Elderly Voters: Some Improvements in Voting Accessibility from 2000 to 2004 Elections, but Gaps in Policy and Implementation Remain
Published: 2008-01-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Voting is fundamental to our democratic system, and federal law generally requires polling places for federal elections to be accessible to older voters and voters with physical disabilities. Following reports of problems encountered in the close 2000 presidential election with respect to voter registration lists, absentee ballots, ballot counting, and antiquated voting systems, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was enacted. Among other provisions, HAVA includes requirements for the accessibility of voting systems, effective January 1, 2006. In the past, GAO has published several reports on issues related to voting access for older voters. Our prior work, including on-site inspections of a national sample of polling places in election year 2000, a comprehensive review of the election system in 2004, and a review of transportation issues facing seniors, has identified a number of potential barriers to voting for older Americans, as well as accommodations and progress in a number of areas. Drawing from prior work, GAO's testimony will focus on (1) a variety of factors that affect the ability of older voters to travel to polling places, cast their votes in the voting room, or avail themselves of alternative voting provisions and (2) trends and changes regarding the accessibility of polling places and alternative voting methods.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Ensuring that older voters or other individuals with disabilities successfully cast their votes in an election requires that policymakers think broadly about access. This includes access with respect to transportation, polling places, voting equipment, and alternative voting methods. During the 2000 election, most polling places we inspected had one or more potential impediments that might prevent older voters and voters with disabilities from reaching voting rooms, although curbside voting accommodations were often made available. Additionally, our 2000 review of state provisions and practices related to accessible voting systems and accommodations in the voting room revealed that provisions to accommodate individuals with disabilities varied from state to state and may vary widely in their implementation. A 2004 GAO report also found transportation gaps in meeting the needs of seniors, which may create a barrier to voting for many elderly voters, and a lack of data on the extent of unmet needs. Since the passage of HAVA and the subsequent 2004 election, we have identified a number of reported efforts taken to improve voting access for people with disabilities. In particular, our 2006 report on election systems shows a marked increase in state provisions addressing the accessibility of polling places, voting systems, and alternative voting methods. However, the degree of change in accessibility is difficult to determine, in part because thousands of jurisdictions have primary responsibility for managing elections and ensuring an accurate vote count, and the complexity of the election system does not ensure that these provisions and reported practices are reflective of what occurs at polling places on election day. Understanding and addressing accessibility gaps represent enormous tasks for state and local election officials who are challenged by the multiplicity of responsibilities and requirements they must attend to within resource constraints. At the same time, as the population ages and the percentage of voters with disabilities expands, the expectation of accommodation and assistance to participate in this basic civic exercise will grow, making accessibility a key performance goal for our election community.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on older  Americans’ access to voting. Voting is fundamental to our democratic  system, and federal law generally requires polling places for federal  elections to be accessible to all eligible voters, including older voters and  voters with physical disabilities. In particular, the Voting Accessibility for  the Elderly and Handicapped Act requires that, with a few exceptions,  local election jurisdictions assure that polling places used in federal  elections are accessible, in a manner as determined by the state, to the  elderly and voters with disabilities. These requirements can present a  challenge to state and local election officials because achieving  accessibility—which is affected by the type of impairment and various  barriers posed by polling place facilities and voting methods—is part of a  larger set of challenges they face in administering elections on a periodic  basis. Following reports of problems encountered in the close 2000  presidential election with respect to voter registration lists, absentee  ballots, ballot counting, and antiquated voting systems, the Help America  Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was enacted. Among others, HAVA contains  provisions to help facilitate voting for individuals with disabilities, many of  whom are also elderly, including requirements for the accessibility of  voting systems used in elections for federal office, effective January 1,  2006, and authorizing the appropriation of funding for payments to states  to improve the accessibility of polling places.
Our testimony today will focus on a number of factors that affect the  ability of older voters to travel to polling places, enter polling places, and  cast their vote once they arrive in the voting room; or to avail themselves  of alternative voting provisions, including absentee and curbside voting. It  will also describe trends and changes regarding accessibility of polling  places and alternative voting methods—as manifested in state provisions  or reported in surveys and discovered during site visits—since the 2000  election. As agreed, our statement will draw from the broad array of prior  work that has a bearing on voting access for older voters, including our  2001 report on accessibility of polling places for election year 2000, our  2004 report on transportation-disadvantaged seniors, our 2006 report  covering a range of election issues as of election year 2004, our 2007  testimony on electronic voting system challenges, and our 2008 report on  bilingual voting assistance.  The GAO reports on which this testimony is  based were conducted in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.  The scope of this testimony will not cover  accessibility for older voters with cognitive impairments, nor will it cover  registration challenges for older voters.
Overall, our work prior to the 2004 general election—including on-site  inspections of a national sample of polling places in election year 2000 and  a review of transportation issues facing seniors—has identified a number  of potential barriers to voting for older Americans. We found  transportation gaps in meeting the needs of seniors and lack of data on the  extent of unmet needs. Significantly, we found that most polling places we  inspected had one or more potential impediments for people with mobility  impairments—only 16 percent had no impediments—although some  provided for curbside voting. Since the passage of HAVA, and after the  2004 election, we surveyed state and local election jurisdictions and  identified a number of reported efforts taken to improve voting access for  people with disabilities.  In particular, we found a marked increase in  state provisions addressing accessibility of polling places and voting  systems, and alternative voting methods, such as curbside and absentee  voting. However, achieving accessibility in the polling place and with  respect to voting systems is complicated by the fact that thousands of  jurisdictions have primary responsibility for managing and conducting  elections and ensuring an accurate vote count. We have not examined the  extent to which the improvements reported by state and local election  jurisdictions since November 2000 have been implemented and, thus, do  not know the extent to which they have yielded improved accessibility of  polling places and voting systems.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The proportion of older people in the United States who may face  challenges exercising the right to vote is growing. As of 2003, there were  almost 36 million individuals aged 65 or older (12 percent of the  population), and the majority have at least one chronic health condition.  By 2030, those aged 65 and over will grow to more than 20 percent of the  population. Disability increases with age, and studies have shown that  with every 10 years after reaching the age of 65, the risk of losing mobility  doubles. In many ways, lack of mobility and other types of impairments  can diminish seniors’ ability to vote without some assistance or  accommodation. With increased age, seniors will become more limited in  their ability to get to polling places by driving, walking, or using public  transportation. Once seniors arrive at the polling places, they may face  additional challenges, depending on the availability of accessible parking  areas, accessibility of polling places, type and complexity of the voting  equipment, availability of alternative voting methods (such as absentee  voting), and the availability of voting assistance or aids.
Responsibility for holding elections and ensuring voter access primarily  rests with state and local governments. Each state sets the requirements  for conducting local, state, and federal elections within the state. For  example, states regulate such aspects of elections as ballot access,  absentee voting requirements, establishment of voting places, provision of  election day workers, and counting and certifying the vote. The states, in  turn have typically delegated responsibility for administering and funding  state election systems to the thousands of local election jurisdictions— more than 10,000 nationwide—creating even more variability among our  nation’s election systems.
Although state and local governments are responsible for running  elections, Congress has authority to affect the administration of elections.  Federal laws have been enacted in several major areas of the voting  process, including several that are designed to help ensure that voting is  accessible for the elderly and people with disabilities. Most importantly,  the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA),  enacted in 1984, requires that political subdivisions responsible for  conducting elections assure that all polling places for federal elections are  accessible to elderly voters and voters with disabilities (with limited  exceptions). Any elderly voter or voter with a disability assigned to an  inaccessible polling place, upon his or her advance request, must be  assigned to an accessible polling place or be provided with an alternative  means for casting a ballot on the day of the election. Under the VAEHA,  the definition of “accessible” is determined under guidelines established  by each state’s chief election officer, but the law does not specify what  those guidelines shall contain or the form those guidelines should take.  Additionally, states are required to make available voting aids for elderly  and disabled voters, including instructions printed in large type at each  polling place, and information by telecommunications devices for the deaf.  The VAEHA also contains a provision requiring public notice, calculated to  reach elderly and disabled voters, of absentee voting procedures.
HAVA also contains a number of provisions designed to help increase the  accessibility of voting for individuals with disabilities. For example, under  HAVA, voting systems for federal elections must be accessible for  individuals with disabilities in a manner that provides the same  opportunity for access and participation as for other voters. To satisfy this  requirement, each polling place must have at least one voting system  equipped for individuals with disabilities. In addition, the Secretary of  Health and Human Services is required to make yearly payments (in an  amount of the Secretary’s choosing) to each eligible state and unit of local  government, and such payments must be used for (1) making polling  places (including path of travel, entrances, exits, and voting areas)  accessible to individuals with disabilities, and (2) providing individuals  with disabilities with information about the accessibility of polling places.  The Act also created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to  serve, among other things, as a clearinghouse and information resource  for election officials with respect to the administration of federal  elections. For example, the EAC is to periodically conduct and make  available to the public studies regarding methods of ensuring accessibility  of voting, polling places, and voting equipment to all voters, including  individuals with disabilities. Under HAVA, the EAC is also to make grants  for carrying out both research and development to improve various  aspects of voting equipment and voting technology, and pilot programs to  test new technologies in voting systems. To be eligible for such grants, an  entity must certify that it will take into account the need to make voting  equipment fully accessible for individuals with disabilities.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), as amended, provides for voter  assistance in the voting room. Specifically, the VRA, among other things,  authorizes voting assistance for blind, disabled, or illiterate persons.  Voters who require assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or  inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s  choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or  officer or agent of the voter’s union.
Other laws also help to ensure voting access for the elderly and people  with disabilities—albeit indirectly. For example, Title II of the Americans  with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and its implementing regulations  require that people with disabilities have access to basic public services,  including the right to vote. However, it does not strictly require that all  polling place sites be accessible. Under the ADA, public entities must  make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to  avoid discrimination against people with disabilities. Moreover, no  individual with a disability may, by reason of the disability, be excluded  from participating in or be denied the benefits of any public program,  service, or activity. State and local governments may comply with ADA  accessibility requirements in a variety of ways, such as by redesigning  equipment, reassigning services to accessible buildings or alternative  accessible sites, or altering existing facilities or constructing new ones.  However, state and local governments are not required to take actions that  would threaten or destroy the historic significance of a historic property,  fundamentally alter the nature of a service, or impose undue financial and  administrative burdens. In choosing between available methods of  complying with the ADA, state and local governments must give priority to  the choices that offer services, programs, and activities in the most  integrated setting appropriate.
Title III of the ADA covers commercial facilities and places of public  accommodation. Such facilities may also be used as polling places. Under  Title III, public accommodations must make reasonable modifications in  policies, practices, or procedures to facilitate access for individuals with  disabilities. They must also ensure that no individual with a disability is  excluded or denied services because of the absence of “auxiliary aids and  services,” which include both effective methods of making aurally and  visually delivered materials available to individuals with impairments, and  acquisition or modification of equipment or devices. Public  accommodations are also required to remove physical barriers in existing  buildings when it is “readily achievable” to do so, that is, when it can be  done without much difficulty or expense, given the entity’s resources. In  the event that removal of an architectural barrier cannot be accomplished  easily, the accommodation may take alternative measures to facilitate  accessibility. All buildings newly constructed by public accommodations  and commercial facilities must be readily accessible; alterations to existing  buildings are required to the maximum extent feasible to be readily  accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Finally, the Older Americans Act of 1965 (OAA), as amended, supports a  wide range of social services and programs for older persons. The OAA  authorizes grants to agencies on aging to serve as advocates of, and  coordinate programs for, the older population. Such programs cover areas  such as caregiver support, nutrition services, and disease prevention.  Importantly, the OAA also provides assistance to improve transportation  services for older individuals.
subsections: section_title: Transportation Challenges Become More Acute with Aging and Can Limit Seniors’ Ability to Reach Polling Places
paragraphs: For older adults who wish to vote at polling places, access to the polls is  highly affected by their ability to travel to the polling place on election  day. While most older adults drive, their physical, visual, and cognitive  abilities can deteriorate, making it more difficult for them to drive safely.  One study found that approximately 21 percent (6.8 million) of people  aged 65 and older do not drive, and another study found that more than  600,000 people aged 70 and older stop driving each year and become  dependent on others for transportation. According to senior  transportation experts, the “oldest of the old” (those aged 85 and older)  are especially likely to be dependent on others for rides, particularly if  they are also in poor health.
For those who do not or cannot drive, our previous work for this  committee on the mobility of older adults identified other options than  driving that are available; nevertheless, transportation gaps remain.  Consistent with the Older Americans Act and other legislation, the federal  government provides some transportation assistance, but this is largely to  provide older adults with access to other federal program services—such  as health and medical care or employment. This has been done through  partnerships with local agencies, nonprofits, and other organizations that  provide transportation services and also contribute their own funds. Such  partnering efforts may afford the opportunity to transport seniors to  polling places as well. For example, the Montana Council on  Developmental Disabilities partners with other organizations, such as  AARP and the Montana Transit Association, to provide election day rides  to older adults and people with disabilities. Still, we generally found that  older adults in rural and suburban areas have more restricted travel  options than do those in urban areas. In addition, we have reported that  federally supported programs generally lacked data identifying the extent  to which older adults have unmet needs for mobility. Consequently, we do  not know to what extent older adults are unable to find transportation to  polling places.
To address this lack of data and improve transportation services, more  than 45 states had utilized the “Framework for Action” by 2005, a self- assessment tool created by the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council  on Access and Mobility (CCAM) for states and communities to help them  identify existing gaps in transportation services for people with  disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes. According to  the CCAM, communities across the country are now using this tool as they  establish coordinated transportation plans at the local level. Voting access  is one need that might well be identified and better met through this  assessment process.
section_title: Physical Access to Polling Places Was Uneven during Election 2000, but May Have Improved since HAVA Was Enacted in 2002
paragraphs: Our on-site inspections of polling places in the 2000 general election  revealed many impediments that can limit access for older voters and  voters with disabilities. Through our mail survey of states and local  election jurisdictions conducted after the 2004 general election, we  learned of improvements to provisions and practices pertaining to  accessibility of polling places. We did not conduct on-site inspections in  the 2004 general election and therefore do not know the extent to which  such improvements took place at polling places.
subsections: section_title: An Estimated 16 Percent of Polling Places Used in the 2000 General Election Had No Potential Impediments
paragraphs: Once older voters reach the polling place, they generally must make their  way inside the building and into the voting room in order to cast their  votes. Prior to the 2000 election, very little was known about the  accessibility of polling places—and what was known was dated and had  significant limitations. To estimate the proportion of polling places in the  country with features that might either facilitate or impede access for  people with mobility, dexterity, or visual impairments, we visited 496  randomly selected polling places in the United States on Election Day  2000. Our random sample was drawn by first selecting a random sample of  counties—weighted by population—and then randomly selecting some  polling places within those counties. At each polling place, using a survey  based on federal and nonfederal guidelines on accessibility, we took  measurements and made observations of features of the facility and voting  methods that could impede access. See figure 1 for the key areas at  polling places where we conducted our observations. We also interviewed  poll workers who were in charge of the polling place to identify any  accommodations offered.
These on-site inspections during the 2000 election revealed that only an  estimated 16 percent of polling places were free of impediments that might  prevent elderly voters and voters with disabilities from reaching voting  rooms. The rest had one or more likely impediments from the parking  area to the voting room, although curbside voting was often made  available where permitted by the state (see fig. 2). These were potential  impediments primarily for individuals with mobility impairments.
Further, many polling places had more than one potential impediment in  2000. Impediments occurred at fairly high rates irrespective of the type of  building used as a polling place. About 70 percent of all Election Day 2000  polling places were in the types of facilities that are potentially subject to  either Title II or III of the ADA—such as schools, recreational/community  centers, city/town halls, police/fire stations, libraries, and courthouses.  However, under the ADA, only new construction and alterations must be  readily accessible, and we did not determine the date that polling place  facilities were either constructed or altered. Moreover, due to the number  of possible approaches for meeting ADA requirements on accessibility to  public services and because places of public accommodation need remove  barriers only where it is easy to do so, we cannot determine from our data  whether the potential impediments we found would constitute a failure to  meet ADA requirements.
In addition to inspecting polling places in 2000, we also reviewed state  provisions (in the form of statutes, regulations, or policies) and surveyed  state and county practices that affect voters’ ability to get into polling  places and reach the voting room, and found significant variations. While  all states and the District of Columbia had provisions concerning voting  access for individuals with disabilities, the extent and manner in which  these provisions addressed accessibility varied from state to state. For  example, 43 states had provisions that polling places must or should be  accessible, but only 20 had provisions requiring that reporting by the  counties to the state on polling place accessibility. See table 1 in app. I for  additional state provisions concerning the accessibility of polling places in  the November 2000 election.
Our survey of election officials in each state and 100 counties also  revealed variation in practices for ensuring the accessibility of polling  places. For example, while 25 states reported providing local  governments with training and guidance for assuring polling place  accessibility, only 5 states reported helping finance polling place  modifications to improve access in 2000. At least an estimated 27 percent  of local election jurisdictions reported not using accessibility in their  criteria for selecting polling places. While at least an estimated 68 percent  of local jurisdictions reported that they inspected all polling places, the  frequency of such inspections varied from once a year to only when a  polling place is first selected or following a complaint or remodeling.
section_title: New Provisions and Practices May Be Improving Access to Polling Places, although the Degree of Change Is Difficult to Determine
paragraphs: After the November 2004 general election, we found signs of improvement  in access to polling places when we surveyed each state and  representative sample of local election jurisdictions nationwide in 2005  about their state provisions and practices. While the methods we used to  collect data from states differed between the 2000 and 2004 elections, state  provisions related to polling place accessibility and accommodations  nevertheless appear to have increased over time. For example, 32 states  told us in 2005 that they required local jurisdictions to report on polling  place accessibility to the state, an increase from 20 states with such  provisions in 2000. At the same time, the number of states requiring polling  place inspections decreased by 1 from 2000 to 2004, although 16 in  addition to the 28 requiring inspections had provisions in 2004 that  allowed for polling place inspections. See Table 2 in app. I for additional  information on state provisions concerning accessibility of polling places  and accommodations for individuals with disabilities for the November  2004 general election.
In addition to changes in state provisions, most states reported that they  had spent or obligated HAVA funds to improve the accessibility of polling  places, such as by providing access for voters with mobility or visual  impairments. Responding to our 2005 survey following the 2004 election,  46 states and the District of Columbia reported having spent or obligated  HAVA funds for this purpose. For example, election officials in a local  jurisdiction we visited in Colorado told us they had used HAVA funds to  improve the accessibility of polling places by obtaining input from the  disability community, surveying the accessibility of their polling places,  and reviewing voting equipment with representatives of the blind  community.
From our 2005 survey of local election jurisdictions nationwide, we  estimated 83 percent of local jurisdictions nationwide made use of their  state’s provisions to determine the requirements for accessibility at their  polling places. During our site visits to local jurisdictions in 2005, we  asked election officials to describe the steps or procedures they took to  ensure that polling places were accessible. Election officials in many of  the jurisdictions we visited told us that either local or state officials  inspect each polling location in their jurisdiction using a checklist based  on state or federal guidelines. For example, election officials in the four  jurisdictions we visited in Georgia and New Hampshire told us that state  inspectors conducted a survey of all polling locations. Election officials in  the two jurisdictions we visited in Florida told us that they inspected all  polling places using a survey developed by the state.
Our information of provisions and practices related to polling place  accessibility in 2004 is based on self-reported data collected, and site visits  we conducted, in 2005. We did not observe polling places during the 2004  election and therefore do not know the extent to which increased state  provisions and reported state and local practices resulted in actual  improvements to the accessibility of polling places in the 2004 general  election.
section_title: Election Officials Reported Challenges to Ensuring Voter Access That Were Similar to Those Encountered in 2000
paragraphs: In preparing for and conducting the November 2004 general election,  officials reported encountering many of the same challenges to ensuring  voter access that they had encountered in 2000, such as locating a  sufficient number of polling places that met requirements (such as  accessibility). According to our 2005 mail survey, while 75 percent of small  jurisdictions reported finding it easy or very easy to find sufficient number  of polling places, only 38 percent of large jurisdictions did. Conversely, 1  percent of small jurisdictions found it difficult or very difficult while 14  percent of large jurisdictions did. Other challenges reported included  recruiting and training an adequate supply of skilled poll workers,  designing ballots that were clear to voters when there were many  candidates or issues (e.g., propositions, questions, or referenda), having  long lines at polling places, and handling the large volume of telephone  calls received from voters and poll workers on election day. In general,  officials in large and medium jurisdictions—those with over 10,000  people—reported encountering more challenges than those in small  jurisdictions.
section_title: Improving Accessibility of Voting Equipment and Assistance in Voting Room May Prove Challenging
paragraphs: Once inside the voting room, the type of voting method can pose particular  challenges to some elderly voters, and facilitating voting may require  further accommodation or assistance. For example, voters with dexterity  impairments may experience difficulty holding writing instruments for  paper ballots, pinpointing the stylus for punch card ballots, manipulating  levers, or pressing buttons for electronic voting systems. Similarly, visually  impaired voters may experience difficulty reading the text on paper ballots  and electronic voting systems, or manipulating the handles to operate  lever machines. All these voting methods can challenge voters with  disabilities, although some electronic voting systems can be adapted to  accommodate a range of impairments.
subsections: section_title: Accessible Voting Systems in the November 2000 General Election
paragraphs: During our on-site inspections of polling places in 2000, we identified  challenges posed by the voting systems used and by the configuration of  the voting booths, although some form of assistance was generally  provided in the voting room. With respect to voting systems, we found that  either traditional paper ballots or mark-sense ballots (a form of optical  scan paper ballots) were the most widespread—one or the other were in  use at an estimated 43 percent of polling places. This voting method is  challenging for voters with impaired dexterity who have difficulty using a  pen or pencil, and also for voters with visual impairments who need to  read the text on the ballots. Next in prevalence were punch card ballots  (21 percent), electronic voting systems (19 percent), and lever machines  (17 percent)—each of which can be a challenge for voters with certain  impairments. We also found that many voting booths were not  appropriately configured for wheelchairs, either because voting stations  configured for sitting did not have the minimum dimensions for a  wheelchair or those configured for standing had one or more features that  might pose an impediment to a wheelchair. At the same time, nearly all  polling places allowed voters to be assisted either by a friend or a poll  worker, which is a right granted by the VRA. Moreover, about 51 percent  provided voting instructions or sample ballots in 18-point or larger type  and about 47 percent provided a magnifying device. None of the polling  places provided ballots or voting equipment adapted with audio-tape or  Braille ballots for blind voters.
Our 2000 review of state provisions and practices related to accessible  voting systems and accommodations in the voting room revealed  significant gaps, insofar as 27 states lacked provisions that voting systems  should accommodate individuals with disabilities, 18 lacked provisions for  wheelchairs in voting booths, and many lacked provisions to provide aides  to the visually impaired; for example, 47 states lacked a provision to  provide a large type ballot, and 45 lacked a provision to provide a Braille  ballot. (See app. I, table 1.) On the other hand, we found that state  provisions were not necessarily predictors of practice inside the polling  place. For example, we found that half the polling places we visited  provided voting instructions or sample ballots with large type even though  only 3 of the 33 states whose polling places we visited had provisions to do  so. Conversely, none of the polling places we visited provided for Braille  ballots, even though 5 of the 33 states we visited had provisions for doing  so. In addition to many states lacking provisions for voting room  accommodations, in only 11 states did election officials, in response to our  state survey, report financing improvements to accessibility by helping to  fund new voting systems.
section_title: Progress Made to Improve Accessibility of Voting Systems after 2000, but Significant Challenges Remain
paragraphs: Our 2005 survey of states also revealed an increase in state provisions for  accessible voting equipment, compared to what we found in our review of  state provisions in 2000. As of August 1, 2005, 41 states and the District of  Columbia reported having laws in place or having taken executive action  (through orders, directives, regulations, or policies) to provide each  polling location by January 1, 2006, with at least one electronic voting  system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities.
Five of the 9 remaining states reported plans to promulgate laws or  executive action to provide each polling location with at least one voting  system equipped for individuals with disabilities. This is an increase from  2000, when 24 states had (and 27 lacked) provisions that voting systems  must or should accommodate individuals with disabilities.
In response to our survey of local election jurisdictions in 2005, many  jurisdictions reported having at least one accessible voting machine per  polling place in the 2004 election, although this varied by jurisdiction size.  We estimated that 29 percent of all jurisdictions provided at least one  accessible voting machine at each polling place during the 2004 general  elections. In addition, more large and medium local election jurisdictions  reported using accessible voting machines than small jurisdictions. In  2005, we estimated that 39 percent of large jurisdictions, 38 percent of  medium jurisdictions, and 25 percent of small jurisdictions provided  accessible voting machines at each polling place.
These improvements may be the result of HAVA, which, as noted earlier,  requires each polling place to have at least one voting system equipped for  individuals with disabilities, including individuals who are blind or visually  impaired. To facilitate the adoption of technology, HAVA authorized  appropriations to provide funds to states to replace punch card and lever  voting equipment with other voting methods. Since HAVA’s enactment, the  General Services Administration (GSA) reported in 2003 the distribution of  an estimated $300 million to 30 states for funds to replace old voting  equipment and technology. In addition, states may receive other HAVA  funds that could be used for multiple purposes, including replacement or  upgrade of voting systems. In 2004, the EAC reported that almost $344  million had been distributed to each of the 50 states and the District of  Columbia under this multiple purpose funding category.
HAVA notwithstanding, our surveys and site visits in 2004 indicated that  significant challenges remain for acquiring and implementing accessible  electronic voting systems. Touch screen direct recording electronic (DRE)  equipment—which can be adapted with audio and other aids to  accommodate a range of impairments—is generally more costly than other  types of systems due to software requirements and because more units are  required. Based on our mail surveys of local election jurisdictions, the  estimated percentages of predominant voting methods used by local  jurisdictions in the 2000 and 2004 general elections did not change  appreciably. As we noted earlier, more large and medium local election  jurisdictions reported using accessible electronic voting machines than  small jurisdictions. Some election officials representing small jurisdictions  expressed concerns to us about the appropriateness of HAVA  requirements for accessible voting equipment for their jurisdictions and its  implementation cost. In addition, some elections officials have acted on  concerns regarding the reliability and security of electronic voting systems  by, for instance, decertifying systems previously approved for use within  their states.
In 2007, we testified on the range of security and reliability concerns that  have been reported, and long-standing and emerging challenges facing all  levels of government, with respect to electronic voting systems. For  example, significant concerns have been raised about vague or incomplete  standards, weak security controls, system design flaws, incorrect system  configuration, poor security management, and inadequate security testing,  among other issues. Jurisdictions reported that they did not consistently  monitor the performance of their systems, which is important for  determining whether election needs, requirements, and expectations are  met and for taking corrective actions when they are not. Finding remedies,  however, is challenging, given, for example, the distribution of  responsibilities among various organizations, and financing constraints  and complexities. Given the diffused and decentralized allocation of voting  system roles and responsibilities across all levels of government,  addressing these challenges will require the combined efforts of all levels  of government, under the leadership of the EAC.
section_title: States Have Increased Provisions for Voting Rooms Accommodations, though the Extent of Such Improvements Is Unclear
paragraphs: Our 2005 survey of state election officials revealed a marked increase  since the 2000 election in the number of state provisions related to  accommodations in the voting room. For example, the number of states  that reported having provisions for wheelchair accommodations in voting  areas was 43, compared to 33 in 2000. Further, the number of states that  reported having provisions to require or allow ballots with large-type,  magnifying instruments, and Braille ballot or voting methods increased by  18, 20, and 8, respectively. At the same time, a few states reported having  provisions that prohibit certain accommodations, such as ballots in Braille  or large type. (See app. I, table 2 for details on 2004 state provisions.) It is  important to keep in mind, however, our findings for the 2000 election— i.e., that state provisions are not necessarily predictors or indicators of  whether these accommodations will be found at polling places.
Most recently, we reported on accommodations provided to bilingual  voters, including elderly bilingual voters. Under the VRA, when the  population of a “single language minority” with limited English proficiency  is large enough, voting materials (including ballots, instructions, and  assistance) must be provided in that minority’s language, in addition to  English. Of the 14 election jurisdictions we contacted, 13 reported  providing similar assistance, such as translated voter materials and  bilingual poll workers. All 14 reported facing similar challenges, such as  recruiting a sufficient number of bilingual poll workers, effectively  targeting where to provide assistance, and designing and translating the  bilingual materials provided. However, GAO found little quantitative data  on the usefulness of various types of bilingual voting assistance.  Jurisdictions were challenged to assess the effectiveness of such  assistance, in part because jurisdictions may be prohibited from collecting  data on who used such assistance. Thus, it is difficult to know the extent  to which elderly voters use bilingual assistance and what forms of  assistance they find most useful.
section_title: State Provisions for Alternative Voting Methods and Accommodations Generally Increased since 2000, but Implementation Practices May Vary
paragraphs: As noted earlier, the VAEHA requires that any elderly voter or voter with a  disability assigned to an inaccessible polling place, upon his or her  advance request, must be assigned to an accessible polling place or be  provided with an alternative means for casting a ballot on the day of the  election. The VAEHA also contains provisions to make absentee voting  more accessible by prohibiting, with limited exceptions, the requirement  of a notary or medical certification of disability in granting an absentee  ballot. However, states generally regulate absentee voting and other  alternative voting method provisions. Alternative voting methods may  include advance notice of an inaccessible polling place; curbside voting;  taking ballots to a voter’s residence; allowing voters to use another, more  accessible polling location either on or before election day; voting in  person at early voting sites; or removing prerequisites by establishing “no  excuse” absentee voting or allowing absentee voting on a permanent  basis. Disability advocates have told us that while alternative voting  methods are important and needed options for some voters with  disabilities, they still do not provide an equal opportunity to vote in the  same manner as the general public and therefore should not be viewed as  permanent solutions to inaccessible polling places.
Meanwhile, state provisions that allow for alternative voting methods had,  in 2004, generally increased from the 2000 election period. Specifically, the  number of state provisions permitting curbside voting increased from 28 in  the 2000 election to 30 in the 2004 election. The number of states with  provisions that provided for carrying ballots to voters’ residences on or  before election day increased from 21 to 25. Additionally, state provisions  regarding notification of voters of inaccessible polling places went up  from 19 to 27. In addition, 21 states reported allowing voters to vote  absentee without requiring a reason or excuse—3 more than for the  November 2000 election.
Although states may offer similar alternatives and accommodations, our  review of state provisions in 2000 indicated that there may be wide  variation in their implementation. For example, in accordance with the  VAEHA, as previously mentioned, all states allowed absentee voting for  voters with disabilities without notary or medical certification  requirements in 2000. However, the dates by which absentee ballots must  be received varied considerably, with some states requiring that, to be  counted, the ballot must be received before election day. In addition,  where states lacked provisions, or had provisions allowing but not  requiring accommodation or alternative method of voting, county and  local government implementation practices can vary. For example, in  2000, we found that in a number of states without formal provision for  curbside voting, some counties and local governments reported offering  curbside voting and some did not. Similarly, in a number of states that  lacked provisions for allowing voters to use an alternate voting place on  Election Day, our 2000 county survey data also showed that some counties  and local governments offered this alternative, while others did not.
Expanding alternative voting methods or making special accommodations  can provide voters with additional options. Early voting, for example,  allows voters, including elderly voters, to choose a day without inclement  weather on which to vote. However, the implementation of voting  alternatives can also present election officials with legal, administrative,  and operational challenges. For example, expanding the use of curbside  voting requires having staff trained and available to assist voters outside  the polling place. In some states where it is not authorized or in practice,  policymakers would need to be convinced that it would not increase the  risk of fraud with ballots being taken out of the polling place facility.  Similarly, reassigning voters to more accessible polling places requires  officials to notify the voter, train the poll workers, and provide an  appropriate ballot at the reassigned location. Election officials reported to  us in 2001 that establishing early voting sites and expanding the number of  absentee voters added to the cost and complexity of running an election.  For example, with early voting, election officials must set up and close  down the polling place daily, ensure that there are trained poll workers at  each early voting site, and update the voter registration lists to be used on  election day to indicate which voters have already voted early. Absentee  voting challenges include receipt of late absentee voter applications and  ballots; administrative issues including workload demands and resource  constraints; dealing with potential voter error caused by unsigned or  otherwise incomplete absentee applications and ballot materials; as well  as guarding against fraud. Internet voting—an alternative that has been  used only on a limited basis to date—could offer voters the convenience of  voting from their homes or other remote locations, and help increase voter  participation. On the other hand, numerous election officials and others  have expressed concerns about the security and reliability of the Internet  and lack of widespread access to it. To resolve these issues, studies by  some task forces have suggested a phased-in approach to Internet voting.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Ensuring that seniors or individuals with disabilities successfully cast their  votes in an election requires government to think broadly about access,  including access to transportation, access into buildings, access with  respect to voting equipment, and access to various alternative voting  methods. The increase in state provisions and reports of practices to  improve the accessibility of the voting process is encouraging. At the same  time, the complexity of our election systems is such that we cannot be  assured that these provisions and reported practices reflect what actually  occurs at polling places on election day. Understanding and addressing  accessibility gaps is an enormous task for our state and local election  officials who are challenged by the multiplicity of responsibilities and  requirements they must attend to within resource constraints. At the same  time, as our population ages, and with it the percent of voters with  disabilities swells, the expectation of accommodation and assistance to  participate in this basic civic exercise will grow, making accessibility a key  performance goal for our election community.
section_title: Appendix I: State Provisions for Accessibility of Polling Places and Accommodations for the November 2000 and 2004 Elections
paragraphs: Appendix I: State Provisions for Accessibility  of Polling Places and Accommodations for the  November 2000 and 2004 Elections  for rticr proviion were identified only if  te did not hve either  te or  regtion for tht proviion.
Inspections of  polling place  accessibility  Reporting by local  jurisdictions to the  state on polling  place accessibility  Accommodations  of wheelchairs in  voting areas  Provision of ballot  or methods of  voting in BrailleProvision of  ballots with large  type   in one te reponded tht they did not know.  ct voting by mil; thus, proviion for polling plce ccessibility re not pplicble.   in one te did not repond to thition.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions’ Strategies for  Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance. GAO-08-182. Washington,  D.C.: January 18, 2008.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic  Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-741T. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2007.
Older Driver Safety: Knowledge Sharing Should Help States Prepare for  Increase in Older Driver Population. GAO-07-413. Washington, D.C.: April  11, 2007.
Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the  November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June 6,  2006.
Social Security Reform: Answers to Key Questions. GAO 05-193SP.  Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2005.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts to Enhance Senior  Mobility Could Benefit. from Additional Guidance and Information.  GAO-04-971. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2004  Elections: A Framework for Evaluating Reform Proposals. GAO-02-90.  Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation.  GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting  Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election  Administration. GAO-01-470. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.