perceive difficulty voting in person, but reports of difficulties did not otherwise vary significantly by 

race or ethnicity. The comparisons are limited by small sample sizes.

Black nonHispanicHispanic/

Latino

White nonHispanic

(1) (2) (3)

Any voting difficulty across all methods

If no disability 6.1% 11.4% 5.8%

If have disability 7.6% 12.0% 11.3%

If voted in-person, any difficulty

If no disability 9.3% 18.2% 8.9%

If have disability 10.7% 20.5% 18.4%

If voted in-person, average wait time in minutes

If no disability 37.1 27.0 29.4

If have disability 45.3 * 32.6 19.2

If voted with mail ballot, any difficulty

If no disability 0.0% 4.5% 2.1%

If have disability 3.8% 5.1% 5.0%

If voted in person, perceived difficulty (mean of 1-5 scale)

If no disability 1.18 1.09 * 1.27

If have disability 1.23 1.74 ** 1.18

If voted with mail ballot, perceived difficulty (mean of 1-5 

scale)

If no disability 1.17 1.29 1.30

If have disability 1.44 1.31 1.25

Sample sizes

All voters, no disability 65 63 517

All voters, disability 131 105 1148

In-person voters, no disability 42 33 270

In-person voters, disability 75 48 518

Mail voters, no disability 23 30 247

Mail voters, disability 56 56 623

* Difference from White non-Hispanics (column 3) is significant at p<.05 ** p<.01
 

Table 16: Need for Assistance in Voting in 2012 and 2020

Key results: The percent of voters with disabilities needing assistance dropped between 2012 and 2020 from 30% to 6% among in-person voters with 

disabilities. About one-tenth of mail voters with disabilities needed assistance in completing or returning the ballot. Election officials were most likely to assist 

in-person voters, and family members were most likely to assist those voting by mail.

2012, No 

disability

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)

If voted in-person, needed 

assistance in voting

10.7% 29.5% 18.8% ** 3.7% 6.2% 2.5% -7.0% ** -23.3% ** -16.3% **

If needed, who assisted

Election official 72.9% 39.5% -33.4% ** 89.7% 53.8% -35.9% ** 16.8% 14.4% -2.4%

Family member 19.8% 43.1% 23.3% ** 0.0% 18.5% 18.5% ** -19.8% ** -24.6% ** -4.8%

Friend 2.2% 11.2% 9.0% * 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% -2.2% -9.9% -7.7%

Home aide 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 6.1% 6.1% 0.0% 5.7% 5.7%

Other 2.7% 4.6% 1.9% 5.9% 3.8% -2.1% 3.2% -0.8% -4.0%

Needed but none 

provided

2.5% 1.2% -1.2% 0.0% 16.5% 16.5% ** -2.5% 15.3% * 17.7% *

If voted using mail ballot,

needed assistance in voting

With completing or 

returning ballot

na na na 1.1% 10.5% 9.3% ** na na na

With completing ballot 0.4% 11.3% 10.9% ** 0.6% 5.1% 4.4% ** 0.2% -6.2% ** -6.4% **

With returning ballot na na na 0.5% 9.5% 8.9% ** na na na

If needed, who assisted

Family member who 

lives with voter

na na na 66.6% 55.8% -10.8% na na na

Family member who 

does not live with voter

na na na 0.0% 18.7% 18.7% ** na na na

Other person who lives 

with voter

na na na 0.0% 4.1% 4.1% * na na na

Friend or neighbor na na na 0.0% 8.0% 8.0% * na na na

Home aide na na na 0.0% 6.6% 6.6% * na na na

Other na na na 33.4% 6.0% -27.4% na na na

Sample size

In-person voters 708 1,034 331 431

Voters using mail ballots 154 462 319 797

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence ** 99% level of confidence
 

Table 17: Need for Assistance in Voting by Disability Type in 2020

Key results: People with vision impairments were the most likely to need assistance in voting. About one-sixth of them needed assistance voting in person, 

and one-fourth in voting 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

3.7% 6.2% 4.8% 15.6% * 6.8% 5.8% 5.3% 8.5%

If needed, who assisted

Election official 89.7% 53.8% ** 45.6% 36.4% ** 36.2% ** 63.0% 50.1% ** 59.8% *

Family member 0.0% 18.5% ** 37.5% 33.9% * 21.2% 19.9% 6.2% 38.3% **

Friend 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 4.7% 3.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.8%

Home aide 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 20.5% 11.7% 9.9% 0.0%

Other 5.9% 3.8% 6.5% 0.0% 15.8% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0%

Needed but none provided 0.0% 16.5% ** 10.4% 25.0% 3.4% 5.3% 26.8% * 0.0%

If voted using mail ballot, needed 

assistance in voting

1.1% 10.5% ** 6.5% * 25.3% ** 13.1% ** 14.4% ** 5.0% ** 21.7% **

Needed assistance with 

completing ballot

0.6% 5.1% ** 2.7% 22.9% ** 6.1% ** 6.9% ** 3.1% * 9.2% **

Needed assistance with 

returning ballot

0.5% 9.5% ** 5.8% * 22.4% ** 11.5% ** 13.5% ** 4.2% ** 20.3% **

If needed, who assisted

Family member who lives 

with voter

66.6% 55.8% 61.2% 49.9% 35.9% 58.1% 47.9% 59.5%

Family member who does 

not live with voter

0.0% 18.7% ** 15.1% 16.0% 12.9% 17.2% ** 25.8% * 15.4% **

Other person living with 

voter

0.0% 4.1% * 0.0% 2.6% 9.5% 2.8% 5.0% 3.6%

Friend or neighbor 0.0% 8.0% * 9.6% 19.8% * 17.0% 6.9% 10.4% 6.8% *

Home aide 0.0% 6.6% * 0.0% 9.5% 7.6% 9.3% * 0.0% 9.7% *

Other 33.4% 6.0% 14.0% 2.2% 17.0% 4.3% 10.9% 3.6%

Sample size

In-person voters 331 431 76 33 75 190 312 117

Voters using mail ballots 319 797 119 75 155 398 526 267

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 18: Voting Independently Without Difficulty, 2020

Key results: Just under five-sixths of voters with disabilities reported voting independently and without any type of difficulty in 2020, 

compared to over nine-tenths of voters without disabilities. This included about four-fifths of in-person voters with disabilities and sixsevenths of mail voters with disabilities. The lowest rate of voting independently without 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)

Voted without 

difficulty or need for 

assistance

Among all voters 91.9% 82.6% ** 84.6% * 68.4% ** 76.2% ** 80.7% ** 86.8% ** 73.5% **

Among in person 

voters

88.1% 78.7% ** 79.1% 68.6% * 67.1% ** 79.1% * 81.5% * 71.5% **

Among mail 

voters

96.8% 86.0% ** 90.0% * 65.0% ** 83.5% ** 81.5% ** 92.0% * 73.6% **

Sample sizes

All voters 690 1,503 244 149 300 701 1,034 463

In person voters 371 697 124 72 139 298 506 189

Mail voters 319 797 119 75 155 398 526 267

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level

Note: These figures include those who did not experience any difficulty in voting (Tables 6-11) or had any need for assistance in voting 

(Tables 16-17).
 

Table 19: Treatment by Election Officials in 2012 and 2020

Key results: Most voters with and without disabilities reported that election officials were very respectful toward them in both 2012 and 2020, but the 

average score on this measure declined among both groups over this period.

2012, No 

disability

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)

How respectful were election 

officials

Average score on 1-5 scale 4.71 4.79 0.08 4.31 4.53 0.22 -0.40 ** -0.26 ** 0.14

1. Very disrespectful 1.9% 1.1% -0.8% 8.7% 5.7% -2.9% 6.8% ** 4.6% ** -2.2%

2. Somewhat 

disrespectful

1.2% 0.6% -0.6% 2.0% 0.2% -1.8% 0.7% -0.4% -1.2%

3. Neither respectful nor 

disrespectful

5.3% 3.2% -2.1% 9.6% 8.6% -1.0% 4.3% 5.3% * 1.1%

4. Somewhat respectful 6.8% 8.2% 1.4% 9.1% 6.2% -2.9% 2.3% -2.0% -4.3%

5. Very respectful 84.7% 86.8% 2.1% 70.6% 79.3% 8.7% -14.0% ** -7.5% 6.5%

Sample size 707 1,034 181 329

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence ** 99% level of confidence

Note: For proper comparison, the 2020 figures are limited to the half of the sample which had answer options presented in the same order as in 2012. 

The remaining half of the 2020 sample (included in Table 20) had answer options presented in reverse order ("very respectful" to "very disrespectful"), 

to control for any order effects (not done in 2012).
 

Table 20: Treatment by Election Officials by Disability Type in 2020

Key results: Voters with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities in 2020 to report that election officials were “very respectful” 

toward them, with the highest reports on this measure among people with mobility 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 4.52 4.67 4.63 4.56 4.68 4.71 * 4.67 4.67

1. Very disrespectful 4.4% 3.0% 4.1% 6.1% 1.4% * 3.7% 2.7% 3.4%

2. Somewhat disrespectful 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0%

3. Neither respectful nor 

disrespectful

9.2% 6.8% 5.8% 5.6% 7.8% 4.6% 7.1% 6.1%

4. Somewhat respectful 8.9% 6.0% 9.2% 8.6% 8.2% 4.2% * 5.7% 6.9%

5. Very respectful 76.6% 83.7% * 80.9% 79.7% 81.8% 87.4% ** 83.8% * 83.6%

Sample size 371 693 122 72 136 297 502 189

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 21: Received Accessible Voting Information Before Election in 2020

Key results: Voters with and without disabilities were equally likely to report that they received voting information before the election that was accessible 

and met their needs, except people with cognitive impairments were less likely to report they received any voting information.

"Before you cast your vote in the 2020 

election, did you get information about 

your voting options that was accessible 

and met your needs?" 

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

Yes 83.0% 82.4% 79.4% 83.1% 76.9% * 83.2% 81.8% 83.5%

No, information was not accessible 1.6% 0.6% * 0.6% 1.1% 0.4% 0.4% * 0.5% * 1.0%

No, information did not meet my 

needs

3.7% 3.0% 5.3% 3.8% 2.1% 2.9% 3.4% 2.2%

No, did not get information on 

voting options

11.8% 11.9% 14.0% 10.8% 19.7% ** 11.5% 12.6% 10.5%

Sample size 687 1,489 236 143 293 693 1,022 461

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 22: Confidence That Vote was Accurately Counted in 2020

Key results: Voters with and without disabilities were equally confident that their vote was accurately counted in 2020, except people with vision and 

mobility impairments who voted in person were more confident compared to voters without disabilities.

"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 3.40 3.49 3.44 3.46 3.45 3.54 * 3.49 3.48

1. Not at all confident 5.8% 6.1% 7.9% 10.0% 5.3% 5.1% 6.1% 6.0%

2. Not very confident 6.7% 6.8% 8.1% 2.7% * 6.6% 6.8% 7.1% 6.3%

3. Somewhat confident 29.1% 19.5% ** 16.2% ** 18.8% * 26.1% 17.2% ** 18.8% ** 21.1% *

4. Highly confident 58.5% 67.6% ** 67.9% * 68.5% 62.1% 70.8% ** 68.0% ** 66.5% *

In-person voters

Average score on 1-4 scale 3.36 3.45 3.38 3.59 * 3.41 3.56 ** 3.45 3.46

1. Not at all confident 5.8% 6.2% 7.6% 4.1% 6.7% 4.4% 6.6% 5.5%

2. Not very confident 8.0% 7.7% 9.2% 2.2% ** 7.1% 7.0% 8.0% 7.0%

3. Somewhat confident 30.6% 20.5% ** 20.4% 23.9% 24.7% 16.4% ** 19.2% ** 23.7%

4. Highly confident 55.6% 65.6% * 62.8% 69.8% 61.5% 72.1% ** 66.3% * 63.8%

Mail voters

Average score on 1-4 scale 3.45 3.53 3.50 3.42 3.47 3.54 3.53 3.52

1. Not at all confident 5.9% 5.6% 8.2% 12.4% 4.1% 5.0% 5.8% 5.4%

2. Not very confident 5.0% 5.7% 6.9% 3.3% 6.4% 6.7% 5.6% 6.0%

3. Somewhat confident 27.0% 18.8% * 11.7% ** 14.1% * 27.9% 17.9% * 18.6% * 19.3%

4. Highly confident 62.1% 69.8% 73.2% 70.2% 61.6% 70.4% 70.0% 69.2%

Sample size

All voters 689 1,495 241 147 297 696 1,029 460

In-person voters 371 693 122 72 138 296 504 187

Mail voters 318 794 119 74 154 396 523 267

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 23: Voter Comparisons of 2020 Voting Experience to Pre-Pandemic Experience

Key results: Voters with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities to say voting in 2020 was easier than the last time they voted before the 

pandemic. Among both groups, reports of easier voting were most common among those who voted by mail this year but in person before the pandemic.

"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 2.77 2.66 ** 2.68 2.49 ** 2.59 ** 2.63 ** 2.65 ** 2.66 *

1. Much easier 14.1% 17.3% 15.7% 25.8% ** 20.1% * 18.9% * 16.6% 19.1% *

2. Somewhat easier 9.5% 10.4% 11.3% 8.4% 12.6% 9.6% 11.5% 7.9%

3. About the same 64.3% 62.6% 64.5% 60.0% 57.1% * 62.2% 62.6% 62.4%

4. Somewhat more difficult 9.0% 8.7% 6.4% 3.1% * 8.5% 8.1% 8.5% 9.0%

5. Much more difficult 3.1% 1.0% ** 2.0% 2.7% 1.7% 1.2% * 0.8% ** 1.6%

Voted by mail this time, in-person last 

time

Average difficulty on 1-5 scale 2.31 2.32 2.36 2.35 2.24 2.26 2.28 2.38

1. Much easier 35.6% 32.3% 27.9% 38.9% 33.4% 37.2% 31.6% 33.8%

2. Somewhat easier 17.6% 17.4% 18.0% 5.3% * 24.8% 14.9% 20.3% 11.9%

3. About the same 32.0% 38.4% 47.3% 43.0% 30.5% 35.1% 37.8% 39.0%

4. Somewhat more difficult 10.0% 10.0% 3.9% 7.6% 7.5% 10.3% 8.5% 13.0%

5. Much more difficult 4.9% 1.9% 2.9% 5.1% 3.9% 2.5% 1.7% 2.4%

(continued on next page)
 

(Table 23 continued from previous page)

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)

Voted in-person both times

Average difficulty on 1-5 scale 2.97 2.76 ** 2.74 2.42 ** 2.66 ** 2.73 ** 2.79 * 2.67 **

1. Much easier 6.0% 13.9% ** 14.0% 26.2% * 18.9% ** 14.5% ** 12.9% ** 16.6% **

2. Somewhat easier 6.7% 8.7% 9.8% 8.4% 8.5% 9.7% 8.3% 9.7%

3. About the same 74.3% 65.8% * 66.3% 62.8% 61.1% * 65.2% 66.1% * 64.9%

4. Somewhat more difficult 10.0% 10.8% 7.7% 2.3% 10.5% 10.0% 11.9% 7.8%

5. Much more difficult 2.9% 0.8% 2.2% 0.3% ** 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0%

Voted by mail both times

Average difficulty on 1-5 scale 2.91 2.75 2.74 2.70 2.70 2.77 2.70 * 2.87

1. Much easier 4.6% 10.8% 12.0% 14.9% 12.8% 11.9% 11.2% 10.1%

2. Somewhat easier 4.6% 7.6% 9.4% 12.3% 10.7% 5.2% 10.4% 1.7%

3. About the same 87.4% 77.7% 72.2% 67.0% 71.9% 78.2% 76.1% * 80.9%

4. Somewhat more difficult 2.3% 3.3% 5.2% 0.0% 3.3% 3.7% 2.3% 5.5%

5. Much more difficult 1.1% 0.6% 1.1% 5.8% 1.2% 1.0% 0.0% 1.8%

Sample size

All voters 651 1,453 236 143 284 683 1,001 446

By mail this time, in-person last 

time

182 377 42 32 74 174 251 123

In-person both times 337 653 120 69 125 287 478 174

By mail both times 118 392 71 40 74 212 255 136

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level

The sample of those who voted by mail pre-pandemic but in person in 2020 was too small for meaningful analysis.
 

Table 24: Preference for How to Vote in Next Election

Key results: About half of people with disabilities, and three-fifths 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 60.8% 48.6% ** 51.7% ** 49.0% ** 46.3% ** 46.8% ** 51.4% ** 42.8% **

Receive and send ballot by mail or dropbox 18.9% 31.9% ** 34.5% ** 37.9% ** 28.7% ** 36.1% ** 30.8% ** 34.2% **

Vote fully online, using personal computer 

or smartphone

13.6% 11.5% 7.7% ** 3.9% ** 13.5% 8.8% ** 10.5% * 13.3%

Fill out ballot online, print it and mail 4.1% 5.2% 5.5% 5.1% 7.1% * 4.9% 5.3% 4.9%

Voting by drive through or curbside 2.6% 2.8% 0.6% * 4.1% 4.3% 3.5% 1.9% 4.9% *

Voters in 2020

In person inside the polling place 62.5% 51.5% ** 54.7% 52.2% 49.2% ** 50.1% ** 53.4% ** 47.2% **

Receive and send ballot by mail or dropbox 20.7% 34.2% ** 35.4% ** 39.7% ** 31.1% ** 37.6% ** 32.6% ** 37.9% **

Vote fully online, using personal computer 

or smartphone

12.2% 7.8% * 5.1% ** 2.1% ** 7.4% 6.3% ** 7.9% * 7.4% *

Fill out ballot online, print it and mail 3.0% 4.1% 4.2% 1.3% 7.9% * 3.4% 4.2% 3.8%

Voting by drive through or curbside 1.6% 2.4% 0.6% 4.7% 4.4% 2.6% 1.8% 3.7%

Non-voters in 2020

In person inside the polling place 52.1% 36.7% * 31.4% 39.7% 38.7% 31.8% * 42.3% 27.2% **

Receive and send ballot by mail or dropbox 9.9% 22.0% ** 28.8% 32.8% * 22.2% * 29.1% ** 22.9% * 20.7%

Vote fully online, using personal computer 

or smartphone

20.4% 27.1% 24.8% 9.0% 29.7% 19.8% 22.5% 34.4%

Fill out ballot online, print it and mail 10.1% 9.6% 14.5% 16.2% 5.2% 11.6% 10.2% 8.7%

Voting by drive through or curbside 7.5% 4.6% 0.5% * 2.3% 4.2% 7.6% 2.1% 9.0%

Sample size

All respondents 782 1,760 271 186 395 809 1,196 557

Voters in 2020 685 1,491 239 148 298 693 1,027 458

Non-voters in 2020 97 269 32 38 97 116 169 99

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 25: Non-voting Political Participation in 2012 and 2020

Key results: People with and without disabilities were equally likely to engage in non-voting political activities in 2020, in contrast to 2012 when people 

with disabilities were less likely to do so. Just under half of each group engaged in such activities in 2020. 

2012, No 

disability

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)

Any of activities 1 to 8 below 53.2% 43.4% -9.8% ** 43.4% 44.9% 1.4% -9.8% ** 1.4% 11.2% *

Average number of activities 1 

to 8 below

1.27 1.02 -0.25 ** 1.02 1.07 0.05 -0.24 * 0.06 0.30 *

Any of activities 1 to 8 on 

disability issues

na 13.4% na na 6.2% na na -7.2% na

1. Contributed money to 

political party or candidate

19.9% 14.7% -5.2% * 21.0% 22.3% 1.2% 1.1% 7.6% ** 6.4%

2. Written or spoken to elected 

representative or public official

35.5% 28.7% -6.8% * 25.6% 28.7% 3.1% -9.9% ** 0.1% 9.9% *

3. Attended a political meeting 18.7% 12.7% -6.0% * 10.4% 9.5% -0.9% -8.3% ** -3.2% 5.0%

4. Written a letter to a 

newspaper

6.8% 4.9% -1.9% 2.9% 3.8% 0.8% -3.9% ** -1.1% 2.8%

5. Contributed money to 

political group

19.1% 15.1% -4.0% * 15.7% 18.1% 2.3% -3.3% 3.0% 6.3%

6. Worked for political 

candidate

5.0% 4.4% -0.5% 3.9% 2.9% -1.0% -1.1% -1.6% -0.4%

7. Took part in protest on 

national or local issue

6.8% 5.1% -1.7% 11.7% 8.7% -2.9% 4.9% * 3.7% -1.2%

8. Otherwise worked to change 

govt. laws/policies

15.2% 15.1% -0.2% 11.2% 13.3% 2.1% -4.0% -1.7% 2.3%

Worked with others on 

community problem

22.4% 14.8% -7.6% ** 14.4% 14.0% -0.4% -8.0% ** -0.8% 7.2% *

Worked to change private 

organization's policies on 

disability

na 7.3% na na 4.3% na na -3.0% na

Sample size 1,022 1,999 465 972

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence ** 99% level of confidence
 

Table 26: Non-voting Political Participation by Disability Type in 2020

Key results: People with hearing impairments were more likely than those without disabilities to engage in non-voting political activities in 2020, while people 

with cognitive impairments were the least likely to engage in these activities.

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 43.4% 44.9% 57.7% * 39.8% 28.1% ** 38.5% 48.1% 38.0%

Average number of activities 1 to 8 

below

1.02 1.07 1.22 0.81 0.80 0.94 1.20 0.80

Any of activities 1 to 8 on disability 

issues

na 6.2% 4.6% 5.2% 8.4% 7.6% 5.6% 7.6%

1. Contributed money to political 

party or candidate

21.0% 22.3% 26.6% 15.9% 10.3% ** 18.5% 25.0% 16.5%

2. Written or spoken to elected 

representative or public official

25.6% 28.7% 39.7% * 20.3% 16.2% * 26.9% 31.6% 22.6%

3. Attended a political meeting 10.4% 9.5% 6.2% 4.9% * 8.4% 8.7% 10.6% 7.1%

4. Written a letter to a newspaper 2.9% 3.8% 8.9% 1.9% 1.4% 3.8% 4.4% 2.4%

5. Contributed money to political 

group

15.7% 18.1% 17.8% 9.4% 13.8% 14.9% 20.8% 12.3%

6. Worked for political candidate 3.9% 2.9% 4.2% 2.3% 2.7% 4.2% 3.1% 2.5%

7. Took part in protest on national 

or local issue

11.7% 8.7% 8.0% 9.8% 12.3% 5.1% ** 10.2% 5.7% *

8. Otherwise worked to change 

govt. laws/policies

11.2% 13.3% 10.0% 14.6% 13.2% 12.1% 14.3% 11.3%

Worked with others on community 

problem

14.4% 14.0% 10.6% 14.7% 16.1% 12.1% 14.5% 13.1%

Worked to change private 

organization's policies on disability

na 4.3% 4.3% 6.9% 8.2% 4.7% 3.6% 5.8%

Sample size 465 972 100 68 181 403 656 315

* Gap or change is significantly different from zero at 95% level of confidence ** 99% level of confidence
 

Table 27: Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy in 2012 and 2020

Key results: People with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities in 2020 to say they follow politics. They have lower perceived ability to 

participate in politics, but this disability gap narrowed since 2012. They are also less likely to see the political system as responsive. Perceptions of the 

influence and respect of people with disabilities in politics are similar between people with and without disabilities in 2020. 

2012, No 

disability

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)

Follow politics:

Mean of 1-4 scale 3.33 3.06 -0.26 ** 3.13 3.23 0.10 -0.20 ** 0.17 * 0.37 **

1. Hardly at all 6.1% 16.9% 10.8% ** 7.2% 9.4% 2.2% 1.1% -7.5% ** -8.5% **

2. Only now and then 11.6% 9.6% -2.0% 15.3% 11.0% -4.3% * 3.7% 1.4% -2.3%

3. Some of the time 25.5% 23.8% -1.8% 35.1% 26.7% -8.4% ** 9.5% ** 2.9% -6.6%

4. Most of the time 56.7% 49.8% -7.0% * 42.4% 52.9% 10.5% ** -14.3% ** 3.1% 17.5% **

Perceived Efficacy

Internal efficacy--

Personal ability to 

participate (mean of 2-10 

scale)

7.07 6.20 -0.87 ** 7.07 6.70 -0.37 ** 0.00 0.49 ** 0.50 **

Extermal efficacy--

responsiveness of 

political system (mean of 

2-10 scale)

5.90 5.41 -0.49 ** 5.62 5.38 -0.25 * -0.28 * -0.03 0.24

Influence of people with 

disabilities in politics 

(mean of 1-5 scale)

3.63 3.54 -0.09 3.44 3.36 -0.09 -0.19 * -0.18 * 0.01

Govt. officials treat 

people with disabilities 

with same respect as 

others (mean of 1-5 scale)

3.36 3.14 -0.22 * 3.21 3.15 -0.06 -0.15 0.01 0.16

Sample size 1,020 1,995 787 1,776

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 28: Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy by Disability Type in 2020

Key results: People with hearing and mobility impairments were the most likely to say they follow politics in 2020. The perceived ability to participate is lower 

among all disability groups relative to people without disabilities. Perceptions of the responsiveness of the political system, and the influence and respect of 

people with disabilities in politics, are especially low among people with cognitive 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)

Follow politics:

Mean of 1-4 scale 3.13 3.23 3.39 ** 3.06 2.96 3.32 ** 3.23 3.24

1. Hardly at all 7.2% 9.4% 6.8% 13.7% 12.6% * 8.9% 9.7% 8.9%

2. Only now and then 15.3% 11.0% * 7.9% ** 14.6% 18.6% 8.7% ** 10.8% * 11.5%

2. Some of the time 35.1% 26.7% ** 24.7% ** 24.3% * 29.0% 24.2% ** 26.6% ** 26.5%

4. Most of the time 42.4% 52.9% ** 60.6% ** 47.4% * 39.8% 58.2% ** 52.9% ** 53.1% **

Perceived Efficacy

Internal efficacy--Personal ability 

to participate (mean of 2-10 

scale)

7.07 6.70 ** 6.71 * 6.56 * 5.98 ** 6.57 ** 6.78 * 6.51 **

External efficacy--responsiveness 

of political system (mean of 2-10 

scale)

5.62 5.38 * 5.44 5.79 5.12 ** 5.46 5.36 * 5.40

Influence of people with 

disabilities in politics (mean of 1-

5 scale)

3.44 3.36 3.22 3.21 3.17 * 3.43 3.36 3.37

Govt. officials treat people with 

disabilities with same respect as 

others (mean of 1-5 scale)

3.21 3.15 3.22 3.09 2.94 ** 3.19 3.13 3.18

Sample size 787 1,776 275 188 397 821 1,206 563

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 29: Recruitment for Voting in 2012 and 2020

Key results: About two-fifths of people both with and without disabilities were contacted about voting during the 2020 campaign, which was close to 

the rate of contact in 2012 for both groups. 

2012, No 

disability

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)

Anyone talk to you about 

registering or voting 

during campaign this Fall

39.9% 40.9% 1.0% 42.6% 38.1% -4.5% 2.7% -2.7% -5.5%

Talked to by:

Friends 13.3% 14.2% 0.8% 21.4% 18.1% -3.3% 8.1% ** 3.9% -4.2%

Family members 11.8% 12.0% 0.2% 20.7% 16.1% -4.6% * 8.9% ** 4.0% -4.9%

Co-workers 7.7% 6.0% -1.7% 14.5% 5.8% -8.7% ** 6.8% ** -0.2% -7.0% **

Representatives from 

political parties

23.5% 23.6% 0.1% 21.7% 20.1% -1.6% -1.8% -3.4% -1.7%

Representatives from 

other organizations

12.0% 10.6% -1.3% 14.8% 13.5% -1.4% 2.8% 2.8% 0.0%

Someone else 3.1% 1.9% -1.2% 2.6% 3.6% 1.0% -0.5% 1.7% 2.1%

Sample size 1015 1,965 787 1,773

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 30: Recruitment for Voting by Disability Type in 2020

Key results: The likelihood of being contacted about voting in 2020 was lowest among people with hearing and 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

42.6% 38.1% 29.2% ** 37.2% 41.7% 32.7% ** 38.4% 37.7%

Talked to by:

Friends 21.4% 18.1% 13.8% * 14.6% 24.7% 15.1% ** 17.8% 18.7%

Family members 20.7% 16.1% * 12.5% ** 19.3% 21.7% 13.7% ** 15.2% * 18.1%

Co-workers 14.5% 5.8% ** 4.1% ** 4.7% ** 6.4% ** 4.3% ** 6.7% ** 4.0% **

Representatives from 

political parties

21.7% 20.1% 12.1% ** 20.8% 19.1% 17.6% 20.7% 18.8%

Representatives from 

other organizations

14.8% 13.5% 11.5% 15.2% 14.6% 9.9% ** 13.6% 13.4%

Someone else 2.6% 3.6% 2.9% 1.1% 4.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.4%

Sample size 787 1,773 273 188 397 816 1,204 562

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 31: Transportation by Disability Type in 2020

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

90.0% 69.6% ** 80.7% ** 47.3% ** 64.8% ** 62.3% ** 79.4% ** 48.4% **

Most often use for basic 

transportation:

Own or family vehicle 93.3% 82.7% ** 90.2% 70.1% ** 77.1% ** 80.1% ** 85.7% ** 76.2% **

Someone else's vehicle 1.8% 6.4% ** 3.9% 11.2% ** 7.6% ** 7.5% ** 5.2% ** 9.2% **

Taxi or rideshare 0.5% 3.2% ** 2.1% 3.4% * 5.2% ** 3.4% ** 2.3% ** 5.0% **

Para-transit 0.2% 1.3% ** 1.3% 3.1% 1.4% ** 2.2% ** 0.9% 2.1% **

Other public 

transportation

3.0% 4.9% 1.9% 9.8% * 6.8% * 5.6% 5.0% 4.7%

Other 1.2% 1.5% 0.5% 2.4% 1.9% 1.3% 0.9% 2.8%

Problems in transportation

Never or rarely 67.2% 63.1% 64.4% 46.6% ** 59.0% * 66.5% 66.1% 57.0% **

Occasionally 24.2% 27.0% 25.7% 38.4% ** 26.9% 24.4% 24.9% 31.4% *

Often 5.7% 4.3% 3.5% 6.9% 5.6% 3.3% 3.9% 5.0%

Very often 1.7% 2.4% 2.6% 4.0% 3.8% 2.3% 2.0% 3.4%

Always 1.3% 3.1% * 3.8% 4.1% 4.7% * 3.5% * 3.0% 3.2%

Sample size 787 1,768 269 188 397 817 1,202 559

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level
 

Table 32: Other Facilitators of Political Participation by Disability Type in 2020

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 60.1% 23.5% ** 21.3% ** 20.0% ** 26.8% ** 13.1% ** 27.8% ** 14.3% **

If employed: work full-time 84.4% 63.8% ** 69.0% * 47.7% ** 58.3% ** 58.8% ** 66.0% ** 52.3% **

If employed: union 

member

14.3% 13.4% 18.7% 12.6% 13.7% 11.8% 15.1% 5.9% **

Resources

Household income 

(average)

$74,186 $51,381 ** $62,754 * $54,151 ** $45,669 ** $43,996 $55,844 ** $41,869 **

Bachelor's or graduate 

degree

33.1% 22.2% ** 22.0% ** 16.3% ** 14.4% ** 18.3% ** 24.2% ** 12.3% **

Social connections

Groups and organizations

Regularly meet in any 

groups/orgs.

27.3% 27.8% 31.0% 31.3% 27.6% 25.2% 27.6% 28.1%

Regularly meet in 

disability group/org.

na 8.9% 10.5% 14.9% 11.6% 8.9% 7.8% 11.2%

Attend religious services

Every week 12.2% 18.0% ** 21.9% ** 27.7% ** 14.0% 20.0% ** 18.0% ** 18.2% *

Almost every week 10.6% 7.2% * 5.2% ** 4.8% ** 5.9% * 8.1% 6.0% ** 9.8%

Once or twice a month 8.5% 7.0% 7.0% 9.0% 8.3% 5.8% 7.4% 6.3%

A few times a year 5.3% 5.5% 7.1% 4.3% 4.5% 5.1% 6.2% 4.2%

Never 63.4% 62.3% 58.8% 54.2% 67.2% 61.0% 62.5% 61.6%

Sample size 787 1,768 269 188 397 817 1,202 559

* Difference from non-disability sample is significant at 95% level ** 99% level