Voters With Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting Methods
Published: 2001-10-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal law requires that disabled persons have access to polling places on election day. State political subdivisions must ensure that polling places used in federal elections are accessible. Exceptions are allowed if all potential polling places have been surveyed, no accessible place is available, and the political subdivision cannot make one temporarily accessible. In these cases, disabled voters must either be reassigned to an accessible polling place or provided another means for voting on election day. All states have provisions that address voting by people with disabilities, but these provisions vary greatly. All states provide for one or more alternative voting methods or accommodations that may facilitate voting by people with disabilities. States and localities have made several efforts to improve voting accessibility for the disabled, such as modifying poling places, acquiring new voting equipment, and expanding voting options. Nevertheless, state and county election officials GAO surveyed cited various challenges to improving access.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Voting is the foundation of our American democratic system, and federal  law generally requires access to voting on Election Day for people with  disabilities.  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. Exceptions are  allowed if the state determines that all potential polling places have been  surveyed and no accessible place is available, and the political subdivision  cannot make one temporarily accessible. In these cases, voters with  disabilities who are assigned to inaccessible polling places must be, upon  advance request, either reassigned to an accessible polling place or  provided another means for voting on Election Day. 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.
Because nationwide information on the accessibility of voting for people  with disabilities is dated and has significant limitations, you asked us to  study voting access for people with disabilities, including access to polling  places and alternative voting methods.  This study is part of a broader body  of GAO work about election procedures and election reform issues that we  are doing at the request of various members of the Congress.  This report  (1) examines state and local provisions and practices for assuring voting  accessibility, both at polling places and with respect to alternative voting  methods and accommodations; (2) estimates the proportion of polling  places with features that might facilitate or impede access, including  features of polling booths and voting accommodations; and (3) identifies  efforts and challenges to improving voting accessibility.
To examine provisions for assuring voting accessibility, we reviewed state  statutes and regulations pertaining to voting accessibility—both at polling  places and with respect to alternative voting methods—for all 50 states and  the District of Columbia.  We also reviewed written policies and other  guidelines that we identified or were provided by chief election officials for  all states, the District of Columbia, and a statistical sample of 100 counties,  selected to be representative of all counties in the contiguous United States  with the exception of those in Oregon. (The county selection process is  described later in this section.)  In addition, we interviewed election  officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and in the 100 counties in  our sample to identify practices for assuring voting accessibility. However,  we did not verify the implementation of state and county provisions or  practices.
To estimate the proportion of polling places in the contiguous United States  with features that might facilitate or impede access for people with  mobility, dexterity, and visual impairments, we visited randomly selected  polling places across the country on Election Day (Nov. 7, 2000).  We used a  two-stage sampling method that created a nationally representative sample  of polling places in the contiguous United States. The first stage involved  randomly selecting 100 counties.  We based the probability of each county’s  selection on the size of its voting age population so that heavily populated  counties, which tend to have more polling places than less-populated  counties, would have a greater chance of being included in the sample.  The  second stage involved randomly selecting eight polling places in each  county.  We then visited no less than 3 and up to 8 polling places per county,  for a total of 496 polling places on Election Day. At each polling place,  using a composite of various federal and nonfederal accessibility  guidelines, we took measurements and made observations of features of  the facility and voting methods that could potentially impede access—such  as no accessible parking, steep ramps, high door thresholds, and voting  booths that did not accommodate voters in wheelchairs.  We also  interviewed poll workers in charge of the polling place to identify  accommodations offered at the polling place—such as curbside voting  outside the polling place, and poll worker assistance and other voter aids  inside the voting room. We documented our observations and interviews  with poll workers in a data collection instrument we developed.  However,  because the extent to which any given feature may affect access is  dependent upon numerous factors—including the type or severity of an  individual’s disability—we were not able to determine whether any  observed feature prevented access.  Accordingly, we do not categorize  polling places as “accessible” or “inaccessible.” Moreover, we were not able  to determine whether curbside voting or other accommodations offered at  polling places actually facilitated voting. Finally, we did not assess whether  our observations on Election Day were consistent with state and county  provisions or practices.
To identify efforts and challenges to improving voting access, we  interviewed election officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and  the 100 counties in our sample to obtain their views on the challenges  associated with improving the accessibility of polling places and voting  equipment. We also interviewed selected election officials and  representatives of disability organizations to obtain their views on the costs  of accessible voting equipment and the extent to which alternative voting  methods and accommodations improve access for voters with disabilities.
See appendix I for more information on our methods; appendix II for a  copy of our data collection instrument; and appendix III for a list of the  people, counties, states, and organizations we contacted.
We performed our work from May 2000 to July 2001 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Holding federal elections in the United States is a massive enterprise,  administered primarily at the local level.  On Election Day, millions of  voters visit polling places across the country, which are located in schools,  recreation centers, churches, various government buildings, and even  private homes. For the 2000 election, counties and other local  jurisdictions deployed about 1.4 million poll workers and more than  700,000 voting machines to polling places across the country.Each of the  50 states and the District of Columbia also play a role in elections, by  establishing election laws and policies and providing oversight in their  respective states.  The federal government’s role in the administration of  elections is fairly limited.  The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is  generally responsible for regulating the financing of elections, serving as a  clearinghouse for information on elections, and providing advice and  assistance to state and local election administrators.
While federal elections are generally conducted under state laws and  policies, a few federal laws apply to voting and some provisions specifically  address accessibility issues for voters with disabilities. Most notably, 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. Two exceptions  are allowed: (1) in the case of an emergency as determined by the chief  election officer of the state, and (2) when the chief election officer of the  state determines that all potential polling places have been surveyed and no  such accessible place is available, nor is the political subdivision able to  make one temporarily accessible in the area involved.  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 the state’s chief election officer, but the law  does not specify what those guidelines shall contain or the form those  guidelines should take.  The VAEHA also contains provisions to make  absentee voting more accessible and provides for voting aids at polling  places.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) also applies to voting.  Title II of the ADA and 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 an historic property, fundamentally alter  the nature of a service, or impose undue financial and administrative  burdens.  Moreover, a public entity is not required to make structural  changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in  achieving compliance. 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 as restaurants, private schools, and privately  operated recreation centers.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 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 and expense, given the public  accommodation’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, including those who use wheelchairs.
Finally, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) provides that any voter  requiring 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….”
Although these federal laws support the right to vote for persons with  disabilities, concerns continue to be expressed about voting opportunities  for people with disabilities.  One recent study reported that people with  disabilities were about 15 percent less likely to vote than those without  disabilities—even after controlling for demographic and other factors  related to voting—and suggested that voting behavior of people with  disabilities is affected by access to polling places.According to a recent  analysis of Census data, nearly 1 out of 5 Americans has some type of  disability, and more than 1 in 10 has a severe disability.  For Americans 65  and over, 54.5 percent have a disability and 37.7 percent have a severe  disability.
Such concerns about voting opportunities have prompted action on the  part of policymakers and other interested parties.  For example, members  of the Congress recently proposed several amendments to the VAEHA that  were intended to improve voting access. In addition, the Election  Center’s National Task Force on Accessible Elections, composed of state  and local election officials and representatives of disability organizations,  met in 1999 and issued a guidebook to assist local election officials in  improving voting access. Furthermore, following reports that elderly  voters were unable to decipher ballots and that voting equipment created  overcounts and undercounts in the 2000 election, members of the Congress  and other policymakers have proposed a number of election reforms,  including provisions for further improving voting access for people with  disabilities. Finally, the FEC has been working toward incorporating  accessibility standards for electronic voting equipment into the update of  its 1990 voluntary standards for computer-based voting equipment. In  addition, the IEEE-SA Standards Board has recently approved a project to  develop a standard by which electronic voting equipment may be evaluated  for, among other things, accessibility.
section_title: State Provisions and County Practices for Assuring Voting Accessibility Vary Widely
paragraphs: Considerable variation exists in how states and counties attempt to meet  the needs of voters with disabilities, both at polling places and through  alternative methods of voting.  Consistent with the VAEHA, all states and  the District of Columbia have established provisions that address voting  accessibility at polling places.  However, state provisions vary in a number  of ways, including whether these provisions take the form of statute or  regulation, which carry the force and effect of law, or whether they exist  only in policy.  Similarly, states and counties vary in how they select,  inspect, and modify polling places to assure their accessibility.  Finally, if  some polling places are not or cannot be made readily accessible, all states  have provisions for voters with disabilities to vote absentee either on or  before Election Day.  Many but not all states also have provisions for other  alternative voting methods or accommodations to facilitate voting by  people with disabilities on or before Election Day.
subsections: section_title: State Provisions for Addressing Accessibility of Polling Places Vary Widely
paragraphs: All states have laws and other provisions concerning voting access for  people with disabilities, including their access to polling places, but the  extent and manner in which these provisions promote accessibility vary  from state to state.  This variation is consistent with the VAEHA, which  requires that states establish guidelines but does not prescribe what those  guidelines should contain.  We found that state provisions vary in several  ways, including the type or nature of the voting access provision and  whether they exist in statutes or regulations—which carry the force and  effect of law—or in policy documents.  For example, table 1 shows that 36  states have a statute or regulation stating that all polling places should be  accessible, 7 states have a policy that requires or suggests that all polling  places be accessible, and 8 states have no such provisions.  Similarly, while  some states have statutes or regulations covering Braille or large-type  ballots or magnifiers for visually impaired voters, the majority of states  have no such provisions.  Overall, we found that some states have  numerous provisions addressing voting and polling place accessibility,  while some states have very few.  (See app. IV, tables 9 and 10, for a  detailed listing of each state’s provisions.)
Even when states have similar types of provisions, the extent to which the  provisions promote access varies considerably.  For example, while some  states’ statutes recommend that all polling places be accessible, other  states require it without exception.  In addition, some provisions are more  explicit or exacting in promoting access than others.  For example,  according to one state’s statutes, all voting systems acquired on or after  September 1, 1999, must comply with Title II of the ADA and must provide  a practical and effective means for voters with most types of physical  disabilities to cast a secret ballot. In contrast, another state’s regulations  require a large-handled stylus for punching the ballot.
section_title: Counties Are Generally Responsible for Assuring Polling Place Accessibility, but Practices Vary
paragraphs: Consistent with the VAEHA, we found that primary responsibility for  assuring accessibility of polling places, through selecting, inspecting,  and/or modifying polling places or voting systems, typically rests with  counties or local governments.  Although there are many similarities in how  counties carry out their responsibilities, there are also some key  differences in their approach and level of effort for assuring polling place  accessibility.  For example, although counties and local governments are  generally responsible for selecting polling places, we estimate from our  county survey that, in at least 27 percent of all counties, accessibility to  people with disabilities is not cited among the criteria used in the selection  process.  Additionally, while all polling places in at least 68 percent of all  counties are inspected by county or local governments to determine if they  meet voting accessibility policies, the frequency of these inspections varies  widely.  Some polling places may be inspected as frequently as once a year,  while others may only be inspected upon selection or after a complaint or  remodeling.  Moreover, in a few counties, polling places conduct their own  inspections.
In addition, it is the county or local election office that is generally  responsible for ensuring that polling places are accessible, such as by  making and financing any polling place modifications and purchasing  accessible voting equipment.  Since 1995, in at least 32 percent of all  counties, temporary or permanent modifications were made to polling  places to improve their accessibility. With respect to acquiring accessible  voting equipment, county or local election officials in over 92 percent of all  counties have the authority to decide the type of voting machines to be  used. However, most states have established voting system standards with  which counties must comply; some of these state standards require  accommodations for individuals with disabilities, some do not.
While counties and local election officials typically have primary  responsibility for assuring the accessibility of polling places, table 2 shows  that states provide varying types of assistance.
Moreover, the amount of assistance provided by states can vary widely for  similar types of assistance.  For example, to assure accessibility of polling  places, one state conducts an annual accessibility survey of polling places,  provides inspection training for county officials, and performs inspections  of polling places.  In contrast, another state only offers guidance to local  officials on how to comply with disability standards.
section_title: State Provisions and County Practices Regarding Alternative Voting Methods and Accommodations Vary
paragraphs: As shown in table 3, states provide alternative methods for voting on or  before Election Day, but vary in the number and kind of alternatives and  accommodations they make available to voters with disabilities.  For  example, in accordance with the VAEHA, all states allow absentee voting  for voters with disabilities without notary or medical certification  requirements.However, the dates by which absentee ballots must be  received vary considerably, with some states requiring that, to be counted,  the ballot must be received before Election Day.  In addition, 17 states  permit permanent absentee voting, allowing voters with disabilities to  receive absentee ballots on a continuing basis without reapplying for a  ballot before each election.  Further, 19 states have provisions for notifying  voters in advance about the accessibility of their assigned polling places.  Other accommodations that some, but not all, states allow include curbside  voting; taking ballots to a voter’s residence; and allowing voters to use  another, more accessible polling location either on or before Election  Day. (See app. IV, table 10 for a detailed state-by-state listing of alternative  voting methods provided.)
Although states may offer similar types of voting alternatives and  accommodations, wide variation exists in how these alternatives and  accommodations are implemented.  For example, one state requires that all  registered voters be notified of the accessibility of their polling place by  mail at least 21 days before the election.  The notice must inform the voter  of his or her right to curbside voting or to vote by absentee ballot.  In  comparison, another state only recommends that a list of accessible polling  places be published in a newspaper no later than 4 days before the election.
Finally, in states that have no provisions for particular alternative voting  methods or accommodations, county and local government practices may  vary.  For example, in a number of states that have no provision for  curbside voting, we found that some counties and local governments offer  curbside voting and some do not.  Similarly, in a number of states that  lacked provisions for allowing voters to use an alternative voting place on  Election Day, our county survey data showed that some counties and local  governments offer this alternative and some do not.
section_title: Most Polling Places Have Features That May Impede Access, but Most Also Provide Accommodations That May Facilitate Voting
paragraphs: Voting access for people with disabilities may be impeded by a variety of  physical features at polling places; however, accommodations to facilitate  voting are often made available.  Although the extent to which any given  feature may prevent access is unknown, most polling places in the  contiguous United States have one or more physical features that may pose  challenges for voters with disabilities.  These features include a lack of  accessible parking and barriers en route from the parking area to the voting  room.  Figure 2 shows key features we examined. Such potential  impediments can be found at all types of buildings, both public and private.  Additionally, the voting methods and equipment used inside polling places  may pose challenges for some voters with disabilities.  However, polling  places generally provide accommodations, such as curbside voting, voting  stations designed for people with disabilities, and voter assistance inside  the voting room.
subsections: section_title: Polling Place Facilities
paragraphs: From our observations on Election Day, we estimate that, from the parking  area to the voting room, 16 percent of all polling places in the contiguous  United States have no potential impediments, 56 percent have one or more  potential impediments but offer curbside voting, and 28 percent have one  or more potential impediments and do not offer curbside voting.(See fig.  3.) These potential impediments would primarily affect individuals with  mobility impairments. Although curbside voting is not available at a  number of polling places with potential impediments, as noted earlier, all  states have provisions for absentee voting, and many states provide for  other alternative voting methods or accommodations that may facilitate  voting by people with disabilities on or before Election Day.
As shown in figure 4, most polling places with potential impediments also  offer curbside voting: of the 84 percent of polling places that have one or  more potential impediments, 67 percent offer curbside voting.  Figure 4  also shows that most of the potential impediments occur in two of the four  location areas we examined—en route from the parking area to the  building, and at the entrance of the building.  For example, 57 percent of all  polling places have some type of potential impediment from the parking  area to the building, such as unpaved/poor surfaces, or paths or ramps with  slopes that exceed the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility  Guidelines, which could hinder the approach of a voter in a wheelchair.  Appendix V contains a listing of some of the potential impediments in each  location area.
We also found that many polling places have more than one potential  impediment, some of which occur in more than one location area.  For  example, figure 5 shows that 63 percent of all polling places have two or  more potential impediments.  Further, in the four location areas we  examined, we found that 52 percent of polling places have potential  impediments in more than one location area.  A small percentage of all  polling places (5 percent) have a potential impediment in all four location  areas.
Our polling place data also show that potential impediments to access  occur at fairly high rates regardless of the type of building used as a polling  place.  Table 4 shows that, for each type of building, 76 percent or more  have potential impediments to voting access for people with disabilities.
Moreover, about 70 percent of all polling places are in facilities—such as  schools, recreational/community centers, city/town halls, police/fire  stations, libraries, and courthouses—potentially subject to either Title II or  III of the ADA, irrespective of their use as polling places. Our polling  place data show that, of the polling places located in these types of  facilities, about 84 percent have one or more features that may present  challenges to physical access for voters with disabilities. Potential  impediments found at these facilities include high door thresholds, ramps  with steep slopes, and a lack of accessible parking.  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.  In addition, 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, our data do not allow us to  determine whether polling places with potential impediments would meet  ADA requirements.
section_title: Inside the Voting Room
paragraphs: Inside the voting room, many of the voting methods and the equipment  used may prove challenging for voters with certain types of disabilities.  Figure 6 shows that the use of ballots marked by a pen or pencil—  traditional paper ballots and mark-sense ballots used with optical scanning  equipment—is the most widespread voting method.  This method is  followed in prevalence by punch-card ballots, direct recording electronic  (“electronic”) voting equipment, and lever machines.  Table 5 details the  potential challenges these methods may present to voters with visual or  dexterity impairments. In addition, voters in wheelchairs may have  difficulty reaching and manipulating the handles on lever machines, and  they also may find it difficult to reach and press the buttons on electronic  voting equipment.  Although electronic voting equipment may pose  challenges for some voters with disabilities, some types of this method may  be adapted with audio and other aids to accommodate a range of  impairments.
For voters experiencing difficulties using these various voting methods, we  found that one or more accommodations may be provided.  Nearly all  polling places allow voters to be assisted either by a friend or a poll  worker.Forty-seven percent of all polling places provide magnifying  devices to assist voters with visual impairments. Additionally, 51 percent  of all polling places provide voting instructions or sample ballots in 18- point or larger type. However, none of the polling places that we visited  had special ballots or voting equipment adapted for blind voters, such as  audiotaped ballots, or Braille ballots or sleeves.
The configuration of voting stations, tables, or booths used in polling  places may pose additional challenges for voters in wheelchairs. Fifty-two  percent of all polling places have voting stations set up for people to sit and  vote, 38 percent have stations set up for people to stand and vote, and 10  percent have stations set up for either seated or standing voting. At voting  stations configured for sitting, 43 percent do not have the minimum height,  width, or depth dimensions to position a wheelchair under a table.Moreover, many of the voting booths configured for standing have one or  more features that might create an impediment for a voter in a wheelchair.  For example, 51 percent of the booths configured for standing do not  accommodate a voter in a wheelchair who has to reach forward to mark or  cast a ballot, and 55 percent do not accommodate a person in a wheelchair  who has to reach sideways to vote. However, as noted earlier, nearly all  polling places allow a friend or poll worker to assist with voting.
section_title: A Variety of Challenges Face States and Counties as They Work Toward Improving Access to Voting
paragraphs: Although a number of efforts have been made to improve voting access for  people with disabilities, election officials cited a variety of challenges they  face in trying to do so.  Challenges cited by election officials include the  limited availability of accessible buildings and the lack of authority to  modify buildings to make them more accessible.  Election officials also told  us that the cost of acquiring voting equipment that is more accessible is  another major challenge.  Finally, election officials cited a number of legal,  administrative, and operational challenges associated with implementing  accommodations and voting alternatives that might make voting more  accessible.  Nevertheless, a number of states and counties have been  successful at surmounting some of these difficulties.
subsections: section_title: Improving Polling Place Accessibility Hindered by the Lack of Accessible Buildings and Authority or Funds to Modify Them
paragraphs: Some counties find that a major challenge to improving polling place  accessibility is a lack of accessible buildings, according to our national  survey of county election officials.  Comments from both state and county  election officials indicate that problems finding accessible buildings can  occur in both rural and urban locations.  For example, in rural areas, the  lack of buildings or the existence of rough terrain can create difficulties;  whereas in cities, a lack of parking or the prevalence of older buildings that  may be not accessible can be a problem.
However, even when accessible buildings exist in an area, election officials  may lack the authority to use them.  While some county election officials  told us they had the authority to use public buildings as polling places,  other officials indicated that they did not have this authority.  Furthermore,  states and counties generally lack the authority to require the owners of  private buildings to make their buildings available for elections.  According  to our survey results, at least 26 percent of all counties find it difficult to  provide accessible polling places because buildings are under the control  of persons who do not want them to be used as polling places.  In addition,  while at least 86 percent of the counties can provide private building  owners some compensation for the use of their buildings, the amount may  be limited to paying janitorial costs or a small usage fee—sometimes less  than $100 per facility—which may not serve as a persuasive incentive.
One option for overcoming the limited supply of accessible buildings is to  modify buildings, for example by installing ramps or widening doorways.  While election officials have reported some success with this option, some  indicated that their ability to make modifications has been impeded by  authority limitations and funding constraints.  For publicly held buildings,  we found that the county or local election office has the authority to order  permanent modifications to public polling places in less than one-third of  the counties.  For privately held buildings, election officials generally need  the owners’ permission to make temporary or permanent modifications.  In  addition, some state and county election officials indicated that funding  constraints could also limit needed modifications.  Despite these  limitations, we estimate that, in at least 32 percent of all counties, one or  more polling places may have been modified, either temporarily or  permanently, since 1995 to improve accessibility.  Furthermore, while  election officials may not have the authority or funding to alleviate all  accessibility problems, there may still be opportunities for some  improvements, such as using signs to designate accessible parking and  pathways.
section_title: Providing Accessible Voting Equipment Is Hindered by Funding Constraints and Concerns about Reliability and Security
paragraphs: Most state election officials told us that limited funding is one of the main  barriers to improving voting accessibility, especially with regard to  providing more accessible voting equipment.  While some states may  provide funds to ease this burden, according to our county survey, the  county and local levels of government generally bear the cost for  purchasing, leasing, or modifying voting equipment.  Although a number of  election officials and disability advocates we interviewed agreed that the  new electronic voting equipment can accommodate a wider range of  disabilities than other voting methods, they also expressed concern that it  can be expensive, despite dramatic price reductions in the recent past.At  the time of our interviews, election officials estimated that each electronic  voting unit can cost from $3,000 to about $6,000, with attachments to  enable voting by people with various disabilities costing up to an additional  $1,000 per unit. Moreover, competing priorities for funding at a local level  may limit funding for improving voting accessibility, according to several  election officials we interviewed.  For example, counties needing road  improvements may decide to pave roads rather than purchase or lease new  voting equipment.
In addition to costs, concerns about the reliability and security of  electronic equipment can discourage its adoption, according to election  officials we interviewed.  For example, without the traditional paper ballot  to rely upon, some election officials fear that the equipment could be  tampered with to produce unreliable or fraudulent election outcomes. One  state official told us that several of the counties in his state that are  accustomed to paper ballots do not want electronic voting machines, even  if the state pays for them. Also state election official told us that some  officials are concerned because this newer technology does not create  traditional paper ballots and would not, therefore, allow for a standard  ballot recount to verify the election outcome. However, newer electronic  systems have enhancements that allow voters to confirm their selections  and that improve the ability of election officials to verify election results.
Although some counties indicated that they had purchased or were  considering the purchase of newer electronic voting equipment, a number  have indicated that they had made improvements to their existing  equipment to enhance voter accessibility.  For example, some counties  reported modifying existing voting machines—for example, by making  them adjustable—so that individuals who need to vote in a sitting position  can vote independently.  Some counties using punch-card equipment  reported providing a larger stylus to make it easier for those who could not  grip or otherwise vote using a regular stylus.  Also, some county officials  told us that, upon request, they try to provide special aids—such as Braille  sleeves for the paper ballot and an accompanying audiotape or Braille  ballots—so that blind individuals can vote independently, although we did  not observe such aids on Election Day.
While incremental improvements to older voting technology may enable  more people with disabilities to vote independently, some election officials  and disability advocates we interviewed believe these measures have  shortcomings.  For example, according to spokespersons for national  advocacy groups for people with disabilities, blind voters may not be  comfortable with audiotapes because using them is time-consuming and  does not allow them to independently confirm that they marked their  ballots correctly.  Moreover, only a small percentage of blind individuals  have the Braille proficiency needed to vote using a Braille ballot.  In  addition, some voters with severe dexterity problems may not be able to  mark their ballots even with a larger punching stylus or special writing  implement.
section_title: Alternative Voting Methods and Accommodations Provide Options, but Also Present Access and Implementation Challenges
paragraphs: Expanding the availability of alternative voting methods or  accommodations can provide voters with additional options, but  implementing these changes can present election officials with legal,  administrative, and operational challenges.  For example, expanding the  use of curbside voting could allow more voters with disabilities to cast  their votes at neighborhood polling places on Election Day.  For election  officials, implementing curbside voting requires having staff trained and  available to assist voters outside the polling place.  Moreover, in some  states where curbside voting is either prohibited or not currently used,  policymakers would need to be convinced that providing this  accommodation would not increase the potential for fraud as a result of  ballots being taken out of the polling place facility.  Disability advocates  told us that this accommodation and other alternatives represent important  and needed options for some voters with disabilities; at the same time,  advocates believe that such alternatives do not provide an equal  opportunity to vote in the same manner as the general public and should  not be viewed as permanent solutions for inaccessible polling places.
Given the limited availability of accessible polling places, other options  that could allow more voters with disabilities to vote at a polling place on  Election Day include reassigning them to another, more accessible polling  place or creating accessible superprecincts in which voters from more than  one precinct would all vote in the same building.  For voters with  disabilities, reassignment to more accessible polling places may require  them to travel farther to vote.  For election officials, some challenges to  reassigning voters are ensuring that they have notified the voter, trained  poll workers, and provided an appropriate ballot at the reassigned location.  In comparison, superprecincts could inconvenience many voters by  requiring extra travel for those whose polling place was relocated.  The  challenge in creating a superprecinct that is also accessible is finding an  accessible facility of sufficient size and amenities to meet the needs of a  large number of voters.
In addition, some alternatives and accommodations allow individuals to  vote before Election Day, including voting in person at early voting sites or  using less restrictive absentee voting options, such as “no excuse” or  permanent absentee voting. Some voters may prefer voting before  Election Day because it provides greater flexibility and convenience.  For  example, some voters with disabilities may want to use an absentee voting  alternative and may find permanent absentee voting more convenient than  reapplying every election.  However, the various limitations and  requirements of these voting options, such as traveling to an early voting  site or providing a doctor’s certification to qualify for permanent absentee  voting, may discourage the use of these options by some voters with  disabilities whose only obstacle to voting as others do is an inaccessible  polling place.  For election officials, establishing early voting sites and  expanding the number of absentee voters add to the cost and complexity of  running an election.  In addition, some election officials told us that  policymakers in their states are reluctant to adopt or expand voting  options—for example, to allow permanent absentee voting—because they  fear it may increase the risk of fraud.  At the same time, these options have  been adopted by a number of states.  A unique early voting option chosen  by Oregon’s voters is universal vote-by-mail.  While there were challenges  in implementing this method, such as establishing uniform statewide voting  procedures, there have also been benefits, such as reducing the cost of  holding an election, according to an Oregon election official.
Internet voting—an alternative that has been only used on a limited basis to  date—also presents increased participation opportunities and  implementation challenges.Internet voting could potentially provide  voters the convenience of voting from remote locations, such as their  homes, and thereby provide another option for increasing voter  participation.  However, 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, task force studies  have suggested that Internet voting could be introduced in phases.
Appendix VI provides a summary of the wide assortment of issues and  challenges for each voting accommodation and alternative method  discussed above.
We are sending copies of this report to the Department of Justice, the  Federal Election Commission, the Architectural and Transportation  Barriers Compliance Board (the Access Board), appropriate congressional  committees, and other interested parties.  We will also make copies  available to others on request.  If you or your staff have any questions  concerning this report, please call me or Carol Dawn Petersen, Assistant  Director, at (202) 512-7215.  Staff acknowledgements are listed in appendix  VII.
section_title: Scope and Methods
paragraphs: This appendix provides more detail about the procedures used to conduct  our legal analysis, collect information from states and counties, and select  our sample of polling places.  It also provides more information about the  final sample of polling places that was used in our analysis, as well as  details about the analysis itself.
subsections: section_title: Analysis of State Laws and Written Policies
paragraphs: Our review of state provisions for assuring voting accessibility included a  review of laws (statutes and regulations) and written policies related to  accessibility of polling places and alternative voting methods and  accommodations.
With respect to polling place accessibility, our review focused on state  provisions concerning accessibility standards, inspection and reporting  requirements, voting booth and system accommodations, and aids for  voters with visual impairments.  With respect to alternative voting methods  and accommodations, our review focused on state provisions concerning  early voting and absentee voting (including methods and deadlines),  permanent absentee voting (including restrictions), curbside voting, taking  ballots to voters’ residences, assigning voters to more accessible polling  places, and notifying voters in advance of inaccessible polling places.
To identify relevant laws and written policies, we first interviewed  appropriate election officials in 50 states and the District of Columbia to  discuss their laws and policies concerning polling place accessibility and  alternative voting methods.  We asked these officials to provide us with  legal citations to laws and copies of written policies on any state policies  they identified.  In addition to the information provided by state election  officials, we researched legal databases and the Internet to identify any  additional state statutes, regulations, and written policies concerning  polling place accessibility or alternative voting methods or  accommodations.  We did not include emergency provisions or provisions  applicable only to military, out-of-state, or overseas voters.
To determine a state’s provisions concerning polling place accessibility or  alternative voting methods or accommodations, we first reviewed state  statutes.  If state statutes did not specifically address the issue, we then  reviewed any applicable regulations.  In the absence of an applicable  statute or regulation, we reviewed written policies and guidelines we  identified and collected or had been provided by the state.  After  determining each state’s provisions, and whether the provisions were  based in state law or written policy, we shared our determinations with  each state election office.  We reviewed changes suggested by state  election offices, reviewed any additional documents submitted, and  adjusted our determinations where appropriate.  We generally deferred to  interpretations by a state of its own statutory or regulatory provisions.  However, as a rule, we did not include policies or practices that were not  supported by a written document.
section_title: Data Collection From States, Counties, and Selected National Organizations
paragraphs: To identify efforts and challenges to improving voting accessibility for  people with disabilities, we interviewed election officials in all 50 states  and the District of Columbia, as well as in our statistical sample of 100  counties. We also interviewed selected representatives of national  organizations representing states, counties, and people with disabilities to  obtain their views on the costs of accessible equipment and the extent to  which alternative voting methods and accommodations improve access for  voters with disabilities.  We did not independently verify the information  provided by election officials or organization representatives through our  interviews.
Our interviews of election officials in the 50 states and the District of  Columbia focused on state laws concerning absentee voting requirements,  as well as laws, regulations, and written policies concerning voting access  for people with disabilities.  We also asked for information about the state’s  role in assuring compliance with state policy, or providing or controlling  resources for assuring compliance.  Other topics covered in the interview  were the state’s role in making polling places accessible, the voting systems  used in the state, any efforts initiated by the states to increase voting  access for people with disabilities, and whether they perceived any barriers  or constraints to such efforts.
For the 100 counties, we generally contacted county election officials  because in most states responsibility for conducting elections is entrusted  to them.  However, in four counties we contacted election officials at a  subcounty level, such as towns and cities, where the responsibility for  elections resides.  We then combined their responses to create county level  responses.
In contacting the 100 counties we intended to visit on Election Day, we  generally conducted two interviews—one before Election Day and one  after.  The first interview was designed to alert appropriate election  officials to the nature of our inquiry and to ask for their cooperation so that  we could visit polling places in their counties on Election Day. We also  asked for information about county laws or policies on voting access for  people with disabilities, as well as county practices such as assessment and  inspection of polling places, choice of buildings to be used as polling  places, choice of voting methods and machines, and efforts for  improvements in accessibility.
Our second interview with county and local election officials was  conducted after Election Day and was designed to collect more  information about county practices in selecting polling places, obtaining  and using voting equipment, and handling voter complaints, as well as  accessibility of polling places and voting methods in the county and steps  the county may take when a polling place is not accessible.  In addition, we  asked for information about types of facilities used in conducting an  election and resources for meeting accessibility standards and improving  accessibility.  We also asked for information about voter participation,  extent of polling place resources, and officials’ opinions about major  barriers and constraints to improving accessibility to voting for people with  disabilities.
For our interviews with election officials from states and counties, we used  three data collection instruments (DCIs) to ensure that questions were  asked, and responses were documented, in a consistent manner.  The DCIs­ -one for the state interviews and two for the county interviews--were  developed in consultation with GAO methodologists.  To further ensure  reliable and accurate results, the DCIs were administered by GAO staff  who were trained to administer them.
Our interviews with selected representatives of national organizations  were designed to collect more in-depth information on the cost and  challenges of acquiring more-accessible voting equipment, and on the  challenges and benefits of implementing alternative voting methods and  accommodations.  GAO staff asked each representative the same set of  questions to ensure we obtained comprehensive and balanced views on  each issue.
section_title: Selection of Polling Places
paragraphs: Our selection of a sample of polling places used what is known as a two- stage sampling method.  The first stage was the selection of a sample of  counties.  Each of those counties was then treated as a “cluster” of polling  places.  In the second stage, we selected a sample of polling places from  each cluster.
Because there is no central list of all of the polling places in the United  States, the first stage of our sampling method started with a list of all  counties, since most elections are administered at the county level.For  cost and efficiency reasons we confined our list of counties to those in the  contiguous United States, thus excluding the states of Alaska and Hawaii.  We also excluded the state of Oregon because, since 1998, elections in that  state have been conducted almost exclusively by mail.  The final number of  counties from which we sampled was 3,074.  Because the unit of analysis  we were ultimately interested in was the polling place, we used a  probability proportional to size sampling method to select the counties.  We  wanted to base the probability that a particular county would be selected  on the number of polling places in that county, so that counties with many  polling places would be more likely to be selected than counties with few.  Since information on the number of polling places in each county is not  readily available, we based our selection of counties on the size of the  voting-age population of each county (age 18 and over), with more- populous counties more likely to be selected than less-populous counties.  We considered the voting-age population to be an acceptable correlate to  the number of polling places.  We therefore arranged our list of counties so  that, for each county, the probability of selection would be proportional to  the size of its voting-age population.  We then randomly selected, without  replacement, 100 counties from that list.
The second stage of our sampling method involved selecting from each  county the specific polling places to be visited.  Once the 100 counties were  selected, we contacted county election officials and asked for the most  recent listing of all polling places in each. From each county list, we  randomly selected eight polling places for a total sample of 800 polling  places.  These 800 polling places were located in 33 states.  Our sampling  method produced a representative sample of polling places in the  contiguous United States.  To preserve the integrity of the data collection  effort, the selected polling place locations were not disclosed prior to  Election Day.  Sampling errors for the polling place data generally range  between 3 and 10 percentage points.
section_title: Description of Site Visits and the Data Collection Instrument
paragraphs: On Election Day, GAO deployed one- or two-person “teams” composed of  experienced GAO staff to counties in our sample.  Each team was equipped  with a DCI on which to record their observations; a measuring tape; and the  “ADA Accessibility Stick II,” a tool designed to measure potential  structural impediments in buildings and on walkways. GAO monitored the  activities of the teams throughout Election Day and provided advice by  telephone from our Washington, D.C., and San Francisco offices.
To ensure uniform data collection across the country, all teams received  training in the use of the ADA Accessibility Stick II™ and the proper way to  fill out each question on the DCI.  Teams were instructed on how to  interview the poll worker in charge of each polling place about  accommodations for voters with disabilities and were instructed to review  their responses with them. Teams also received instructions on the  appropriate times for visiting polling places and were instructed not to  approach voters or interfere with the voting process in any way during their  visits.
Representatives appointed by the county election officials escorted many  of the teams to the polling places.  The escorts accompanied the teams to  polling places, and facilitated access into the voting room.  To maintain the  integrity of the data collection process, GAO teams were instructed not to  disclose the location of the selected polling places ahead of time.
Due to constraints of time and geography, some teams were not able to  visit all eight polling places in their assigned county.  We preserved the  randomness of our sample, however, by having the teams visit the polling  places in the same order in which they were pulled from the sample.  That  is, each team was given an ordered list of polling places to visit and was  expected to follow the order number in making their visits.  If for some  reason a polling place in a particular county was skipped, all polling places  farther down that list were dropped from the sample.  Thus, for example,  polling site number five was not included in the final sample unless polling  sites one through four had also been visited.
In addition, some counties did not allow us to visit their polling places on  Election Day itself, but made the sites available to us on an alternative date.  Ultimately, all teams visited at least three and as many as eight polling  places.  In total, we visited 496 polling places in 85 counties on Election  Day and another 89 polling places in 15 counties either before or after  Election Day.
The DCI we used is reproduced in appendix II. contained in this instrument incorporate access standards from the 1991  Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and  Facilities, the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) Standard  A117.1-1998: Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, and the ADA  Guide for Small Towns from the Department of Justice (DOJ). In  addition, some of the questions in our instrument were based upon  questions in an earlier access survey by the Federal Election Commission  (FEC), and upon guidelines published by the National Task Force on  Accessible Elections.
All DCI questions were carefully reviewed by GAO methodologists to  ensure the questions would result in the collection of reliable and accurate  data.  We then provided copies of a draft version of our DCI to  representatives of the Election Center, the National Organization on  Disability, and the Task Force on Accessible Elections for their review and  comments, but did not receive comments from these organizations.  We  also provided the Access Board with a copy of our draft instrument and  they provided comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.  Finally,  to ensure that the instrument could be used effectively in the field and  completed in a reasonable amount of time by the teams, we pretested the  DCI twice—during the June 27, 2000, Special Election and the September  12, 2000, Primary Election—both in the District of Columbia.
section_title: Analysis of Election Day Data
paragraphs: In analyzing the data collected on Election Day, we first grouped the types  of impediments that could be encountered at a polling place into those that  might be encountered at each of four locations—the parking area, the route  from the parking area to the building, the building entrance, and the route  from the entrance to the voting room.  Therefore, the percentage of polling  places cited as having one or more potential impediments was based on  whether or not a polling place was found to have at least one potential  impediment in any of the four locations we examined and does not include  potential impediments associated with the voting booth or equipment,  which we report on separately.
While features of the voting booth or equipment did not enter into our  summary measure of whether a polling place had a potential impediment,  we did look for potential impediments inside the voting room.  We took  measurements of the voting booth or table used by people with disabilities  to determine whether equipment was within reach for wheelchair users  and whether wheelchairs could fit inside the booth or under the table.  We  checked to see if sample ballots and voting instructions were provided in  18-point type, and if magnifying devices were available.  Further, we  checked whether Braille ballots and sleeves, audiotaped ballots, and other  accommodations for blind voters were available.  We also briefly  interviewed the poll worker in charge at almost all of the polling places to  find out whether curbside voting was available and how the poll workers  would handle voter requests for assistance from a friend or an election  official.
subsections: section_title: Comparison of Non- Election Day Sample With Election Day Sample
paragraphs: In the 15 counties that did not give us access to their polling places on  Election Day, we were able to complete only those portions of our DCI that  referred to the outside of the building.  That is, we observed the parking  area and the route from the parking area to the building.  However, because  we were not at the polling places on Election Day itself, we could not  observe temporary features that might have been provided to facilitate the  building’s use as a polling place, such as temporary signs or ramps.  More  important, we could not determine what accommodations, if any, were  available to voters with disabilities if they were to encounter features that  impeded their access to the polling place on Election Day itself.  For this  reason, although we visited 89 polling places in these counties either before  or after Election Day, we excluded the data from these visits from our  analysis.  We reweighted our final sample to account for the exclusion of  these polling places so that our findings regarding various polling place  features can still be considered representative of all polling places in the  contiguous United States.
When we compare the limited data from the non-Election Day visits with  those from the Election Day visits, it is clear that the exclusion of the non- Election Day data does not increase the percentage of polling places with a  potential impediment in the parking area or on the route from the parking  area to the building.  The percentage of polling places in the non-Election  Day sample with one or more potential impediments in these areas is  higher than the percentage in the Election Day sample.  While it is  impossible to compare the entire route from parking to inside the building  across the two sets of data, we found nothing to suggest that the non- Election Day sites would have had significantly fewer impediments than  those found at the Election Day sites.  Table 6 presents the percentage of  polling places visited on Election Day and not on Election Day that had  potential impediments either in the parking area or on the route to the  building’s entrance.
section_title: Sampling Errors
paragraphs: All sample surveys are subject to sampling error, which is the extent to  which the survey results differ from what would have been obtained if the  whole universe had been observed.  Measures of sampling error are defined  by two elements—the width of the confidence interval around the estimate  (sometimes called precision of the estimate) and the confidence level at  which the interval is computed.  The confidence interval refers to the fact  that estimates actually encompass a range of possible values, not just a  single point.  This interval is often expressed as a point estimate, plus or  minus some value (the precision level).  For example, a point estimate of 75  percent plus or minus 5 percentage points means that the true population  value is estimated to lie between 70 percent and 80 percent, at some  specified level of confidence.
The confidence level of the estimate is a measure of the certainty that the  true value lies within the range of the confidence interval.  We calculated  the sampling error for each statistical estimate in this report at the 95- percent confidence level and present this information throughout the  report.
section_title: Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument
paragraphs: Name of Observer(s)
Name of HQ’s Team    Is this location still a polling place?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Not an “Election Day” visit  (CONTINUE WITH DCI.)  3.    No (STOP HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT POLLING PLACE!)
What is the building in which the polling place is located normally used as?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    House of worship  (e.g., church, parish, synagogue, mosque, temple)  5.    Police or fire station  6.    Recreational or community center  9.	   Other  (PLEASE SPECIFY.)  ____________________________________________________________  	 Is there temporary or permanent on or off street parking associated with this polling site that  is specifically designated for persons with disabilities?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Yes, designated parking that is permanent only  2.    Yes, designated parking that is temporary only  3.    Yes, both temporary and permanent designated parking  4.	   No designated parking for persons with disabilities  (IF CHECKED, GO TO ITEM  10.)  5.    No parking for any voters  (IF CHECKED, GO TO ITEM 10.)
Is the parking specifically designated for persons with disabilities on or off street parking, or  is there both?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    On street only  2.    Off street only  3.    Both on and off street parking  	 If the parking area specifically designated for persons with disabilities was not easily visible  from the front of the polling place, was there a temporary or permanent sign directing voters  to that parking area?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Yes, a temporary sign only  2.    Yes, a permanent sign only 3.    Yes, both temporary and permanent signs 4.    No, there was no sign 5.    Not applicable, parking area was easily visible Route from Leaving the Car to the Accessible Entrance of the Building  What impediments to wheelchair use, if any, are there along the path from the point at which  persons with disabilities leave their car to the “accessible” entrance (or main entrance if no  accessible entrance designated) of the building?  (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.)
Parking Area or Street in Front of Building      Unpaved or poor surface, e.g. abrupt changes over ¼ inch      One or more unramped or uncut curbs      One or more ramped or cut curbs that are less than 36 inches wide    	 Other  (PLEASE SPECIFY.)
Path from Parking Area or Street in Front of Building to the Entrance of the Building    	 Overly narrow (less than 36 inches wide, but can go down to 32 inches wide for a  distance of two feet) sidewalk/pathway along the path      For at least part of the way there is no sidewalk/pathway      Sidewalk/pathway has at least one slope that is steeper than 1:12      Leaves, snow, or litter creating a hazard or impediment      Steps required to reach building entrance (i.e., no ramps or lifts available)  a.
Steps have handrails that extend at least one foot beyond the landing  b.
Steps have handrails that extend less than one foot beyond the landing  c.
Ramps along main or accessible path have a slope steeper than 1:12  	 Ramps that measure more than 6 inches from the ground to their highest point and  lack 2 handrails (i.e. one on each side)
Ramps that are less than 36 inches wide (can go down to 32 inches wide for a  distance of two feet)
Other  (PLEASE SPECIFY.)
No impediments  If there was a special path for persons with disabilities that was different from the path that  non-disabled persons would generally use, was there a temporary or permanent sign(s)  clearly indicating that route?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Yes, a temporary sign only  2.    Yes, a permanent sign only     Yes, both a temporary and a permanent sign 4.    No, there was no sign clearly indicating that route     Not applicable, there was no special path What, if any, impediments to wheelchair use are presented by the entrance(s) to the building  to which the “accessible” path (or main path if no “accessible” path designated) from the  parking area leads?  (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.)  1.    Doorway thresholds that exceed ½ inch in height  2.    Single door openings that are less than 32 inches wide  3.    Double door openings that are less than 32 inches wide, including situations in which  one of the doors cannot be opened  4.	   Closed doors that would be difficult for a person in a wheelchair to open  (PLEASE DESCRIBE.)  5.	   Other  (PLEASE SPECIFY.)
Were you allowed into the polling place?  (CHECK ONE.)  2.    No (STOP HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT POLLING PLACE!)
Route to Voting Room from Inside the Building  Once you have entered the building, what impediments, if any, are there to wheelchair use  along the path to the voting room?  (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.)
Doorways and Entrances that Present Impediments  1.    One or more doorway thresholds that exceed ½ inch in height  2.    One or more single door openings that are less than 32 inches wide  3.    One or more double door openings that are less than 32 inches wide, including  situations in which one of the doors cannot be opened  4.	   One or more closed doors that would be difficult for a person in a wheelchair to  open  (PLEASE DESCRIBE.)  5.    Other  (PLEASE SPECIFY.)  6.    Steps required to gain access to the voting room (i.e., no ramp or lift)  a.
Steps have handrails that extend at least one foot beyond the landing  b.
Steps have handrails that extend less than one foot beyond the landing  c.    7.    One or more ramps that have a slope steeper than 1:12  8.	   One or more ramps rising more than 6 inches that lack 2 handrails (i.e., one on each  side)  9.	   One or more ramps that are less than 36 inches wide at any point (but can go down  to 32 inches wide for a distance of two feet)
10.    Other  (PLEASE SPECIFY.) ____________________________________________________________  14. (Continued)  11.    One or more corridors that do not provide a clearance of at least 36 inches (can go  down to a clearance of 32 inches for a distance of two feet)
If there was a special path to the voting room for persons with disabilities that was different  from the path that non-disabled persons would generally use, was there a temporary or  permanent sign(s) clearly indicating that route?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Yes, a temporary sign only  2.    Yes, a permanent sign only     Yes, both a temporary and a permanent sign 4.    No, there was no sign clearly indicating that route     Not applicable, there was no special path Is it necessary for a person in a wheelchair or a blind person to take an elevator to gain  access to the voting room?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    No  (IF “NO,” GO TO QUESTION 18 ON PAGE 10.)  2.    Yes  What impediments, if any, does the elevator present to blind persons or persons in a  wheelchair?  (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.)  1.    The center of the outside call button is higher than 48 inches from the ground  2.    The elevator opening is less than 36 inches wide  3.  	 The center of the top inside floor button(s) is higher than 48 inches from the floor  4.    The panel surrounding the inside buttons lacked raised lettering or Braille  5.  	 Outside or inside elevator buttons require a heat sensor to operate, that is, the  elevator buttons require human touch to operate  (PLEASE TRY TO OPERATE BY  PRESSING BUTTONS WITH A PEN OR SIMILAR OBJECT.)  6.    The inside car is less than 48” by 48”  8.    No impediments  Voting Room Facilities for Persons with or without Disabilities  What kind of voting method do voters without disabilities use?  (CHECK ONE.)  2.    Paper or mark-sense  3.    Votomatic punch card  4.    Datavote punch card  5.    Machine that uses levers to record vote  6.    Choice or combination of _____________ and _____________  What are the name of the manufacturer and the model number of the voting machines used  by voters without disabilities?
Are there one or more voting stations specifically designated for use by persons with  disabilities?  (CHECK ONE.)  2.    No  (IF “NO,” GO TO ITEM 24.)
Is a different type of voting method available to persons with disabilities?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Yes   (DESCRIBE.)___________________________________________  Are there different kinds of voting machines available to persons with disabilities?  (CHECK  ONE.)  1.    Yes   (DESCRIBE MAKE AND MODEL #.) ______________________________  2.    No  In your opinion, do the voting stations specifically designated for persons with disabilities  provide less privacy than, the same privacy as, or more privacy than the voting stations  designated for non-disabled voters?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Less privacy than the voting stations for non-disabled voters  2.    The same privacy as the voting stations for non-disabled voters  3.    More privacy than the voting stations for non-disabled voters  Is the station at which a person with a disability would vote configured for voters to stand or  sit?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Stand  (IF “STAND,” GO TO ITEM 26 ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
If the station at which a person with a disability would vote is configured for seated voting, is  there clear knee space underneath that is 27 or more inches high, 30 or more inches wide  and 19 or more inches deep?  Is the equipment necessary for voting located 44 inches or less  above the floor?  (CHECK ONE FOR EACH.)
Yes  (1)
No  (2)
1.  27” or more high  2.  30” or more wide  3.  19” or more deep  4.	 Voting equipment 44” or less above the floor  (NOW GO TO ITEM 27.)
If the station at which a person with a disability would vote is one in which non-disabled  voters would usually stand, does the station have any of the impediments listed below?  (CHECK ONE FOR EACH.)
Yes  (1)
No  (2)
1.  An entryway that is less than 36 inches wide  2.  Thresholds that are more than ½ inch in the entryway  3.	 For a voter reaching forward to cast a vote, at least some  of the buttons or levers are less than 15 inches above the floor  4.	 For a voter reaching forward to cast a vote, at least some  of the buttons or levers are more than 48 inches above the floor  5.	 For a voter reaching sideways to cast a vote, at least some of  the buttons or levers are less than 9 inches above the floor  6.	 For a voter reaching sideways to cast a vote, at least some of  the buttons or levers are more than 54 inches above the floor  Aid for Visually Impaired Voters  Are voting instructions posted that use 18-point or larger type?  (CHECK ONE.) 1.    Yes, instructions posted with 18 point type or larger  Are sample ballots posted that use 18-point or larger type?  (CHECK ONE.)
Questions for Main Precinct Official  Are you able to interview the main precinct official?  (CHECK ONE.)  2.    No (STOP HERE AND GO TO THE NEXT POLLING PLACE!)
Do you have voting instructions that use 18-point or larger type that are available for voters  to use?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Yes  (If so, ask)  May I see a set of those instructions?
Do you have sample ballots that use 18-point or larger type that are available for voters to  use?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Yes  (If so, ask)  May I see one of those ballots?
Does the polling place have magnifying devices available that visually impaired voters can  use?  (CHECK ONE.)  1.    Yes  (If so, ask)  May I see the device (glasses.)?  2.    No  Does the polling place have any special equipment available to enable a blind person to vote?  (CHECK ONE.)  2.    No  (IF “NO,” GO TO ITEM 35.)
May I see the equipment that is available?  (CHECK EACH SHOWN.)  2.    Braille paper ballot  3.    Braille ballot as part of the voting device  (SPECIFY.)
If a blind person wishes to vote, may that person have a friend assist him or her with voting?  (CHECK ONE.)
If a person with a disability other than blindness, wishes to vote may that person have a  friend assist him or her with voting?  (CHECK ONE.)
If a blind person asks for help with voting, will an election official assist him or her?  (CHECK  ONE.)  2.    No  If a person with a disability, other than blindness, asks for help with voting, will an election  official assist him or her?  (CHECK ONE.)
If a person with a disability arrives at the polling place in a car and believes that he or she  would have difficulty entering or voting at the polling place, what would you do to enable the  person to vote?  (CHECK ALL THAT ARE INDICATED.)  1.	   Provide assistance so that the person with a disability could vote in the polling  place  (ASK)  What kind of assistance would you provide?  (ENTER ANSWER.)  2.    Enable the person to vote in his or her automobile by using the same kind of  voting device as is used in the polling place  3.    Enable the person to vote in his or her automobile by using a paper ballot  (IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE ON OR OFF STREET PARKING DESIGNATED FOR PERSONS  WITH DISABILITIES THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS POLLING PLACE ASK:)  Is there on  or off street parking associated with this polling site that is specifically designated for  persons with disabilities that is either temporary or permanent?  Would you show it to me?  (CHECK ONE.)
Shown  (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEMS 7-9.)  (IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM LEAVING THE CAR TO THE  ENTRANCE OF THE VOTING ROOM ASK:)  Is there an accessible path from the point at  which blind persons or persons with disabilities leave their car to the entrance of the  building?  Would you show it to me?  (CHECK ONE.)
Shown  (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEMS 10 AND  11.)
2.    No  (IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE AN ENTRANCE THAT IS WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE ASK:)  Is  there an entrance to this building that is wheelchair accessible?  Would you show it to me?  (CHECK ONE.)
Shown  (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEM 12.)  (IF YOU CANNOT LOCATE AN ACCESSIBLE PATH FROM THE ENTRANCE TO THE  VOTING ROOM ASK:)  Is there a path from the entrance of the building to the voting room  that is accessible to blind persons and persons with disabilities?  Would you show it to me?  (CHECK ONE.)
Shown  (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEMS 14 AND  15.)
Can the voting equipment in the voting stations be lowered?  Would you show me how this is  done?  (CHECK ONE.)
Shown  (IF NECESSARY, REVISE ANSWERS TO ITEMS 25 OR  26.)
I would like to just take a few minutes to review the answers you have given to the interview  questions.  (QUICKLY READ BACK THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO THE INTERVIEW  QUESTIONS TO CHECK FOR CORRECTNESS AND REVISE ACCORDINGLY.)  1.    Answers to interview questions reviewed and revised, if necessary.
section_title: Selected Potential Impediments by Location Area
paragraphs: No parking designated for people with  disabilities  No parking for any voters  Route from parking area to building entrance  Ramps with slopes greater than 1:12  Sidewalk slope steeper than 1:12  Unramped or uncut curb(s)
section_title: Issues and Challenges Related to Voting Accommodations and Alternatives
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements
subsections: section_title: Ordering Information
paragraphs: The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of  reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to  the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are  discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC  20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and  testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone  phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain  these lists.
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs
paragraphs: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm   e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov   1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)