Voters With Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting Methods
Released: 2001-11-14T00:00:00

Letter

Background

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.

State Provisions and County Practices for Assuring Voting Accessibility Vary Widely

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.

State Provisions for Addressing Accessibility of Polling Places Vary Widely

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.

Counties Are Generally Responsible for Assuring Polling Place Accessibility, but Practices Vary

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.

State Provisions and County Practices Regarding Alternative Voting Methods and Accommodations Vary

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.

Most Polling Places Have Features That May Impede Access, but Most Also Provide Accommodations That May Facilitate Voting

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.

Polling Place Facilities

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.

Inside the Voting Room

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.

A Variety of Challenges Face States and Counties as They Work Toward Improving Access to Voting

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.

Improving Polling Place Accessibility Hindered by the Lack of Accessible Buildings and Authority or Funds to Modify Them

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.

Providing Accessible Voting Equipment Is Hindered by Funding Constraints and Concerns about Reliability and Security

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.

Alternative Voting Methods and Accommodations Provide Options, but Also Present Access and Implementation Challenges

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.

Scope and Methods

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.

Analysis of State Laws and Written Policies

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.

Data Collection From States, Counties, and Selected National Organizations

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.

Selection of Polling Places

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.

Description of Site Visits and the Data Collection Instrument

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.

Analysis of Election Day Data

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.

Comparison of Non- Election Day Sample With Election Day Sample

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.

Sampling Errors

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.

Polling Place Accessibility Data Collection Instrument

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.

Selected Potential Impediments by Location Area

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)

Issues and Challenges Related to Voting Accommodations and Alternatives

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements

Ordering Information

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.

To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)