Voters with Disabilities: Additional Monitoring of Polling Places Could Further Improve Accessibility
Published: 2009-09-30T00:00:00

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 for federal elections, including voters with disabilities. However, during the 2000 federal election, GAO found that only 16 percent of polling places had no potential impediments to 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. We examined (1) the proportion of polling places during the 2008 federal election with features that might facilitate or impede access for voters with disabilities compared to our findings from 2000; (2) actions states are taking to facilitate voting access; and (3) steps the Department of Justice (Justice) has taken to enforce HAVA voting access provisions. GAO visited 730 randomly selected polling places across the country, representing polling places nationwide, on Election Day 2008. GAO also surveyed states and interviewed federal officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible voting system. In 2008, based upon our survey of polling places, we estimate that 27.3 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path from the parking to the voting area--up from16 percent in 2000; 45.3 percent had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27.4 percent had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting. All but one polling place we 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. Most states have established accessibility requirements and funded improvements to help facilitate accessible voting, and all states reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting methods. In 2008, 43 states reported that they required accessibility standards for polling places, up from 23 states in 2000. Additionally, most states reported that they used federal HAVA funds to improve the physical accessibility of polling places. Further, all states reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting methods, such as absentee voting. At the same time, 31 states reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was challenging. 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. Since then, Justice's oversight of HAVA's access requirements is part of two other enforcement efforts, but gaps remain. While Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility, this guidance does not address accessibility of the voting area itself. Justice currently conducts polling place observations for federal elections that identifies whether an accessible voting system is in place, but it does not systematically assess the physical accessibility of polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided to voters with disabilities. Justice also conducts a small number of annual community assessments of Americans with Disabilities Act compliance of public buildings, which includes buildings designated as polling places. However, these assessments do 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: Letter
paragraphs: Voting is fundamental to our democratic system, and federal law generally  requires federal election polling places to be accessible to all eligible  voters, including the elderly and voters with disabilities. In particular, the  Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA)  requires that, with a few exceptions, political subdivisions responsible for  conducting elections ensure that polling places used in federal elections  are accessible to voters with disabilities. These requirements can present a  challenge to state and local election officials because achieving  accessibility—which is affected by a person’s type of impairment as well  as by various barriers posed by polling place facilities and voting  methods—is part of a larger set of challenges these officials face in  administering elections on a periodic basis. In fact, 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—although most  polling places with potential impediments offered curbside voting. The  number of voters who may face difficulties exercising their right to vote  due to mobility and other impairments could grow as the proportion of the  population age 65 and older is expected to grow from 12 percent of the  population in 2003 to more than 20 percent of the population by 2030.  Disability increases with age and studies have shown that with every 10  years after reaching the age of 65, the risk of losing mobility doubles.
Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to address  these and other challenges encountered during the 2000 federal election.  HAVA required each polling place to have at least one voting system for  use in federal elections that is accessible for people with disabilities by  January 1, 2006. This voting system can be a direct recording electronic  voting system (e.g., touch screen) or another system that, according to  HAVA, must provide people with disabilities the same opportunity for  voting privately and independently as is afforded to other voters. In  addition, HAVA created the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to  serve, among other purposes, as a clearinghouse and information resource  for election officials with respect to the administration of federal  elections. HAVA also required the Department of Health and Human  Services (HHS) to provide annual grants to state and local governments to  improve the accessibility of voting systems and polling places, and a total  of $79.5 million has been appropriated for this purpose since 2003. While  our work since the passage of HAVA has reported improvements in state  provisions and local practices to ensure accessibility of polling places, the  extent to which these provisions and practices have improved accessibility  nationally is unknown. To address these issues, you asked us to examine  voting access for people with disabilities at polling places on Election Day,  November 4, 2008. Specifically, this report examines (1) the proportion of  polling places that have features that might facilitate or impede access to  voting for people with disabilities and how these results compare to our  findings from the 2000 federal election; (2) the actions states are taking to  facilitate voting for people with disabilities; and (3) the steps the  Department of Justice (Justice) has taken to enforce HAVA voting access  provisions. We provided some preliminary findings on the proportion of  polling places that had features that might facilitate or impede access to  voting for people with disabilities and how these results compare to our  findings from the 2000 federal election in a report that we issued earlier  this year. We also plan to issue a report on voting practices in long-term  care facilities later this year.
To estimate the proportion of polling places with features that might  facilitate or impede access to voting for people with disabilities, we visited  randomly selected polling places across the country on Election Day,  November 4, 2008. We used a two-stage sampling method that created a  nationally representative sample of polling places in the contiguous United  States, with the exception of those in Oregon. The first stage involved  selecting a random sample of counties weighted by their total populations.  We based the probability of each county’s selection on the size of its  population so that heavily populated counties, which tend to have more  polling places than less-populated counties, would have a greater chance  of being selected in the sample. Each time a county was selected, we  returned it to the sample universe, which gave it an additional chance of  being selected. Therefore, some counties with large populations were  selected multiple times, resulting in a final selection of 84 unique counties  in 31 states (which was the equivalent of 100 counties). This method  allowed us to select a sample that was representative of polling places  across the country on Election Day. The second stage involved randomly  selecting 8 polling places in each county for each time the county was  selected. On Election Day 2008, we visited a total of 730 polling places. At  each polling place, we took measurements and made observations of  facility features that could facilitate access to the voting area—such as  accessible parking and door thresholds that do not exceed ½ inch in  height. We also identified voting methods and features that could facilitate  or impede private and independent voting for people with disabilities in  the voting area, such as voting stations that were properly configured for a  wheelchair. In addition, we conducted short interviews with chief polling  place officials to identify other accommodations for voters—such as  curbside voting outside the polling place. We documented our  observations and interviews with poll workers in a data collection  instrument (DCI) we developed. The DCI was similar to the one used in  our 2000 study of polling places, but we updated it to incorporate changes  that have occurred in federal laws and guidance since 2000.
This study focused on features in the path leading from the parking area to  the voting area that might facilitate or impede access to voting for people  with disabilities, as well as challenges to private and independent voting in  the voting area. 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 did not categorize polling places as “accessible” or “inaccessible.”  Moreover, we did not determine whether curbside or other  accommodations offered at polling places actually facilitated voting.  Finally, we did not assess polling places for legal compliance with HAVA  accessible voting system requirements or other federal laws, and we did  not test the accessible capabilities of these voting systems.
To address our second and third objectives, we administered a Web-based  survey of election officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 4  U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin  Islands) between December 2008 and February 2009. We received a 100  percent response rate. We also searched state election Web sites to better  understand and illustrate states’ actions to facilitate voting for people with  disabilities, and obtained and reviewed relevant documentation for  selected states. The scope of this work did not include contacting election  officials from each state and local jurisdiction to verify survey responses  or other information provided by state officials. Also, we did not analyze  states’ laws to determine their voting access requirements, but instead  relied on the states’ responses to our survey.
To determine what actions Justice has taken to enforce HAVA voting  access provisions, we interviewed Justice officials and reviewed relevant  federal laws, guidance, and other documentation. We also reviewed citizen  complaints from Election Day 2008 that Justice provided to us, and all  three complaints containing a HAVA voting access claim that Justice filed  against states or election jurisdictions since HAVA was enacted in 2002. In  addition, we interviewed officials from EAC, HHS, national organizations  that represented election officials, and disability advocacy organizations.  We conducted our work from April 2008 through September 2009 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 provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for additional information  on our scope and methodology, and appendix II for a list of counties that  we randomly selected for site visits on Election Day.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Holding federal elections in the United States is a massive enterprise,  administered primarily at the local level. On federal Election Day, millions  of voters across the country visit polling places, which are located in  schools, recreation centers, churches, various government buildings, and  even private homes. For the 2008 federal election, state and local election  officials recruited and trained about 2 million poll workers across the  country. Generally, each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S.  territories also play a role in elections, by establishing election laws and  policies for their respective election jurisdictions. 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. These federal laws collectively address  two issues that are essential to ensuring that voters with disabilities can go  to polling places and cast their ballots independently and privately as do  nondisabled voters. These two issues are physical access and voting  systems that enable people with disabilities to cast a private and  independent vote.
subsections: section_title: Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
paragraphs: In 1984, Congress enacted VAEHA, which required political subdivisions  responsible for conducting elections to ensure that all polling places for  federal elections are accessible to elderly voters and voters with  disabilities, with limited exceptions. One such exception occurs when the  chief election officer of the state determines that no accessible polling  places are available in a political subdivision, and that officer ensures that  any elderly voter or voter with a disability assigned to an inaccessible  polling place will, upon advance request, either be assigned to an  accessible polling place or will be provided with an alternative means to  cast 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 standards or minimum  requirements for those guidelines. Additionally, states are required to  make available voting aids for elderly voters and voters with disabilities,  including instructions printed in large type at each polling place and  information by telecommunications devices for the deaf.
section_title: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
paragraphs: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) also contains  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. Although the ADA does not strictly require all  polling places to be accessible, public entities must 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 comply with ADA accessibility requirements in a variety  of ways, such as 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 the historical significance of a  historic property, fundamentally alter the nature of a service, or impose  any 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.
Title III of the ADA covers commercial facilities and places of public  accommodation, such as private schools and privately operated  recreational centers 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. When the removal of an architectural barrier cannot be  accomplished easily, the entity may take alternative measures to facilitate  accessibility. All buildings newly constructed by public accommodations  and commercial facilities must be readily accessible, and any alterations to  an existing building are required, to the maximum extent feasible, to be  readily accessible to people with disabilities, including those who use  wheelchairs.
section_title: The Voting Rights Act of 1965
paragraphs: The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, provides for voter assistance  in the voting room. Specifically, the Voting Rights Act, among other things,  authorizes voting assistance for blind, disabled, or illiterate persons.  Voters who require assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or  the inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the  voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer  or officer or agent of the voter’s union.
section_title: Help America Vote Act of 2002
paragraphs: Most recently, Congress passed HAVA, which contains a number of  provisions to help increase the accessibility of voting for people with  disabilities. In particular, section 301(a) of HAVA outlines minimum  standards for voting systems used in federal elections. This 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 established the EAC as an agency with wide-ranging duties to help  improve state and local administration of federal elections. Among other  things, the EAC is responsible for (1) providing voluntary guidance to  states implementing certain HAVA provisions; (2) serving as a national  clearinghouse of election-related information and a resource for  information with respect to the administration of federal elections; (3)  providing for the certification of voting systems; and (4) periodically  conducting and making publicly available studies regarding methods of  ensuring accessibility of voting, polling places, and voting equipment to all  voters, including people with disabilities. The EAC also makes grants for  the research and development of new voting equipment and technologies  and the improvement of voting systems. Furthermore, HAVA requires the  Secretary of  HHS to make yearly payments to each eligible state and unit  of local government to be used for (1) making polling places accessible for  people with disabilities and (2) providing people with disabilities with  information on accessible polling places.
HAVA vests enforcement authority with the U.S. 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. These requirements pertain to  HAVA voting system standards, provisional voting and voting  information, the computerized statewide voter registration list, and voter  registration by mail. The Voting Section, within Justice’s Civil Rights  Division, is responsible for enforcement of civil provisions of federal  voting laws, such as HAVA. The Voting Section’s internal process for  initiating HAVA-related matters and cases consists of four phases:  initiation, investigation, complaint justification, and litigation. See  appendix III for an overview of this internal process. The Disability Rights  Section, also within the Civil Rights Division, is primarily responsible for  protecting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA, which  includes ensuring that people with disabilities have access to basic  services, such as voting.
section_title: Accessible Voting Systems for People with Disabilities
paragraphs: Providing an accessible voting system encompasses both the voting  method and the operation of the system. In terms of the voting method,  HAVA specifically identifies direct recording electronic systems to  facilitate voting for people with disabilities or other voting systems  equipped for people with disabilities. For the most part, these systems are  electronic machines or devices equipped with features to assist voters  with disabilities. A brief description of these types of systems follows.
Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Devices. DRE devices capture votes  electronically (see fig. 1). These devices come in two basic models: push  button or touch screen. DRE ballots are marked by a voter pressing a  button or touching a screen that highlights the selected candidate’s name  or an issue. Voters can change their selections until they select the final  “vote” button or screen, which casts their vote. These devices can be  equipped with such features as an audio ballot and audio voting  instructions for the blind.
Ballot Marking Devices. These devices use electronic technology to mark  an optical scan ballot at voter direction, interpret the ballot selections,  communicate the interpretation for voter verification, and then print a  voter-verified ballot. A ballot marking device integrates components such  as an optical scanner, printer, touch-screen monitor, and a navigational  keypad (see fig. 2). Voters use the device’s accessible interface to record  their choices on a paper or digital ballot. For example, voters with visual  impairments will use an audio interface as well as a Braille keypad to  make a selection. Voters who prefer to vote in an alternate language can  also utilize the audio interface. Voters with disabilities can make their  selection using a foot-pedal or a sip-and-puff device.
Vote-by-Phone. Vote-by-phone systems use electronic technology to mark  paper ballots. This system is made up of a standard touch-tone telephone  and a printer (see fig. 3). When voters call from a polling place to connect  to the system, the ballot is read to the voters who then make choices using  the telephone keypad. The system then prints out a paper ballot at either a  central location (central print) or a polling site (fax print). Central print  ballots are read back to the voter over the telephone for verification, after  which the voter can decide to cast the ballot or discard it and revote. Fax  print ballots produce a physical ballot at the polling place for the voter to  review, verify, and cast in a ballot box.
Regarding accessible voting system operation, HAVA specifies that the  voting system must be accessible for people with disabilities, in a manner  that provides the same opportunity for access and participation as is  provided for other voters. The operation of the voting system is the  responsibility of local election officials at individual polling places. For the  voting system to be accessible, the system should be turned on, equipped  with special features such as ear phones, set up to accommodate voters  using wheelchairs, and positioned in a way to provide the same level of  privacy as is afforded to other voters. Also, poll workers should be  knowledgeable of the operation of the voting system to provide assistance,  if needed.
Alternative Voting Methods  As we have previously mentioned, the VAEHA requires that any elderly  voter or voter with a disability who is 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. However, states generally regulate absentee  voting and other alternative voting method provisions, which provide  voters with disabilities with additional voting options. Alternative voting  methods may include curbside voting; taking a ballot to a voter’s  residence; allowing voters to use another, more accessible polling location  either on or before Election Day; voting in person at early voting sites; or  removing prerequisites by establishing “no excuse” absentee voting or  allowing absentee voting on a permanent basis.
section_title: The Proportion of Polling Places Without Potential Impediments Increased Since 2000
paragraphs: Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential  impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible voting  system. In 2008, based upon our survey of polling places, we estimate that  27.3 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; 45.3 percent  had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining  27.4 percent had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting.  All  but one polling place we visited had an accessible voting system 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.
subsections: section_title: While Polling Places Without Potential Impediments Increased, Most Had Potential Impediments Outside of or at Building Entrances
paragraphs: In 2008, we estimate 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 (see fig. 4). Potential impediments included a lack of  accessible parking and obstacles en route from the parking area to the  area to the  voting area.  voting area.
Figure 5 shows some key polling place features that we examined, and  appendix IV contains a complete list of potential impediments. These  features primarily affect individuals with mobility impairments, in  particular voters using wheelchairs.
Many of the polling places that had potential impediments offered  curbside voting or other accommodations to assist voters who may have  had difficulty getting to or making their way through a polling place. For  all polling places, we found that 45.3 percent had one or more potential  impediments and offered curbside voting, 27.4 percent had potential  impediments and did not offer curbside voting, and 27.3 percent had no  potential impediments. Some polling places provided assistance to voters  by bringing a paper ballot or provisional ballot to a voter in a vehicle. In  addition to curbside voting, officials we interviewed at most polling places  said they would provide assistance to help people with disabilities vote in  the polling place. For example, some polling places had wheelchairs  available, if needed.
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. Fifty percent of polling  places had one or more potential impediments in the path from the  parking area to the building entrance (see fig. 6). At the same time, the  percentage of polling places with potential impediments at the building  entrance dropped sharply—from 59 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 2008.  As shown in table 1, the most common potential impediments in 2008 were  steep 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. Figure 7 shows an example of a  polling place with two potential impediments from the parking area to the  building entrance. It is important to note that our assessment of polling  places in 2000 did not include measurements of ramps or curb cuts in the  parking area. With this additional accessibility indicator, we did not see a  reduction of potential impediments in the parking area overall. However,  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.
In comparison to our findings in 2000, the proportion of polling places  with multiple potential impediments decreased in 2008. Specifically,  polling places with four or more potential impediments decreased  significantly—from 29 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2008 (see fig. 8). At  the same time, the percentage of polling places with one, two, or three  with one, two, or three  potential impediments stayed about the same as in 2000.  potential impediments stayed about the same as in 2000.
section_title: Virtually All Polling Places Had Accessible Voting Systems, Although Some Could Pose Challenges for People with Disabilities
paragraphs: All but one polling place we examined had at least one accessible voting  system—typically, an accessible machine in a voting station—to facilitate  private and independent voting for people with disabilities. Accessible  voting machines had special features for people with disabilities, such as  an audio function to allow voters to listen to ballot choices. According to  an election official we interviewed, the accessible voting systems have  been significant in helping some voters with disabilities—such as blind  voters—vote independently for the first time. The most common type of  accessible voting machine was the Automark, followed by the Premier  ier  Accuvote, iVotronic, and Sequoia, respectively (see fig. 9).  Accuvote, iVotronic, and Sequoia, respectively (see fig. 9).
To help facilitate the use of accessible machines, polling place officials  told us that they received training and would provide assistance to help  voters with disabilities operate voting machines or overcome difficulties  while voting. Almost all (98 percent) of the 626 polling place officials we  interviewed said that some or all of the poll workers working on Election  Day received training on how to operate the accessible machine. In  addition, polling place officials told us they would provide assistance to  help people with disabilities with the voting process. All polling place  officials we interviewed said they would explain how to operate the  machine, and 79 percent said they would demonstrate how to operate the  machine (see table 2). Virtually all polling place officials we interviewed  told us they would allow a friend or relative to assist a person with a  disability with voting.
Although polling places had accessible voting systems, nearly one-half (46  percent) had systems that could pose challenges for people with  disabilities to cast a private or independent vote. We assessed four  aspects of the accessible voting system that, if not met, could pose a  challenge to private or independent voting: (1) voting system is set up and  powered on; (2) earphones are available for audio functions; (3) voting  system is set up to accommodate people using wheelchairs; and (4)  accessible voting system provides the same level of privacy for voters with  disabilities as is offered to other voters. Figure 10 shows an accessible  voting station for people with disabilities. Overall, 35 percent of polling  places did not meet one of these four aspects, 10 percent did not meet two  eet two  aspects, and 1 percent did not meet three aspects.  aspects, and 1 percent did not meet three aspects.
The 95-percent confidence interval for polling places with one challenge is 27.6 to 41.8.  The 95-percent confidence interval for polling places with two challenges is 5.9 to 15.7. The  95-percent confidence interval for polling places with three challenges is 0.2 to 2.1.
As shown in table 3, the feature most commonly not met—at 29 percent of  polling places—was an accessible voting machine located in a voting  station with the minimum height, width, or depth dimensions to  accommodate a voter using a wheelchair. This was followed by 23 percent  of polling places that offered people with disabilities less privacy for  voting than is provided for other voters. For example, some voting stations  were not positioned to prevent other voters from seeing how voters using  the accessible machine were marking their ballots.
section_title: Most States Have Established Requirements and Funded Improvements to Help Facilitate Voter Accessibility
paragraphs: The majority of states have established accessibility requirements and  funded improvements to help facilitate accessible voting, and all states  reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting  methods. Forty-three states reported on our survey that they required  accessibility standards for polling places in 2008, up from 23 states in 2000.   Additionally, most states reported that they used federal HAVA funds to  improve the physical accessibility of polling places.  Further, all states  reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting  methods, such as absentee voting.
subsections: section_title: Most States Have Established Accessibility Standards and Funded Improvements, But Reported That Ensuring Accessibility Is Challenging
paragraphs: To help facilitate voting for people with disabilities, most states have  established standards by which to evaluate the accessibility of polling  places and have required inspections of polling places to help ensure  accessibility. The number of states with requirements specifying polling  place accessibility standards grew from 23 states in 2000 to 43 states in  2008 (see fig. 11). These standards can vary in terms of specificity of  requirements and which aspects of accessibility they address. For  example, California established requirements for ramps and entrances,  among other things. By comparison, Indiana required that the voting area  must have adequate maneuvering space for voters who use wheelchairs or  other mobility aids and must allow space for a person who uses a  wheelchair to navigate behind and around the accessible machine. Figure  12 is an example of state guidance for setting up the voting room and for  placement of the accessible voting system. The number of states that  required accommodation of wheelchairs in the voting area has more than  doubled—increasing from 17 in 2000 to 38 states in 2008. In addition to  specifying standards, since 2000, more states have required polling places  to be inspected and local jurisdictions to submit inspection reports to the  state to help ensure the accessibility of polling places. Like the  accessibility standards, these practices can also vary from state to state.
For example, according to its Election Procedures Manual, Arizona  requires counties to inspect polling places before each election or to have  provisions that counties be contacted if a polling place is altered prior to  an election. In contrast, Wisconsin recently revised its accessibility survey  and requires all local jurisdictions to conduct their inspections on a  primary Election Day so that state and local officials can evaluate the  accessibility of polling places during an election.
Most states reported using HAVA funds or a combination of HAVA and  state funds to support a variety of activities designed to facilitate voting  for people with disabilities. In our report on the 2000 election, we found  limited funding was one of the main barriers that most state officials faced  in improving voting accessibility, especially in providing accessible voting  systems and, in some cases, making temporary or permanent  modifications to polling places to make them accessible. However, with  the availability of HAVA funding since that time, most state officials  reported on our survey that they used HAVA funds or a combination of  HAVA and state funds to help improve accessibility in these areas. The  majority of states (45) reported spending or obligating HAVA funds and, in  some cases, also using state funds to enhance physical access to polling  places. For example, election officials in Nebraska reported spending  HAVA funds to evaluate the accessibility of polling places throughout the  state and to ensure they were compliant with ADA standards.  Furthermore, 39 states reported obligating or spending HAVA funds or a  combination of HAVA and state funds to improve voting systems and  technology. For example, Minnesota used HAVA funds to buy ballot- marking machines so that voters with disabilities could mark regular  paper ballots privately and independently and to develop instructional  videos on how to use the machines.
Even though states have taken actions to make the voting process more  accessible, many states reported that it was very or moderately  challenging to implement certain aspects of HAVA’s voting access  requirements. According to our state survey, 31 states reported that  ensuring polling place accessibility was very or moderately challenging.  (See table 4.) For example, one area in California reported that it was  challenging to find enough accessible polling places in some rural  communities because limited accessible buildings are available.  Additionally, 24 states reported that it was very or moderately challenging  to purchase DREs or other accessible voting systems. For example,  several states said that it was difficult to buy accessible systems because  of EAC’s delay in certifying voting systems.
section_title: All States Offered Alternative Methods Or Accommodations for Voting on or before Election Day
paragraphs: In addition to efforts to ensure polling place accessibility, most states  offered alternative voting methods, such as absentee voting, that could  help facilitate voting options for people with disabilities. All states offered  absentee voting as an option, although 26 states reported on our survey  that they required voters to meet at least one of several reasons—typically  referred to as an “excuse”—to be eligible to vote via absentee ballot, such  as having a disability, being elderly, or being absent from the jurisdiction  (see table 5). However, the number of states that allow absentee voting  without requiring that voters provide a reason has increased slightly since  the 2000 election, from 18 states to 24 states in 2008. Of the 43 states that  reported requiring local jurisdictions to offer in-person absentee voting, 40  states required that locations used for in-person absentee voting abide by  the same accessibility provisions and accommodations as Election Day  polling places. In addition to absentee voting, all 23 states that reported  that they required or allowed local jurisdictions to offer early voting also  required early voting locations to meet the same HAVA and state  accessibility requirements as Election Day polling places.
Some states required polling places to provide other accommodations for  voters with disabilities, such as curbside voting and audio or visual aids,  although fewer states required some of these accommodations in 2008  than in 2000. According to our state survey, the number of states that  required curbside voting decreased from 28 states in 2000 to 23 states in  2008 (see fig. 13). Likewise, the number of states that required staff in local  jurisdictions to take a ballot to the residence of a voter with a disability  who needed assistance on or before Election Day decreased from 21 states  in 2000 to only 9 states in 2008. These practices may have declined  because more states have taken actions to make polling places accessible  since the 2000 election, and more states reported allowing people to vote  absentee without having to meet specific criteria. See appendix V for a  comparison of state requirements, accommodations, and voting  alternatives from our 2000, 2004, and 2008 surveys.
section_title: Justice Assessed States’ Implementation of HAVA Requirements for the 2006 Deadline, But Its Current Oversight Has Some Gaps
paragraphs: 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. Since then, Justice’s oversight of HAVA’s  access requirements is part of two other enforcement efforts, but gaps  remain. Justice currently conducts polling place observations for federal  elections that identify whether an accessible voting system is in place, but it  does not systematically assess the physical accessibility of polling places or  the level of privacy and independence provided to voters with disabilities.  Justice also conducts a small number of annual community assessments of  ADA compliance of public buildings, which includes buildings designated as  polling places. However, these assessments do not provide a national  perspective on polling place accessibility or assess any special features of  voting areas and accessible voting systems that are set up only on Election  Day.
subsections: section_title: During Early HAVA Implementation, Justice Provided Some Technical Assistance and Assessed States’ Compliance with Voting System Requirements
paragraphs: From shortly after the passage of HAVA until 2006, Justice officials said  they conducted educational outreach on HAVA voting system  requirements. Justice provided guidance on the new HAVA voting system  requirements, while the EAC, which was authorized by HAVA to develop  guidance and serve as a clearinghouse for election information, 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. For this effort, Justice officials met  with state and local election officials across the country and gave  presentations on HAVA requirements at National Association of  Secretaries of State and National Association of State Election Directors  meetings. In addition, Justice provided information about HAVA voting  system requirements on its Web site and posted answers to frequently  asked questions. Justice also provided informal responses to questions  from state election officials on specific aspects of HAVA voting system  requirements. In one response, Justice stated that a HAVA-compliant  voting system requires both the voting system and polling place to be  accessible to people with disabilities. Furthermore, the EAC, in  consultation with Justice, developed an advisory opinion stating that a  HAVA-compliant voting system should be accessible to people with  disabilities (as defined by the ADA), which includes not just the technical  features of the voting system, but configuring the system to allow people  with disabilities to vote privately and independently.
As part of these early efforts, Justice provided guidance to poll workers on  how to assess and create a physically accessible polling place. 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. The checklist also describes how to  take measurements of sloped surfaces, door openings, ramps, and other  features to help identify potential impediments and suggest possible  alternatives and temporary modifications. Justice officials said they have  distributed 16,000 copies of the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA  Checklist for Polling Places, primarily to advocacy groups and state and  local election officials, and received over 80,000 hits on its Web site since  the checklist was released in February 2004. According to our survey, 34  states found the checklist to be moderately to very helpful and several  state election officials with whom we spoke said they used it to develop  their own state assessments of polling place accessibility. 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—such as positioning the voting system in such a way as to  allow a person using a wheelchair to vote privately and independently.
In 2005, the EAC adopted Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, which  include accessibility standards that specify the configuration of the voting  station to accommodate people using a wheelchair. The main purpose of  these guidelines is to develop technical specifications and standards for  voting systems for national testing and certification. HAVA does not  require adoption of the guidelines at the state level, although states may  choose to adopt the guidelines and make them mandatory in their  jurisdictions. While these guidelines are used to specify voting system  testing standards, EAC officials told us that user-friendly guidance  targeted to poll workers on HAVA voting system requirements, polling  place accessibility, and voting assistance to people with disabilities is  needed.
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. In 2003, Justice sent  letters to state election officials summarizing HAVA voting system  requirements. Justice 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. Although states were not required to  submit reports to Justice under HAVA, Justice officials said all states  responded to the department’s letters. Justice officials reviewed state  responses and followed up with state officials, sometimes on a weekly  basis, if they were not satisfied with the progress being made. Justice also  monitored local media outlets and state election and procurement Web  sites and consulted with national disability groups, election organizations,  and local advocacy groups to independently verify information provided  by states. If Justice determined that sufficient progress toward HAVA  voting system compliance was not being made, it initiated investigations  and, in two cases, pursued litigation when all other options were  exhausted. Justice filed complaints against New York and Maine in 2006,  in part because these states had not made sufficient progress in  purchasing and implementing HAVA accessible voting systems. Since then,  according to Justice, both Maine and New York acquired and implemented  HAVA accessible voting systems for the November 2008 federal election.  Justice officials told us that their assessment of HAVA voting system  requirements was part of an initial effort to ensure that all states had  accessible voting systems by the required January 1, 2006, deadline.
section_title: Justice’s Current Monitoring of Polling Place Accessibility Has Some Gaps
paragraphs: Once the 2006 deadline passed and all states reported having accessible  voting systems, Justice continued only limited oversight of HAVA voting  system requirements and polling place accessibility, as part of two ongoing  enforcement efforts. These limited efforts leave gaps in ensuring voting  accessibility for people with disabilities. For example, Justice supervises  polling place observations for federal elections on Election Day to  primarily assess compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965; however,  some limited observations on other federal voting statues, such as HAVA,  are also included. Specifically, polling place observers look for accessible  voting systems and assess whether poll workers are trained in their  operation. In calendar year 2008, 1,060 federal observers and 344 Justice  staff members observed 114 elections in over 75 jurisdictions covering 24  states. For such efforts, Justice officials select polling places where they  believe there may be a problem, on the basis of negative news coverage,  complaints received, or information provided by election officials.  Information from polling place observations can provide evidence for an  ongoing investigation or lawsuit. Justice sometimes initiates investigations  on the basis of complaints and other information received. In some cases,  the information may also be used to initiate a matter if an investigation has  not already been opened. Justice officials told us that, as part of their  Election Day 2008 observations, they came across some polling places  where accessible voting machines were not turned on or poll workers  were unable to operate the accessible machine. However, based on our  Election Day assessments, the potential impediments and challenges for  voters with disabilities to access and cast a ballot on accessible voting  systems may be more common than what Justice officials said they found  through their observations. Importantly, 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 limits the department’s ability to identify potential  accessibility issues facing voters with disabilities.
In addition, Justice officials said they annually initiate a small number of  community assessments of ADA compliance in public buildings, including  buildings designated as polling places, but these assessments include a  small portion of polling places nationwide and are generally not conducted  on Election Day. According to Justice, these assessments—called Civic  Access assessments—can be resource-intensive, which, in part, may limit  the number that the department can complete in a given year. Justice  initiated three Civic Access assessments in calendar year 2008. Justice  selects communities for Civic Access assessments on the basis of a  number of characteristics within a community, including size of the  disability community, geographic location, complaints received from  citizens and advocacy groups, and proximity to a university or tourist  attraction—which, according to Justice officials, might attract people with  disabilities from outside of the community. In planning for the assessment,  Justice requests information from the communities about their polling  places, such as their locations, modifications made on election days, and  steps taken to make polling places accessible. The on-site reviews assess  as many polling places as possible within the scope of the overall review.  Justice officials said they prioritize polling places for assessments on the  basis of geographic location, proximity to other buildings targeted for  assessment in the review, and extent of public use of the facility for any  purpose. To conduct on-site reviews—which typically take 1 to 3 weeks to  complete—Justice deploys teams of attorneys, architects, and  investigators to take measurements of a variety of public buildings.  Afterwards, Justice compiles a list of physical barriers and impediments  for people with disabilities found during the on-site review. Then Justice  generally negotiates and enters into a settlement agreement with the  election jurisdiction, which includes recommendations for improvements,  a time frame for implementing needed changes, and requirements for  reporting and documentation. Between 2000 and 2008, Justice entered into  161 Civic Access settlement agreements, of which, 69 contained one or  more recommendations aimed at polling place provisions. However, given  the small number of Civic Assess assessments conducted annually, the  information on polling place accessibility does not provide a national  perspective on polling place accessibility. In addition, since these  assessments are not conducted during elections, they do not assess any  special features of voting areas and accessible voting systems that are set  up only on Election Day.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: State and local election officials across the country took a considerable  step toward improving voting access for people with disabilities by having  accessible voting systems at virtually every polling place we visited on  Election Day 2008. These voting systems have been significant in enabling  some Americans with disabilities to vote privately and independently at  their neighborhood polling place for the first time. This also shows that  Justice’s efforts to assess states’ implementation of HAVA voting system  requirements achieved the desired outcome of ensuring that polling places  had at least one accessible voting system. Despite these significant efforts,  voters with disabilities may have had difficulty casting a ballot on these  systems because the majority of polling places still had one or more  potential impediments that could prevent a voter with a disability from  even getting to the accessible voting system. Furthermore, in close to half  of polling places, the accessible voting system itself could pose challenges  for voters with disabilities to vote privately or independently. If these  conditions continue, there may be some voters with disabilities who will  experience frustration and dissatisfaction with the voting process on  future election days, while others could be discouraged from voting  entirely.
Ensuring that voters with disabilities can successfully vote privately and  independently requires government to think broadly about access: how  voters will arrive at the polling place, enter and move through the building,  and cast a ballot using an accessible voting system. For example, just  taking an accessible voting system out of its case and setting it up on any  voting station is not enough if a voter using a wheelchair cannot reach it.  Although Justice’s Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for  Polling Places has been widely distributed and is considered helpful by  states, it only includes limited information on creating an accessible voting  area and does not have guidance on configuring voting systems for people  with disabilities. In addition, Justice’s current oversight of HAVA voting  system requirements and polling place accessibility does not address all  aspects of voting access. Without monitoring that focuses on the broad  spectrum of voting accessibility for people with disabilities, it will be  difficult for Justice to ensure it is meeting its oversight duties under HAVA  and other federal voting statutes and to know whether voters with  disabilities are being well-served. We acknowledge that extensive  monitoring of polling place accessibility could be a costly and challenging  undertaking. However, Justice already demonstrated its ability to leverage  resources when it worked with states, disability advocacy organizations,  and others to conduct its initial assessment of states’ implementation of  HAVA voting system requirements. As the proportion of older Americans  increases, the number of people with disabilities will also likely continue  to grow, and it will become even more important to ensure that voting  systems are accessible to all eligible voters.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To identify and reduce the number of potential impediments and other  challenges at polling places that might hinder or detract from the voting  experience for people with disabilities, we recommend 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 the following  activities:    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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Justice, EAC, and HHS for review and  comment. Justice generally agreed with our recommendation to expand its  monitoring and oversight of accessibility of polling places for people with  disabilities in a cost-effective manner, although it had some concerns  about specific activities we suggested as part of this recommendation.  Specifically, Justice generally agreed with our suggestion to work with  states to use existing state oversight mechanisms and other resources to  help assess and monitor states’ progress in ensuring polling place  accessibility, similar to the effort it undertook shortly after HAVA was  enacted. Justice said that it can look for opportunities to enhance  educational efforts to states and gather some additional information to  assess state accessibility programs, and work with election officials and  disability rights organizations to stress the importance of polling place  accessibility and ask for their assistance in improving compliance with  federal requirements related to accessibility, but said that it is unlikely to  have the resources for a comprehensive undertaking similar to its earlier  effort. Justice also generally agreed with our recommendation to expand  the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for  Polling Places to provide additional information on ensuring the  accessibility of the voting area and include guidance on the configuration  of the accessible voting system.
Justice expressed concerns about our suggestion to expand 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. In particular, it had  concerns about shifting the focus of the federal observer program from its  primary purpose of ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act of  1965, and not having the resources to train and deploy observers to  conduct extensive assessments of polling places on Election Day. At the  same time, Justice said that it will continue to have Election Day observers  and monitors note whether polling places have an accessible voting  system and will consider incorporating some additional questions such as  observing whether the accessible voting system appears to be situated in a  way that voters can use the system privately and independently. In  response, we believe that the actions we suggest to expand Justice’s  monitoring and oversight activities are consistent with the agency’s stated  function. As laws are enacted and revised to support voting accessibility,  Justice can be positioned to fully meet its duties by modifying its  assessment approaches. That stated, we believe that incorporating  additional questions such as these would satisfy our recommendation and  could be done without adding significant work and interfering with the  primary purpose of the Election Day observer program. Justice also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
The EAC expressed appreciation for our research and said that the report  will be a valuable resource for the EAC and election officials as they  continue to develop, implement, and evaluate effective election  administration practices regarding voting accessibility. It also identified  some of the resources that the EAC has made available to election officials  and the public regarding voting accessibility, and stated that it will  continue to work in collaboration with election officials, experts, and  advocacy groups to identify additional resources needed to address this  area. HHS said that our findings were consistent with what states have  reported and the report highlights concerns that HHS has found for some  of its grantees. Written comments from Justice, EAC, and HHS appear in  appendixes VI, VII, and VIII.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to Justice, EAC,  HHS, the U.S. Access Board, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report will be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  Barbara D. Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov, or William  O. Jenkins at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IX.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to examine (1) the proportion of polling places that  have features that might facilitate or impede access to voting for people  with disabilities and how these results compare to our findings from the  2000 federal election; (2) the actions states are taking to facilitate voting  for people with disabilities; and (3) the steps the Department of Justice  (Justice) has taken to enforce the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)  voting access provisions. To determine the proportion of polling places  that have features that might facilitate or impede access to voting for  people with disabilities and how these results compared to our 2000  findings, GAO staff visited polling places on Election Day, November 4,  2008, to make observations, take measurements, and conduct short  interviews of polling place officials. To obtain information on our first and  third objectives, we administered a Web-based survey of election officials  in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories (American  Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). For all of our  objectives, we interviewed officials at Justice, the Election Assistance  Commission (EAC), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)  and from national organizations that represented election officials and  disability advocacy organizations. We also reviewed federal laws,  guidance, and other documentation. We conducted our work from April  2008 through September 2009 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 provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Election Day Polling Place Visits
subsections: section_title: Description of Site Visits and the Data Collection Instrument
paragraphs: On Election Day, November 4, 2008, we sent out teams of two GAO staff to  each county in our sample. Each team was equipped with data collection  instruments (DCI) on which to record their observations and the  necessary measurement tools: the ADA Accessibility Stick II™ , a fish  scale, and a tape measure. We monitored the activities of the teams  throughout Election Day and provided assistance by telephone from our  Washington, D.C., office.
To ensure uniform data collection across the country, we trained all teams  in how to    properly fill out each question on the DCI,    use the necessary measurement tools, and  interview the chief poll worker in each polling place about the accessible  voting systems as well as accommodations for voters with disabilities.
See figure 14 for examples of measurements and items for observation  that were used to train GAO teams for Election Day visits. We also  instructed teams on the appropriate times for visiting polling places and  not to approach voters or interfere with the voting process in any way  during their visits.
Each GAO team that visited a county on Election Day received a list of up  to 8 polling places to visit. The first polling place on their list was  randomly determined. We then used geocoding software and the address  of the polling places to determine the latitude and longitude coordinates  for all of the polling places they were scheduled to visit. The latitude and  longitude coordinates were used to determine the ordering after the first  polling place, which minimized the net travel distance. This geocoding of  the addresses allowed the GAO teams to minimize the travel distance  between their polling places on Election Day. To maintain the integrity of  the data collection process, GAO teams were instructed not to disclose the  location of the selected polling places before their visits.
In some cases, states or counties placed restrictions on our visits to  polling places. For example, laws in some states prohibit nonelection  officials from entering the voting room or voting area. Election officials in  several counties granted us access on the condition that we not interview  polling place officials on Election Day, and, in several polling places,  officials were too busy assisting voters to be interviewed. In these cases,  we e-mailed and called chief polling place officials after Election Day to  complete the interview. Polling place officials contacted after Election Day  were asked the same questions as the officials interviewed on Election  Day. Due to the constraints of time and geography, some teams were not  able to visit all 8 polling places, but overall, GAO teams were able to visit  98 percent of the randomly selected polling places, or 730 of 746 polling  places in 79 counties across 31 states.
GAO teams used a DCI that was similar to the one used in our 2000 study  of polling places to record observations and measurements taken inside  and outside of the polling place and to capture responses from our  interviews with chief polling place officials. However, we updated the DCI  on the basis of changes that have occurred in federal laws and guidance  since 2000. The primary sources we used to determine the most current  requirements and standards for evaluating polling place accessibility were  the voting system requirements specified in HAVA and polling place  accessibility guidance in the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA  Checklist for Polling Places, issued by the Department of Justice in 2004.
In addition, disability advocates and representatives of the U.S. Access  Board reviewed a draft version of our DCI, and we incorporated their  comments as appropriate. We also received input from officials at Justice  and the EAC and from national organizations that represented election  officials. Finally, to ensure that GAO teams could fill out the instrument in  the field and complete it in a reasonable amount of time, we pretested the  DCI during the presidential primary election in South Dakota in June 2008  and during the congressional primary election in Wisconsin in September  2008.
section_title: Analysis of Election Day Data
paragraphs: In analyzing the data collected on Election Day, we first examined features  that might facilitate or impede access on the path to the voting area. In  doing so, we looked at features at four different locations at the polling  place: the parking area, the path from the parking area to the building  entrance, the building entrance, and the path from the building entrance to  the voting area. These features included the following:    Slope of ramps or cut curbs along the path are no steeper than 1:12.
Surface is paved or has no abrupt changes over ½ inch.
Doorway threshold does not exceed ½ inch in height.
Single- or double-door openings are 32 inches or more wide.
Therefore, the percentage of polling places cited as having one or more  potential impediments was based on whether a polling place was found to  have at least one feature that might impede access to voting in any of the  four locations we examined and does not include potential impediments  associated with the voting area itself.
While features of the voting area were not included in our summary  measure of whether a polling place had a potential impediment, we did  look for features that might facilitate or impede private and independent  voting inside the voting area. We identified the types of voting methods  available to voters with and without disabilities and took measurements of  the voting station or table used by people with disabilities to determine  whether wheelchairs could fit inside the station or under the table and  whether equipment was within reach for wheelchair users. We collected  information on the accessible voting systems required under HAVA to  determine the extent to which the system had features that might facilitate  voting for people with disabilities and allow them to vote privately and  independently. We also briefly interviewed chief poll workers at most of  the polling places we visited to find out whether curbside voting was  available and how the poll workers would handle voter requests for  assistance from a friend, relative, or election official.
subsections: 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 of polling places 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 range of possible values for a given estimate, 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: Survey of States, District of Columbia, and Territories
paragraphs: To learn more about states’ actions to facilitate voting access and  perspectives on Justice’s oversight of HAVA voting access provisions, we  administered a Web-based survey of officials responsible for overseeing  elections from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories  (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Survey  topics included (1) state requirements and policies for early voting,  absentee voting, and voter identification; (2) state voting accommodations  for people with disabilities; (3) state funding and experiences  implementing HAVA voting access requirements; (4) level of interaction  with Justice officials and usefulness of Justice guidance; and (5) state and  local actions to facilitate voting in long-term care facilities. The survey was  conducted using a self-administered electronic questionnaire posted on  the Web. We collected the survey data between December 2008 and  February 2009. We received completed surveys from all 50 states, 4  territories, and the District of Columbia, for a 100-percent response rate.
Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.  However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce  nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents interpret  questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. To minimize  nonsampling errors, we pretested draft survey instruments with state  election officials in Kansas, Virginia, and Wisconsin to determine whether  (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3)  respondents were able to provide the information we were seeking, and  (4) the questions were unbiased. We made changes to the content and  format of the questionnaire on the basis of pretest results. Because  respondents entered their responses directly into our database of  responses from the Web-based surveys, possibility of data entry errors was  greatly reduced. We also performed computer analyses to identify  inconsistencies in responses and other indications of error. In addition, a  second independent analyst verified that the computer programs used to  analyze the data were written correctly. We also searched state election  Web sites to illustrate their respective approaches, and obtained and  reviewed relevant documentation for selected states. The scope of this  work did not include contacting election officials from each state and local  jurisdictions to verify survey responses or other information provided by  state officials. In addition, we did not analyze states’ requirements to  determine what they require, but instead relied on the states’ responses to  our survey.
section_title: Federal Officials and Expert Interviews and Review of Documentation
paragraphs: To specifically determine what actions Justice has taken to enforce HAVA  voting access provisions, we interviewed Justice officials and reviewed  relevant federal laws, guidance, and other documentation. Specifically, we  spoke with Justice officials in the Voting and Disability Rights Sections of  the Civil Rights Division to document Justice’s internal process for  handling HAVA matters and cases and to review the department’s actions  to monitor and enforce HAVA voting access provisions (see app. IV for an  overview of this process). We reviewed the Americans with Disabilities  Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places and informal guidance, such as  letters responding to state election officials’ requests for additional  guidance on HAVA voting access requirements. We also reviewed citizen  complaints from Election Day 2008 that were provided to us by Justice and  all three complaints containing a HAVA voting access claim that Justice  has filed against states or election jurisdictions since HAVA was enacted in  2002.
In addition, to learn more about the federal role in providing assistance  and funding to states under HAVA, we interviewed officials from the EAC,  HHS, the National Association of Secretaries of State, and the National  Association of State Election Directors.
section_title: Appendix II: List of Counties Randomly Selected for Site Visits on Election Day, November 4, 2008
subsections: section_title: County
paragraphs: Washington, D.C.
section_title: Appendix III: Summary Of Justice Voting Section’s Internal Process For Handling HAVA-Related Matters And Cases
paragraphs: Within Justice, the Voting Section’s internal process for initiating HAVA- related matters and handling cases consists of four phases: initiation,  investigation, complaint justification, and litigation.
subsections: section_title: Initiation
paragraphs: While the Voting Section generally does not receive referrals from other  federal agencies, many matters are initiated by allegations from a variety  of sources, including citizens, advocacy and community organizations,  Members of Congress, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and news articles or  through election monitoring. The Voting Section also sometimes initiates  matters to monitor private lawsuits and to observe elections. The matter is  assigned to an attorney under the supervision of a deputy chief or special  litigation counsel for review to determine if further action is warranted. If  so, a memorandum is prepared for the section chief and final approval  from the Assistant Attorney General or his or her designee is required  before an investigation can begin.
section_title: Investigation
paragraphs: Once the decision is made to investigate a matter, the section chief will  assign a trial attorney, who conducts an investigation. When the  investigation is complete, the trial attorney makes a recommendation to  the section chief on whether Justice should file a lawsuit, close the matter,  or participate in some other manner. The section chief is responsible for  making the final decision about closing an investigation authorized by the  Assistant Attorney General or recommending a lawsuit or other  participation to the Assistant Attorney General. If a referral or allegation of  a HAVA violation is not pursued, all appropriate parties are notified, and  the matter is closed.
section_title: Complaint Justification
paragraphs: If a decision is made to pursue a matter and recommend filing a formal  complaint to initiate a lawsuit, then the trial attorney prepares a  justification package. An attorney manager and the section chief are  responsible for reviewing and approving the justification package. A  Deputy Assistant Attorney General reviews the justification package,  which is then forwarded to the Assistant Attorney General for final review  and approval. The justification package is also sent to the U.S. Attorney’s  office for the district where the lawsuit is to be filed for review and  concurrence. If the justification package is not approved, the trial attorney  generally prepares a closing memorandum and notifies the charging party,  respondent, and/or referring agency, as appropriate, that Justice is not  filing a lawsuit. The matter is then closed.
section_title: Litigation
paragraphs: If the justification package is approved, the Civil Rights Division notifies  the defendant by letter of Justice’s intent to file a lawsuit. After the  defendant has been notified, the trial attorney and the defendant often  have presuit settlement discussions. If a presuit settlement is reached, a  settlement document stating the points of agreement is prepared,  reviewed, and approved by the Office of the Assistant Attorney General  and signed by all parties. If the presuit settlement discussions do not result  in a settlement, the complaint is filed in federal district court and the  parties engage in litigation. Filing a complaint and the beginning of legal  proceedings do not preclude the trial attorney and defendant from  continuing negotiations and reaching a settlement. According to Voting  Section officials, defendants often settle prior to, or during, a trial. If a trial  is held, the plaintiff or defendant can often appeal the decision. If the  decision is appealed, the Voting Section works closely with the Appellate  Section of Civil Rights Division, which assumes responsibility for the  appeal stage of the case.
section_title: Appendix IV: List of Potential Features That Might Impede Access to Voting in a Polling Place
subsections: section_title: Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling place
paragraphs: (LB) (UB)
No designated parking for people with disabilities  One or more unramped or uncut curbs <36 inches wide  Other potential impediments in parking lot   Path from parking area to building entrance  Unpaved or poor surface in parking lot or route to building entrance   Ramp in path from parking area to building entrance is steeper than 1:12   No sidewalk/path from parking area to building entrance  Ramps in path from parking area to building entrance do not have a level landing at  the top and bottom of each section is < 60 inches long   Leaves, snow, litter in path from parking area to building entrance  Sidewalk/path from parking area to building entrance <36 inches wide   Ramps in path from parking area to building entrance is < 36 inches wide   Steps required in path from parking area to building entrance   Other potential impediments in path from parking area to building entrance   Doorway threshold exceeds ½ inch in height   Single doorway opening is < 32 inches wide   Doors that would be difficult for a person using a wheelchair to open   Double door opening is <32 inches wide, including situations in which one of the  doors cannot be opened   Other potential impediments at the building entrance   Path from building entrance to voting area  Doorway threshold exceeds ½ inch in height   Single doorway opening is < 32 inches wide   Corridors that do not provide an unimpeded width of at least 36 inches, but can go  down to 32 inches for two feet.
Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling place  (LB) (UB)
We did not measure these items in 2000. We collected data on this item in 2008, following our review  based on the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places and per interviews  with experts.
We based this measurement on Justice’s ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. Part 36,  Appendix A, which states that any part of an accessible route with a slope greater than 1:20 shall be  considered a ramp and the maximum slope of a ramp is 1:12, except in certain cases where space  limitations prohibit the use of 1:12 slope or less.
section_title: Appendix V: State Requirements for Accessibility of Polling Places, Alternative Voting Methods, and Accommodations to Facilitate Voting
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Election Assistance Commission
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Brett Fallavollita, Assistant Director, and Laura Heald, Analyst-in-Charge  managed this assignment. Carolyn Blocker, Katherine Bowman, Ryan  Siegel, and Amber Yancey-Carroll made significant contributions to this  report in all aspects of the work. Jason Palmer, Susan Pachikara, Gretta  Goodwin, Matthew Goldstein, and numerous staff from headquarters and  field offices provided assistance with Election Day data collection. Carl  Barden, Cathy Hurley, Stu Kaufman, George Quinn, and Walter Vance  provided analytical assistance; Alex Galuten provided legal support; Paula  Moore provided technical support; Jessica Orr provided assistance on  report preparation; Mimi Nguyen developed the report’s graphics; and  Anna Bonelli, Caitlin Croake, Kim Siegal, and Paul Wright verified our  findings.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Voters with Disabilities: More Polling Places Had No Potential  Impediments Than In 2000, But Challenges Remain. GAO-09-685.  Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2009.
Elections: States, Territories, and the District Are Taking a Range of  Important Steps to Manage Their Varied Voting System Environments.  GAO-08-874. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2008.
Elections: 2007 Survey of State Voting System Programs.  GAO-08-1147SP. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2008.
Elections: Federal Program for Certifying Voting Systems Needs to Be  Further Defined, Fully Implemented, and Expanded. GAO-08-814.  Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2008.
Election Assistance Commission—Availability of Funds for Purchase of  Replacement Voting Equipment. B-316107. Washington, D.C.: March 19,  2008.
Elderly Voters: Some Improvements in Voting Accessibility from 2000 to  2004 Elections, but Gaps in Policy and Implementation Remain.  GAO-08-442T. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2008.
Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic  Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-741T. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2007.
Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the  November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June 6,  2006.
Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of  Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be  Completed. GAO-05-956. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005.
Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents  Challenges. GAO-04-975T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
Elections: A Framework for Evaluating Reform Proposals. GAO-02-90.  Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.