Voters with Disabilities: Challenges to Voting Accessibility
Published: 2013-04-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Voting is fundamental to our democracy and federal law generally requires polling places to be accessible to all eligible voters, including those with disabilities and the elderly. However during the 2000 federal election, GAO found that only 16 percent of polling places had no potential impediments to voting access for people with disabilities. To address these and other issues, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which required each polling place to have an accessible voting system by 2006. Congress asked GAO to reassess voting access on Election Day 2008, and also to study voter accessibility at long-term care facilities.
This statement focuses on (1) progress made from 2000 to 2008 to improve voter accessibility in polling places, including relevancy to long-term care facilities and (2) steps the Department of Justice (Justice) has taken to enforce HAVA voting access provisions.
To prepare this statement, GAO relied primarily on its prior products on polling place accessibility ( GAO-09-941 ) and voting in long-term care facilities ( GAO-10-6 ).
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places in 2008 without potential impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible voting system as states and localities made various efforts to help facilitate accessible voting. In 2008, based upon GAO's survey of polling places, GAO estimated that 27 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path from the parking to the voting area--up from16 percent in 2000; 45 percent had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27 percent had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting. All but one polling place GAO visited had an accessible voting system--typically, an electronic machine in a voting station--to facilitate private and independent voting for people with disabilities. However, 46 percent of polling places had an accessible voting system that could pose a challenge to certain voters with disabilities, such as voting stations that were not arranged to accommodate voters using wheelchairs. In GAO's 2008 state survey, 43 states reported that they set accessibility standards for polling places, up from 23 states in 2000. Further, 31 states reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was challenging. Localities GAO surveyed in 2008 reported providing voting services directly to long-term care facility residents who may face challenges voting in a polling place. For example, close to one-third of localities GAO surveyed reported designating long-term care facilities as Election Day polling places.
From shortly after the passage of HAVA until 2006, Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility and conducted an initial assessment of states' compliance with HAVA's January 2006 deadline for accessible voting systems. After implementation of HAVA, Justice's oversight of HAVA's access requirements was part of two other enforcement efforts, but gaps remained. While Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility, this guidance did not address accessibility of the voting area itself. In 2009, Justice conducted polling place observations for federal elections that identified whether accessible voting systems were in place, but it did not systematically assess the physical accessibility of polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided to voters with disabilities. Justice also conducted a small number of annual community assessments of Americans with Disabilities Act compliance of public buildings, which included buildings designated as polling places. However, these assessments did not provide a national perspective on polling place accessibility or assess any special features of the voting area and the accessible voting system that are set up only on Election Day.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO previously recommended that Justice expand its monitoring and oversight of polling place accessibility. Justice generally agreed with our recommendation and has reported taking some steps towards addressing it, such as expanding Election Day observations to include an assessment of physical accessibility.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss voting access for people with  disabilities. As you know, voting is fundamental to our democratic system,  and federal law generally requires federal election polling places to be  accessible to all eligible voters, including voters with disabilities and the  elderly. Under the law, state political subdivisions responsible for  conducting elections must assure that polling places used in federal  elections are accessible, as determined by the state. These  requirements 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. In the 2008 federal election,  an estimated 15 million voters with disabilities cast ballots. However,  during the 2000 federal election, we found that only 16 percent of polling  places had no potential impediments to voting access for people with  disabilities. Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)  to address these and other challenges encountered during the 2000  federal election. Subsequently, Congress asked GAO to assess voting  access for people with disabilities again and examine actions taken to  facilitate voting for residents of long-term care facilities during the 2008  federal election.
Much has happened since the 2008 federal election, and states have  made various changes to their election laws that may affect voters with  disabilities. Specifically, leading into the 2012 presidential election,  numerous states made substantive changes to: their election codes or  procedures in areas of voter identification; alternative methods of voting,  such as in-person voting prior to Election Day; and requirements for voter  registration drives conducted by nongovernment organizations.
My statement today is based primarily on our findings from two 2009  GAO reports on polling place accessibility and voting in long-term care  facilities, respectively. Specifically, my comments will focus on (1)  progress made from 2000 to 2008 to improve voter accessibility in polling  places, including relevancy to long-term care facilities and (2) steps the  Department of Justice (Justice) has taken to enforce HAVA voting access  provisions. In addition, we currently have work under way examining state  voter identification laws and their impact on voting access.
In conducting our prior work on polling place accessibility and voting in  long-term care facilities, we visited 730 randomly selected polling places  in the contiguous United States on Election Day, November 4, 2008, to  make observations of their accessibility features. We also administered a  web-based survey of election officials in all 50 states, the District of  Columbia (District), and 4 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam,  Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) between December 2008 and  February 2009 and received a 100 percent response rate. In addition, we  conducted an e-mail survey of 104 local election jurisdictions between  September 2008 and February 2009 and received an 88 percent  response rate.organizations that represented election officials and disability advocacy  groups. We also reviewed relevant state and federal laws, guidance, and  other documentation, including citizen complaints from Election Day 2008  that Justice provided to us.
Furthermore, we interviewed federal officials and national  The work upon which this testimony is based was performed in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provided a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusion based on our audit objectives. Additional information on our  full scope and methodology is available in the published reports.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Limited Federal Role in Administering Elections
paragraphs: The administration of federal elections is a massive enterprise, conducted  primarily at the state and local level, under applicable state and federal  voting laws. Responsibility for holding elections and ensuring that each  voter has the ability to fully participate in the electoral process—including  registering to vote, accessing polling places or alternative voting methods,  and casting a vote—primarily rests with state and local governments.  While federal elections are generally conducted under state laws and  policies, several federal laws apply to voting and some provisions  specifically address accessibility issues for voters with disabilities,  including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and HAVA.
section_title: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
paragraphs: Title II and III of the ADA contain provisions that help increase the  accessibility of voting for individuals with disabilities. Specifically, Title II  and its implementing regulations require that people with disabilities have  access to basic public services, including the right to vote. The ADA  requires that public entities make reasonable modifications in policies,  practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination against people with  disabilities. Moreover, no person with a disability may, by reason of  disability, be excluded from participating in or be denied the benefits of  any public program, service, or activity. State and local governments may  generally comply with ADA accessibility requirements in a variety of ways,  such as reassigning services to accessible buildings or alternative   Title III of the ADA generally covers commercial  accessible sites.facilities and places of public accommodation that may also be used as  polling places. Public accommodations must make reasonable  modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to facilitate access for  people with disabilities. These facilities are also required to remove  physical barriers in existing buildings when it is “readily achievable” to do  so; that is, when the removal can be done without much difficulty or  expense, given the entity’s resources.
section_title: Help America Vote Act of 2002
paragraphs: HAVA, which contains a number of provisions to help increase voting  accessibility for people with disabilities, establishes the Election  Assistance Commission (EAC) and grants the Attorney General  enforcement authority. In particular, section 301(a) of HAVA outlines   This  minimum standards for voting systems used in federal elections.section specifically states that the voting system must be accessible for  people with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and  visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for  access and participation as is provided for other voters. To satisfy this  requirement, each polling place must have at least one direct recording  electronic or other voting system equipped for people with disabilities.
HAVA also established the EAC as an agency with wide-ranging duties to  help improve state and local administration of federal elections, including  providing voluntary state guidance on implementing HAVA provisions.  The EAC also has authority to make grants for the research and  development of new voting equipment and technologies and the  improvement of voting systems. Additionally, HAVA vests enforcement  authority with the Attorney General to bring a civil action against any state  or jurisdiction as may be necessary to carry out specified uniform and  nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements  under HAVA.
section_title: Characteristics of Long- term Care Facility Residents
paragraphs: As the proportion of older Americans in the country increases, the number  of voters residing in long-term care facilities who may face challenges  voting at polling places on Election Day due to their physical and mental  condition could also increase. By 2030, those aged 65 and over are  projected to grow to more than 72 million individuals and represent a  quarter of the voting age population. Older voters, who consistently vote  in higher proportions than other voters, may face challenges exercising  their right to vote because disability increases with age. Moreover, it is  estimated that 70 percent of people over age 65 will require some long- term care services at some point in their lives, such as residing in a  nursing home or assisted living facility. The physical and cognitive  impairments of many long-term care facility residents may make it more  difficult for them to independently drive, walk, or use public transportation  to get to their designated polling place. Once at the polling place, they  may face challenges finding accessible parking, reaching the ballot area,  and casting a ballot privately and independently.
section_title: Recent GAO Election Reports
paragraphs: We recently issued two reports on elections in which the findings may  have implications for voters with disabilities. Specifically, in 2012, we  issued a report examining state laws addressing voter registration and  voting on or before Election Day. In the report, we found that states had  been active in the past 10 years in amending their election codes,  regulations, and procedures, not only to incorporate requirements  mandated by HAVA, but also in making substantive changes to their laws  in the areas of voter identification, early voting, and requirements for third- party voter registration organizations. We found that states had a variety  of identification requirements for voters when they register to vote, vote at  the polls on Election Day, and seek to cast an absentee ballot by mail that  were in effect for the November 2012 election. Specifically, while voter  identification requirements varied in flexibility, the number and type of  documents allowed, and alternatives available for verifying identity, 31  states had requirements for all eligible voters to show identification at the  polls on Election Day. We also found that most states had also  established alternatives for voters to cast a ballot other than at the polls  on Election Day. Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia provided  an opportunity for voters to cast a ballot prior to the election without an  excuse, either by no-excuse absentee voting by mail or in-person early  voting, or both. States also regulated the process by which voters  registered to vote and had a variety of requirements that address third- party voter registration organizations that conduct voter registration  drives.
In addition, in 2012, we issued a report looking at the potential  implementation of weekend voting and similar alternative voting  methods. In the report, we found that in the 2010 general election, 35  states and the District provided voters at least one alternative to casting  their ballot on Election Day through in-person early voting, no-excuse  absentee voting, or voting by mail. However, state and local election  officials we interviewed identified challenges they would anticipate facing  in planning and conducting Election Day activities on weekends— specifically, finding poll workers and polling places, and securing ballots  and voting equipment—and expected cost increases. Specifically, officials  in 14 of the 17 jurisdictions and the District expected that at least some of  the polling places they used in past elections—such as churches—would  not be available for a weekend election, and anticipated difficulty finding  replacements. Additionally, officials in 5 of the 7 states and the District  that conducted early voting and provided security over multiple days  explained that the level of planning needed for overnight security for a  weekend election would far surpass that of early voting due to the greater  number and variety of Election Day polling places. For example, officials  in one state said that for the 2010 general election, the state had fewer  than 300 early voting sites—which were selected to ensure security— compared to more than 2,750 polling places on Election Day, which are  generally selected based on availability and proximity to voters.
section_title: The Proportion of Polling Places Without Potential Impediments Increased Between the 2000 and 2008 Elections
paragraphs: In comparison to our findings in 2000, the proportion of polling places with  no potential impediments increased in 2008. In 2008, we estimated that  27 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path  from the parking area to the voting area—up from 16 percent in 2000.  Specifically, polling places with four or more potential impediments  decreased significantly—from 29 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2008  (see fig. 1). Potential impediments included a lack of accessible parking  and obstacles en route from the parking area to the voting area.
Figure 2 shows some key polling place features that we examined in our  2008 review of polling places. These features primarily affect individuals  with mobility impairments, in particular voters using wheelchairs.
Similar to our findings in 2000, the majority of potential impediments at  polling places in 2008 occurred outside of or at the building entrance,  although improvements were made in some areas. In particular, the  percentage of polling places with potential impediments at the building  entrance dropped sharply—from 59 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in  2008. In addition, polling places made significant gains in providing  designated parking for people with disabilities, which decreased from 32  percent with no designated parking in 2000 to only 3 percent in 2008 (see  fig. 3).ramps or curb cuts in the parking area, unpaved or poor surfaces in the  path from the parking lot or route to the building entrance, and door  thresholds exceeding ½ inch in height.
We did not assess polling places’ legal compliance with HAVA accessible voting system  requirements. For our 2008 Election Day data collection instrument, we compiled a list of  commonly known accessible voting machines by consulting with disability experts and  others.
section_title: Justice Assessed States’ Implementation of HAVA Requirements for the 2006 Deadline, but Its Oversight Had Some Gaps
subsections: section_title: Justice’s Outreach, Guidance, and Oversight
paragraphs: From shortly after the passage of HAVA until 2006, Justice officials  provided educational outreach and guidance on polling place accessibility  and conducted an initial assessment of states’ compliance with HAVA’s  January 2006 deadline for accessible voting systems.guidance on the new HAVA voting system requirements while the EAC   Justice provided  was being formed. During this time, Justice officials said they made a  considerable effort to educate state and local election officials and  national organizations representing election officials and people with  disabilities on HAVA voting system requirements. As part of these early  efforts, Justice provided guidance to poll workers on how to assess and  create a physically accessible polling place. Specifically, in 2004, Justice  published the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling  Places, which provided information to voting officials on key accessibility  features needed by most voters with disabilities to go from the parking  area to the voting area. According to our survey, 34 states found the  checklist to be moderately to very helpful. While the checklist provides  limited guidance on accessibility features within the voting area, it does  not provide information about the configuration of the voting system. In  addition to early guidance, Justice also conducted an initial assessment  of states’ progress toward meeting the January 2006 deadline for  compliance with HAVA voting system requirements. For example, in  2003, Justice sent letters to state election officials summarizing HAVA  voting system requirements. Justice later followed up with letters in 2005  and 2006, which outlined HAVA voting system requirements, and asked  states to respond to a series of questions to help gauge whether every  polling place in the state had at least one accessible voting machine and  whether poll workers were trained in the machine’s operation. Finally, with  the full implementation of HAVA in 2006, the EAC took over Justice’s  state educational outreach and guidance efforts.
Justice’s limited oversight of HAVA voting system requirements and  polling place accessibility, by 2009, left gaps in ensuring voting  accessibility for people with disabilities. For example, Justice supervised  polling place observations for federal elections on Election Day 2008,  primarily to assess compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  However, Justice did not systematically assess the physical accessibility  of the polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided to  people with disabilities by the accessible voting system, which limited the  department’s ability to identify potential accessibility issues facing voters  with disabilities. In addition, Justice initiated a small number of annual  community assessments—called Civic Access assessments—of ADA  compliance in public buildings, including buildings designated as polling  places, but these assessments included a small portion of polling places  nationwide and were generally not conducted on Election Day. According  to Justice, these assessments could be resource-intensive, which, in part,  may have limited the number that the department could complete in a  given year. Justice initiated Civic Access assessments for three  communities in calendar year 2008. When onsite reviews identified  physical barriers and impediments for people with disabilities, Justice  generally negotiated and entered into a settlement agreement with the  election jurisdiction. Between 2000 and 2008, Justice entered into 69  Civic Access settlement agreements containing one or more  recommendations aimed at polling place provisions, but given the small  number of Civic Access assessments conducted annually, they did not  provide a national perspective on polling place accessibility. In addition,  since these assessments were not conducted during elections, they did  not assess any special features of voting areas and accessible voting  systems that are set up only on Election Day.
section_title: Implementation of Recommended Monitoring and Oversight Would Reduce Potential Voting Impediments and Other Challenges
paragraphs: In our 2009 report on polling place accessibility, we recommended that  the Department of Justice look for opportunities to expand its monitoring  and oversight of the accessibility of polling places for people with  disabilities in a cost-effective manner. This effort might include: working with states to use existing state oversight mechanisms and  using other resources, such as organizations representing election  officials and disability advocacy organizations, to help assess and  monitor states’ progress in ensuring polling place accessibility, similar  to the effort used to determine state compliance with HAVA voting  system requirements by the 2006 deadline; expanding the scope of Election Day observations to include an  assessment of the physical access to the voting area and the level of  privacy and independence being offered to voters with disabilities by  accessible voting systems; and expanding the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist of  Polling Places to include additional information on the accessibility of  the voting area and guidance on the configuration of the accessible  voting system to provide voters with disabilities with the same level of  privacy and independence as is afforded to other voters.
Justice generally agreed with this recommendation in commenting on the  draft report, and when we reached out for an update in preparation of this  testimony, indicated it has taken steps towards addressing the  recommendation. For example, Justice noted that it has entered into  settlements—with Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 2009 and Flint,  Michigan, in 2012—to resolve allegations of inaccessible polling places.  In addition, Justice stated that it has expanded the scope of Election Day  observations to include an assessment of the physical accessibility of  polling places, citing its monitoring of 240 polling places in about 28  jurisdictions for the 2012 general election. However, Justice did not  indicate whether its expanded Election Day observations include  assessing privacy and independence provided by accessible voting  systems. Further, it does not appear at this time that Justice has taken  action to expand the scope of the ADA Checklist for Polling Places to  include additional information on the accessibility of the voting area and  guidance on the configuration of the accessible voting system. We  believe that expanding these additional steps could build upon Justice’s  efforts to date in potentially reducing voting impediments and other  challenges for voters with disabilities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions you or other Members of the Council may have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff and Acknowledgements
paragraphs: Further information about this statement, please contact Barbara  Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this testimony. Other key contributors to this statement  include: Brett Fallavollita, Assistant Director; David Lin; Ryan Siegel; and  Amber Yancey-Carroll. Additional contributions were made by David  Alexander, Orin Atwater, Rebecca Gambler, Alex Galuten, Tom Jessor;  Kathy Leslie, Mimi Nguyen, Barbara Stolz, Janet Temko, Jeff Tessin, and  Walter Vance.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product 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.