****

**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 ContentsExecutive Summary	11.  Survey Method Overview	22.  Key results	3A.  Demographic and Disability Characteristics	3B.  Voter Turnout	3C.  Voting Methods	4D.  Voting Difficulties	5E.  Perceived Ease or Difficulty of Voting	8F.  Voting Difficulty by Race and Ethnicity	8G.  Need for Assistance in Voting	9H.  Voting Independently Without Difficulty	10I.  Perceived Treatment by Election Officials	11J.  Received Accessible Voting Information Before 2020 Election	11K.  Confidence That Vote Was Accurately Counted	11L.  Voter Comparisons of 2020 Voting to Pre-pandemic Experience	12M.  Preference for How to Vote in Next Election	12N.  Non-voting Political Participation	13O.  Political Interest and Perceptions of Political Efficacy	13P.  Recruitment for Voting	14Q.  Other Facilitators of Political Participation	143.  Conclusion	15Appendix:  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**

# 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 in-person 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 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.[footnoteRef:1]  SSRS is a well-established 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.   [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. ] 

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.  

# 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.[footnoteRef: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. ] 

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.[footnoteRef: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. [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).] 

# 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.[footnoteRef: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.     [4:  See 2016 election figures at Schur and Kruse, Op. Cit.] 

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).  

# 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 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%).

*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 in-person 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 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).

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).

# 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).

# 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 one-eighth (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.

# 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 one-eighth (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 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.[footnoteRef:5]  Using standard measures of internal and external efficacy, this survey finds that people with 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). [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.] 

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).

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.

# 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?

2

2

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

# image7.jpeg

# image8.jpeg

# image9.jpeg

# image10.jpeg

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.png

# image4.png

# image5.png

# image6.png