A Consideration of Voting Accessibility for

Injured OIF/OEF Service Members: Needs

Assessment

July 2012

Contract E4064914

2010 Voting Technology and Accessibility Research – Military Heroes Initiative 

CFDA #90.403

PREPARED FOR:

Election Assistance Commission 

1201 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20005

PREPARED BY:

Human Systems Integration Division 

Electronic Systems Laboratory 

Georgia Tech Research Institute 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Annotated Literature Review Results

Accessibility of Voting Systems

Appelbaum, P. S. (2000). “I vote. I count”: Mental Disability and the right to vote. Psychiatric Services, 

51(7),849-850.

Despite advances in suffrage rights for other groups, individuals with mental disabilities still 

experience significant barriers to voting. The authors discuss nationwide considerations of 

mental fitness for voting. With advances in technology, the mental requirements for voting are 

constantly changing. For example, some modern voting machines do not require voters to be 

able to read, because the machine can read to the voter. Legislatures should keep pace with 

technological advances and societal sentiments.

Bundy, H. (2003). Election reform, polling place accessibility, and the voting right of the disabled.

Election Law Journal, 2(2),849-850.

Historically, much of the focus on improving voting accessibility has been directed towards 

issues of polling place accessibility, while voting machine accessibility has received less 

attention. Despite this insight, the paper mostly addresses physical accessibility issues and 

associated laws and litigation. Special attention is given to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 

2002. Although HAVA omits many significant accessibility requirements, it explicitly references 

previous laws that cover those requirements.

Election Assistance Commission (2010). Election Management Guidelines, Chapter 19: Accessibility.

This chapter on voting accessibility provides many examples of ways to improve accessibility. 

Recommendations for how to incorporate these good practices into all aspects of election 

administration are provided. The chapter recommends that election officials seek assistance 

from community groups that support individuals with disabilities. This is a unique source of 

recommendations for appropriate behavior by poll workers as they interact with disabled 

voters, and the authors recommend specific training for this purpose. This is also one of the few 

sources that discuss the accessibility of mail-in ballots; it described a system whereby voters 

complete a ballot on their home computer (which is accessible), print the ballot, and mail it in.

Goler, J. A., Selker, E. J., & Wilde, L. F. (2006). Augmenting voting interfaces to improve accessibility and 

performance. Paper presented at the CHI 2006 Workshop, Montreal, Canada.

Approximately one in seven voters is reading disabled (RD). The error rates between RD voters 

and non-RD voters using current voting technologies differ considerably. Previous research has 

indicated that RD voters are less likely to make errors when voting using a full-faced screen 

whereas non-RD voters are less likely to make errors when voting using a page-by-page system. 

The Low Error Voting Interface (LEVI) was created in an effort to improve performance for all

voters. The next goal for the Caltech/MIT voting technology project is to improve the LEVI for RD 

voters.
Human-Centered Computing Lab, Clemson University (n.d.). Prime III. Retrieved from

http://www.primevotingsystem.com/.

The Human Centered Computing Lab at Clemson claims that the electronic voting system (Prime

III) developed by the lab is the world’s most accessible voting system. The key to the system to 

visibility is its multimodal interface and easy to use design that can accommodate users with a 

wide variety of disabilities. Assistance is only required at the beginning of the voting process, 

when a poll worker initiates the voting session. Voters can interact with the system by touch or 

voice, via a touchscreen or microphone, respectively. Ballot information is provided visually and 

audibly. When an audio-speech interface is used, the order of candidate names is randomized so 

that voter privacy is ensured.

Keller, A. M., Dechert, A., Auerbach, K., Mertz, D., Pearl, A., & Hall, J. L. (2005). A PC-based open-source 

voting machine with an accessible voter-verifiable paper ballot. Paper presented at USENIX ’05, 

Anaheim, CA.

A variety of social, practical, and economic considerations are pushing a patron to tour the 

adoption of computerized voting systems in lieu of mechanical systems. In general, 

computerized voting systems provide more opportunity than mechanical systems for 

accommodating voters with disabilities. However, most computerized voting systems do not 

provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT). A solution is to simply create a 

computerized voting system that provides the voter with a printout of the voted ballot, which 

the voter can then take to a separate machine for verification. This dual-system design reduces 

susceptibility to malicious tampering. This is one of the few solutions available for providing a 

VVPAT to blind voters.

Kruse, D. L., Schriner, K., Schur, L., & Shields, R. (1999). A study of the political behavior of people with 

disabilities, what determines voter turnout. Executive Summary: Empowerment through Civic 

Participation. Final Report to the Disability Research Consortium Bureau of Economic Research, Rutgers 

University and New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council. Retrieved from 

http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/disvoters.html.

This study conducted a telephone survey containing general questions about voting, including 

difficulties at the polling place, with transportation, and abilities. The results indicated that 

people with disabilities were more likely to experience difficulties at the polling place than those 

who did not have disabilities, and that this differentially affects voter turnout for the two 

groups. The study concluded that greater attention needed to be given to accessibility at the 

polling place.
Roth, S. K. (1998). Disenfranchised by design: Voting systems and the election process. Information 

Design Journal, 9(1), 29-38.

This is considered one of the seminal papers on voting accessibility, and one of very few papers 

on the topic written before the 2000 election. It discusses the evaluation of voting systems from 

the human factors perspective. Although it deals with a somewhat outdated electronic voting 

system, its methods and the accessibility concerns it raises are still relevant today. The 

organization and format of ballots can raise accessibility issues, regardless of the type of 

technology upon which the ballot is displayed.

Roth, S. K. (n.d.). Human factors research on voting machines and ballot designs: An exploratory study.

This paper provides historical overview of voting technologies and associated usability issues up 

to and including the U.S. elections in 2000. After summarizing a number of usability issues 

associated with systems used historically, the author proposes that the ease of use of future 

voting technologies be assessed according to six criteria, including: ease of use; accessibility to 

voters with disabilities; information design; reduction of user error; reduction of intentional 

under voting; and time required to vote.

Selker, E. J., Goler, J. A., & Wilde, L. F. (2005). Who does better with a big interface? Improving voting 

performance of reading disabled voters. Unpublished manuscript.

Three electronic voting systems were compared to examine how different voting systems affect 

the performance of voters with reading disabilities. Two of the systems were full-faced systems 

where all races and selections are displayed simultaneously. The third system was a touchscreen 

system where only a few races are presented on each screen. The authors found that voters 

with a diagnosed reading disability performed worse on the touchscreen system and better on 

the full-faced systems than did the control group. Voters who had not previously been 

diagnosed with a reading disorder but performed poorly on the reading test had the largest 

number of errors for all three systems. The results suggest that individuals with known reading 

disabilities have learned coping techniques that allow them to interact effectively with the fullfaced system. Individuals with undiagnosed reading disabilities have not learned these coping 

techniques, so they were the most error-prone for all three systems. The authors suggest that a 

hybrid design incorporating the advantages of both systems will be beneficial to all users.

Smith, B., Laskowski, S., & Lowry, S. (2009). Implications of graphics on usability and accessibility for the 

voter. Paper presented at E-Voting and Identity: Second International Conference, Luxembourg.

The use of graphical elements, such as icons, thereof, and alerts symbols, raise usability and 

accessibility issues. Certain types of graphical elements may enhance usability for individuals 

with disabilities. For example, graphical elements might be particularly beneficial for voters who 

have low reading ability. Also, animations might be beneficial for conveying instructions. 

However, empirical studies are needed to validate these conclusions.
The Ragged Edge. (2000). Voters with disabilities face discrimination nationwide. Retrieved from

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/1100/1100votestory.htm.

This article gives some specific anecdotes related to barriers to accessible voting. People 

describe inaccessible polling places and barriers to voting in private.

Trace Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2008). Voting accessibility. Retrieved from

http://trace.wisc.edu/voting/.

The Trace Center researches accessible voting. They created the EZ Access keypad, which helps 

make voting machines more accessible. This website provides presentations and publications by 

the Trace Center on voting accessibility.

United States General Accounting Office. (2001). Voters with disabilities: Access to Polling Places and 

alternative voting methods. Washington, DC: GAO.

This report was produced prior to the passing of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, and many 

of its findings were used to guide that Act. For instances in which an accessible voting place is 

not available, alternative methods for voting are suggested. These include options such as 

curbside polling, absentee voting, and Internet voting. Advantages and disadvantages associated 

with each alternative method are discussed.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (2004). Using extended and enhanced usability (EEU) to provide access to 

mainstream electronic voting machines. Information Technology and Disabilities, X(2), retrieved from 

http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/2005-EEU-voting/.

Many precincts offer two types of voting machines: a “normal” machine and an accessible 

machine. Some voters, such as older adults and recently injured individuals, may not realize that 

they need an accessible voting machine. If they attempt to use an inaccessible voting machine, 

they will experience difficulty. A solution to this problem is to employ a single type of voting 

machine that is accessible to all users. The authors conducted a series of usability and 

prototypes studies to identify possible solutions. The EZ Access keypad, developed by the 

University of Wisconsin, is a promising solution. It is a simple, wired controller that can be 

plugged into a voting machine. A system that employs an EZ Access keypad, speech input, and 

audio output could be highly accessible.