(e)Voting for People with Disabilities and the Aging:
A Survey of Technological, Social and Process Barriers to
Participation
Paul M.A. Baker, Ph.D., AICP
Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP)/Georgia Institute of Technology
500 10th St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30318-0620/ [[email protected]]
Michael D. Williams, Ph.D. Workplace RERC/Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta VA Medical Center
490 10th Street, Atlanta, GA 30318 / [[email protected]]
Nathan W. Moon
Wireless RERC/CACP/Georgia Institute of Technology
Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP), Georgia Institute of Technology
500 10th St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30318-0620 / [[email protected]]
Robert G.B. Roy
ITTATC/CATEA/Georgia Institute of Technology
490 10th Street, Atlanta, GA 30318 / [[email protected]]
Prepared for delivery at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,
Philadelphia, PA, August 31 - September 3, 2006.
Copyright by the American Political Science Association
Abstract
In the United States, the voting process since early in the last century has generally
moved to one of increasing inclusiveness and representation. A broadly recognized solution to
the problem of mechanical failure in machine tabulation, electronic voting (e-voting) has been
extensively debated in the literature, but mostly from a purely technological standpoint. While
these machines have generally delivered on the promises of increased accuracy, more timely
generation of results, and flexibility in terms of their ability to address the needs of a wide range
of capacities, they nevertheless operate within a complex environment moderated by social and
behavioral variables. For voters with disabilities (VWD) and, to an increasing degree, the aging,
barriers to voting arise not only from physical factors such as inaccessible facilities or limitations
of voting technology per se, but from less recognized and more subtle cultural, social, or
awareness related factors. Examples of these “meso-level” barriers to voting include poll worker
perception of voters with disabilities, or misunderstanding of the limitations of their disabilityrelated conditions. This research presents the findings of a pilot survey of Georgia voter
satisfaction with the voting process, using manual and electronic voting, and includes voters with
and without disabilities, and the aging, to help assess and identify potential issues, barriers and
opportunities that may impede accessibility to the voting process.
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 2 -
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities and the Aging:
A Survey of Technological, Social and Process Barriers to Participation
Introduction:
Ensuring “fair” and valid elections has been of concern as long as elections have been
held, and while social/political rhetoric continually waxes and wanes, the voting process in the
United States, since early in the last century, has generally moved to one of increasing
inclusiveness and representation. While much of the literature has focused on the “big picture”
(social or process elements) at one end, or on the mechanics of implementing new technologies
of voting, at the other, less has been written about the issues of access to voting for people with
disabilities in terms of the immediate context in which voting takes place.
For instance, much of the concern expressed during the 2000 Presidential election related
to validity of the electoral process in terms of who voted, who might have been excluded or
deterred from voting, and failure rates of the extant voting technologies in a climate of narrow
majorities. To date, most of the proposed policy remedies to these problems have primarily
focused on the macro (who voted) and micro levels (machine failure or failure of process dealing
with mechanical objects). E-voting, a broadly recognized solution to the problem of mechanical
failure in machine tabulation, has been extensively been debated in the literature, but mostly
from a purely technological standpoint.
While these machines have generally delivered on the promises of increased accuracy,
more timely generation of results, and flexibility in terms of ability to address the needs of a
wide range of capacities, they operate within a complex environment moderated by social and
behavioral variables. For people with disabilities, these “meso-level” barriers to voting arise not
only from physical factors such as inaccessible facilities, limitations of voting technology, or as
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 3 -
poll-worker lack familiarity with accessibility features of the machines, per se, but rather from
less recognized and more insidious cultural, social or awareness related factors, such as poll
worker perception of voters with disabilities, or misunderstanding of the limitations of their
disability-related conditions.
When Americans went to the polls for the 2004 election, there were 6 major methods of
voting being used by the counties: direct recording electronic (DRE), optical scan, punch card,
lever, paper, and mixed systems.1 For the purpose of this study, optical scan, punch card, lever,
and paper tabulation systems are aggregated under the category of “non-DRE voting.” This
research presents the preliminary findings of a pilot survey of voters’ satisfaction with the voting
process, using non-DRE and electronic voting, and including voters with and without disabilities
to help assess and identify potential issues, barriers, and opportunities that may impede the
voting process for people with disabilities.
Electronic Voting and the General Electorate
The U.S. presidential election of 2000 and its concomitant problems with ballot counting
in Florida and other states drew increased attention to the issues surrounding electronic voting as
a potential solution. Similar attention was given to the 2004 presidential election. Herrnson et
al. (2005) observe that “the manner in which voters cast their ballots is important, [...] voting
technology and ballot design can influence election outcomes, affect how voters feel about their
ability to exercise their right to vote, and influence voters’ willingness to accept the results of an
election as legitimate”. Problems with non-DRE voting methods, which received most of the
attention surrounding the Florida election controversy, spurred heightened interest in electronic
voting methods. In the 2004 election, roughly two-fifths of the American electorate used modern
1
We use the term “mixed use systems” to describe the situation where precincts or jurisdictions may use any combination of
voting machine types (e.g. manual and electronic).
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 4 -
computer technology, including optical scanning systems and digital recording electronic (DRE)
systems to cast their ballots. In the aftermath of the 2000 election, even more states looked to
methods such as these as popular responses to problems with non-DRE voting. Bolstering the
prospects for electronic voting methods was the mandate of the 2002 Help America Vote Act
(HAVA) to replace punch-card voting systems with electronic ones (Federal Election
Commission, 2006). In addition to their ability to record and tabulate votes rapidly and
accurately, electronic voting machines hold the potential to address the needs of persons with
disabilities, such as allowing the change in font size and permitting speech options to
accommodate the blind and persons with visual disabilities.
Following the 2000 election, Georgia Governor Roy Barnes and Secretary of State Cathy
Cox determined that the undervote rate2 in that election was unacceptable. In response, they
initiated a study to determine methods for best improving the state’s voting systems. By 2002,
Georgia became the first state to adopt a uniform statewide DRE voting system. Despite the
challenges posed by DRE voting methods, Williams and King (2004) found that the state of
Georgia progressed from an undervote rate of 4.4 percent, across of variety of election
technologies, in November 2000 to 0.86 percent in the 2002 election. Williams and King’s work
suggests how electronic voting may address lingering problems in the voting process (Williams
and King, 2004).
In their 2005 paper on the usability of electronic voting systems, Herrnson et al. found
that systems such as the heavily scrutinized Diebold AccuVote-TS generally worked well. Their
study, which involved expert review, close observation, a field test, and an exit poll to determine
voter experiences with electronic voting machines, revealed that between 81 and 91 percent of
voters had positive overall experiences with the machines. Such systems were lauded by an
2
Undervoted ballots are those for which no vote is recorded for a particular office. The problem may be attributed somewhat to
voting method (e.g. manual vs. electronic), ballot style (party-line/office block) may also be a determinant of undervoting.
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 5 -
overwhelming majority of voters—they reported relative comfort using the system, high
readability of characters, understandable terminology on screen, ease correcting mistakes, and
trust that votes were recorded. However, the authors concluded that there remains room for
improvement in the implementation of electronic voting systems. Chief among these is the
development of a greater sense of trust in the overall system and the amelioration of widely
publicized security flaws (Herrnson et al., 2005). Despite such problems identified by these and
other authors (Danielsen and Zimmerman, 2005; Schneider, 2005; Texas A&M University and
Congressional Research Service, 2005; and Tobias, 2005), some researchers are optimistic that
continued efforts by election officials and repeated use of the systems by voters will mitigate
most of these problems.
In a special issue of the Communications of the ACM in October 2004, the Association
for Computing Machinery (ACM) “recognize[d] that. . .while computer-based e-voting systems
have the potential to improve the electoral process, such systems must embody careful
engineering, strong safeguards, and rigorous testing in both their design and operation” (Grove,
2004). General studies into voters and electronic voting have identified the possibility of
continued obstacles to voting faced by specific minority populations (Herrnson et al., 2005);
while e-voting holds the potential for mitigating barriers to voting, its mere implementation is no
guarantee of increased accessibility. Without adequate attention to design issues and social and
physical barriers, e-voting may not alleviate the problems associated with traditional voting, but
rather maintain or exacerbate them. Compounding these barriers faced by persons with
disabilities is a need for further research into the interactions of voting technology and ballot
design and how both are understood and used by persons with range of disabilities ranging from
hearing impairments to visual impairments.
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 6 -
Voting and Persons with Disabilities
In 1984, Congress passed the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
(VAEHA). The importance of VAEHA and subsequent legislation such as the Help American
Vote Act (HAVA), signed into law in 2002, is that they mandate equal access to polling places
for persons with disabilities (Federal Election Commission, 2006; Myers, 2004). Despite such
legislation, in 1998 and 2000, 47 percent of polling places continued to have some problem with
accessibility (Herrnson et al., 2005). As recently as May 2005, Klein cited experts who claimed
that only 19 states had prepared a database, as required by the 2002 Help Americans Vote Act
(HAVA), to aid in the registration of people with disabilities (Klein, 2005). The alienation of
any group from electoral participation “directly affects the health of democratic representation”
(Schur et al., 2002) and runs counter to deeply held beliefs about the importance of
egalitarianism in a truly democratic form of government (Jaeger, 2004). For these reasons, one
of the central concerns for people with disabilities, as well as the policymakers, advocates, and
other groups who represent them and their interests, has been the continued existence of barriers
to voting and electoral participation (Danielsen and Zimmerman, 2005; Harrington, 1999;
Schriner and Batavia, 2001).
Any factors inhibiting electoral participation in American politics could exacerbate the
growing representational bias in politics and policymaking (Jaeger, 2004; Schriner and Shields,
1998; Schur and Kruse, 2000; Schur et al., 2002). Weiss contends that millions of Americans
with disabilities “do not vote because they do not know where to register and because many of
the nation’s 158,000 polling places [as of 1988] have steps, curbs, stairs, or other features that
make it difficult or impossible for them to cast their ballots” (Weiss, 1988). Danielsen and
Zimmerman observe that onerous “practices have historically relegated disabled voters to a
status they have perceived to be secondary and separate” (Danielsen and Zimmerman, 2005).
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 7 -
Well-educated and affluent social groups are historically more likely to vote, and thus ensure that
their interests and desires are represented, than those with less education or lower incomes
(Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Schriner and Shields, 1998; Schur et al., 2002). Because
persons with disabilities tend to have lower employment rates (McNeil, 2000; Yelin and Katz,
1994), lower incomes, and decreased social mobility than do individuals without disabilities
(Kruse, 1998), they are less likely to vote (Schur and Kruse, 2000). Even in cases where the
demographic characteristics of disabled people were similar to those without disabilities, the
likelihood of voting remains lower.
Using data from the Current Population Survey, the American National Election Survey,
and a random-household telephone survey conducted by the Rutgers Center for Public Interest
Polling, Schur et al. found that people with disabilities were 20 percent less likely to vote than
people without disabilities who had similar demographic characteristics (Schur et al., 2002). All
three points serve both as a reminder of the importance of equal franchise for persons with
disabilities, and as further support for the conclusion of the General Accounting Office that while
all states have provisions “that specifically address voting by people with disabilities”, the
provisions “vary greatly” and much work that remains to be done on behalf of citizens with
disabilities (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001; see also, Goldman, 2005).
As noted by Silvers and Stein, Congress “explicitly defined “public entity” in Title II of
the ADA to mean any State or local government” to counteract the “continuing existence of
unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice,” including the disenfranchisement of
people with disabilities (Silvers and Stein, 2003; see also, Herrnson et al., 2005). However, as
already noted, various kinds of barriers still exist that inhibit or prevent people with disabilities
from voting. While it is generally conceded that fully adequate explanations of low voter
participation by people with disabilities must consider psychology (Jenkins, 1991; Schur and
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 8 -
Kruse, 2000), recruitment (Schriner and Shields, 1998), and physical barriers of various kinds
(Bell, McKay, and Phillips, 2001; National Organization on Disability, 2004; Weiss, 1988), there
is no consensus on which, if any, of these three factors is the most significant determinant.
Moreover, some researchers believe that simply having ready access to the polling place and the
capability to cast a vote is not enough. Exactly how individuals with disabilities vote is just as
important, as an increasing shift toward using technologies such as electronic government
services (Jaeger, 2004) and direct recording electronic (DRE) machines (Moynihan and Silva,
2005) has heightened debates between issues of accessibility and privacy (Danielsen and
Zimmerman, 2005). A useful way to approach the goal of ensuring the franchise of people with
disabilities is to divide the barriers into two general kinds. On the one hand there are barriers
independent of the actual activity of casting a vote (non-polling place problems), while on the
other there are barriers that are directly associated with the actual activity of casting a vote
(polling place problems) (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001; Weiss, 1988). Although the effects
of these two kinds of barriers are often interrelated, it is possible, using this taxonomy, to review
and better understand the conclusions of some recent studies that address the issues associated
with voting by people with disabilities.
In their 1998 paper, Schriner and Shields examine an emerging emphasis of the disability
rights movement to increase voter participation (Schriner and Shields, 1998). They write that
during the 1990s disability service organizations and advocates often targeted much of their
political activism to the already elected Congress and President. Rather than addressing general
attitudes and perceptions of elected officials towards people with disabilities, disability advocates
tended to “concentrate on specific policy objectives, such as passage of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, reform of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and reform of
disability provisions of the Social Security Act” (Schriner and Shields, 1998). Schriner and
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 9 -
Shields review the rationale and requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
(the “Motor Voter” Act). Though laws such as the Motor Voter Act have provisions designed to
facilitate voter registration among people with disabilities (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006),
such laws assume that “once people are registered, they will vote” (Schriner and Shields, 1998).
However, this assumption is tantamount to assuming that resolving or at least reducing nonpolling barriers to voting suffice to resolve or reduce polling barriers to voting, an assumption
that Schriner and Shields explicitly reject. Instead, they argue that people with disabilities still
encounter polling barriers such as “inaccessible polling places” and “election officials reluctant
to provide a secret ballot for individuals who require assistance to cast their vote” (Schriner and
Shields, 1998; see also, National Organization on Disability, 2004). As a result, Schriner and
Shields believe that absentee voting, despite criticisms that some people perceive it as a “second
class” form of political participation, is a promising polling mechanism for intensifying the
disability voice in politics.
In another study, Harrington considers the challenges faced by blind and visually
impaired voters in Texas (Harrington, 1999). He examines efforts by the disability community
and Advocacy, Inc. to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and make the voting
process more accessible to Texans with disabilities. Instead of a failure of technology, the
failure to provide for the needs of blind voters in Texas was due to the “lack of vision by public
officials” who failed to use readily available, simple technologies that would easily modify
existing systems and accomplish ballot secrecy for blind voters (Harrington, 1999). Moreover,
Harrington notes that this “lack of vision” often revealed itself at the level of polling officials.
As Harrington writes, often “polling officials are confused about how to deal with blind voters.”
Counties ensured that voting machines purchased in the future would have built in adaptations
for blind voters, and, that in the meantime, ballots would be adapted—this time utilizing a
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 10 -
telephone-based approach that allowed blind voters to talk on the telephone, receive directions,
and use both hands (through telephone headsets) to punch the card ballot.
Schriner and Batavia are more pessimistic in their analysis of the effect of the ADA on
ensuring franchise for people with disabilities. In their 2001 paper, Schriner and Batavia argue
that there remains a discontinuity between the intentions of the ADA and the interpretation of the
ADA by regulatory agencies and the courts (Schriner and Batavia, 2001). “Its protections,”
write Schriner and Batavia, “are intended to strike down discriminatory practices in all aspects of
state and local government” and so address, in the broadest terms, voting rights for people with
disabilities (Schriner and Batavia, 2001). The generally narrow interpretations of the ADA by
regulatory agencies and the courts suggest that its presence will not alone suffice to remove the
barriers to voting encountered by people with disabilities.
Electronic Voting and Persons with Disabilities
Danielsen and Zimmerman are among the few scholars to consider explicitly the effects
of electronic voting on individuals with disabilities, especially the blind and visually-impaired, in
the wake of the controversies surrounding the 2000 election (Danielsen and Zimmerman, 2005).
Obscured in the movement to implement newer technologies such as direct recording electronic
(DRE) touch-screen voting terminals has been the fact that for decades, disability rights
proponents had sought to ensure equal franchise for individuals with disabilities. Electronic
voting for people with disabilities, they argue, highlights the dichotomy between privacy and
accessibility in voting and the risks of dissent among advocates otherwise similarly dedicated to
the improvement of the electoral process.3 Further, Danielsen and Zimmerman observe that their
3
Danielsen and Zimmerman note that much of the legislation aimed at improving the voting process for individuals with
disabilities aimed to ensure privacy. The 1982 Amendments for the Voting Rights Act guaranteed that voters had the right to
take a person of their choice into the voting booth to provide assistance, providing some security for impaired voters who could
bring a trusted family member or friend with them, rather than relying upon poll workers. Likewise, the Help America Vote Act
of 2002 ensured privacy for voters with disabilities by requiring that at least one electronic, computer-based terminal with audio
output through headphones and keypad interfaces be installed at each polling place.
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 11 -
accessibility features “stand in stark contrast to a range of security and design flaws and, what is
to some, a fatal lack of transparency.”4 They note that the rejection by election officials of such
security, transparency, and verifiability concerns have worried disability advocates, who fear that
the adoption of accessible voting technology will be slowed or halted by rising hostility to
electronic voting machines.5 Perhaps more important, however, are issues that Danielsen and
Zimmerman identify regarding ballot recount law reform, inadequate poll worker training,
unfettered and unsupervised access by vendor technicians (who have the greatest incentive to
cover up technological problems) to voting machines on election day, and too many jurisdictions
with inadequate technology contingency plans in the case of machine breakdowns.
Not all researchers share such a pessimistic view. Researchers such as Herrnson et al.,
who have examined the broad aspects of electronic voting, have tended to view accessibility as
more or less independent of privacy issues. Perhaps a greater challenge to the use of electronic
voting by persons with disabilities is one that is intimated by Harrington. His work advocating
“common sense” solutions to the problems of voting by persons with disabilities appears
reasonable for addressing problems associated with traditional non-DRE voting. Less clear,
however, is whether such relatively simple interventions will be effective, or even possible, with
electronic voting systems. Other scholars such as Myers and Tobias (Myers, 2004; Tobias,
2005) acknowledge the impact that electronic voting systems will have on persons with
disabilities, but they call attention to the factors preventing the full implementation of the 2002
HAVA rather that the ramifications of electronic voting. For them, electronic voting, with
whatever barriers it may bring, is irrelevant if states continue to impede the implementation of a
4
The authors note that DREs (1) are closed systems, using hardware and software not subject to rigorous independent inspection
and testing; (2) have not had the benefit of public approval in their selection; (3) are sanctioned by rules that deny voters the
opportunity to observe, review, and question claims of voting machine vendors; (4) lack a paper record of voters’ selections at the
time that ballots are cast, thus not allowing voters to verify their choices.
5
Responses have been varied: The American Association of People with Disabilities opposes the printing of paper ballots
outright, while the National Federation of the Blind do not oppose paper ballots but insist that the blind have some means to
verify what is being printed.
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 12 -
federal mandate designed to help improve the voting process and alleviate barriers faced by
persons with disabilities, among other groups.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
This paper presents the findings of a survey examining voter experience and satisfaction
with the voting process using non-DRE and electronic voting. The sample in this study includes
voters with and without disabilities, and assesses potential issues, barriers, and opportunities that
may impede the voting process for people with disabilities. Survey participants (voters) were
initially recruited from across the United States via online list-serves maintained by various
disability organizations, including the National Association of Councils on Developmental
Disabilities, independent living centers, and federally funded projects such as the Disability
Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs) and the AT Act projects. Participants were
also recruited via solicitations in Georgia though mass media outlets such as public radio and
newspapers such as the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. The intent of this sampling strategy
was to cast as wide a net as possible in order to over-sample voters with disabilities. This paper
presents a subset of the survey data and focuses only on respondents who voted in Georgia.
The survey instrument consisted of forced-choice and open-ended questions designed to
determine voter satisfaction with the voting experience, as well as the usability and accessibility
of voting machines for all voters, including those with disabilities. The survey instrument also
examined the accessibility of information on the issues and the candidates in order to help voters
make informed decisions prior to voting as well as the enhancing voter’s ability to understand or
obtain information on how to operate voting machines. The survey was pre-tested by staff
members of the Center for Assistive technology and Environmental Access (CATEA) at
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 13 -
Georgia Institute of Technology and visually impaired JAWS6 users for comments on content,
clarity, and accessibility.
The survey was administered between October 2004 and mid February 2005. The
software application Survey Solutions – Professional Edition, developed by Perseus
Development Corporation, was used to administer an accessible survey over the Internet and to
collect data online into a database. This database was then imported into SPSS v14 for standard
statistical summaries of quantitative data analysis. Responses to open-ended questions were
analyzed by formal content analysis procedure using two independent analysts who identified
themes and reconciled their interpretation with help form a third analyst as necessary. For
respondents who did not have access to the Internet or otherwise found the survey inaccessible,
accommodations were made to take the survey over the phone. Over the 5-month period of data
collection, 563 unique voter respondents completed surveys nationally, with 291 voters in
Georgia participating in the survey. While the data does not present statistically generalizable
results, they are useful to develop insights into voter perceptions, and to help develop additional
research objectives.
RESULTS:
Georgia respondents were assigned to two groups: those reporting having a disability
(VWD) and those who reported they did not have a disability. Groups were further
disaggregated by type of voting machine used (electronic or not electronic). Seventy-nine
percent (79%) of respondents reported no disability, while 21% reported having a disability. The
split between e-voting (DRE) and all other methods of voting, henceforth referred to as nonDRE, was 285 (71%) electronic and 6 (29%) non-DRE. See Table 1.
6
JAWS (Freedom Scientific) is one of the most widely used visually assistive technologies. It is a software program that “reads”
information displayed on the user’s computer screen using synthesized speech. JAWS can also provide Braille output in addition
to, or instead of, speech.
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 14 Table 1:
Participant Characteristics (Voting and Disability Status)
Status
Valid
Able non-DRE
Able e-voting
VWD non-DRE
VWD e-voting
Total
Frequency
3
227
3
58
291
Percent
1
78
1
19.9
100.0
Slightly more than half (52.2%) of respondents were 35-54 years of age, with 30.2%
under the age of 35, and 17.5% 55 years or older. This was a disproportionately educated group,
with only 3.4% reported as not having completed high school or having only attained a high
school equivalency, with 29.1% holding a Bachelor’s degree, and 32.7% reporting an
advanced/professional degree. Among the respondents with disabilities a similar distribution of
educational attainment was evident, with Bachelor’s (31.7%) or advanced/professional degree
(37.2%) categories as the most highly represented. It should be noted that the results of this
survey were somewhat skewed in terms of racial composition as compared to the current U.S.
population (White: 86.1%, Black/African American: 5.8%, Hispanic/Latino: 3.4%, Asian: 1%).
Voting
Some 83.3% of survey responses reported that the most recent voting experience
involved voting during the general election, with 14.8% voting in a primary election. Among all
Georgia voters responding, 98% reported using an electronic device. Only twelve voters
reported the use of absentee ballot (4.1% overall), and was comparable to the responses of voters
with disabilities, with 4.9% reporting the use of an absentee ballot. Of the 291 Georgia
respondents, only two (.7%) reported that they were not able to cast their ballot. Both of them
reported having a disability. Not surprisingly, only 2.2% of the non-disabled population needed
assistance, while 8.2 % of the disabled population reported requiring help. This finding was
significant, t = -2.28, p = .02. See Table 2.
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 15 Table: 2 Need Assistance in The Act of Voting
Response
no disability
with disability
Frequency
Percent
No
Yes
Total
No
225
5
230
97.8
2.2
100.0
56
91.8
Yes
5
8.2
Total
61
100.0
Machine Accessibility Features and Barriers to Voting
Machine-related features that might pose barriers to voting were addressed via three
survey questions probing voting machines equipped with accessibility accommodations. Fiftysix respondents indicated that their voting machines could be adjusted to accommodate special
needs, and among these, only five respondents (8.9%) reported using the available adjustments
(some reported using more than one), with use of headphones and volume control the most
commonly used adjustments.
Table 3: Use of Accessibility Accommodations
Accessibility Feature
Frequency
4
Percent
33.3%
Height
3
25.0%
Headphones
4
33.3%
Volume
Other
Total
Responses
1
8.3%
32
100.0%
Respondents were also asked to detail any barriers to accessibility encountered while
voting and to identify any potential usability problem encountered while voting. There were 163
instances of reported barriers, including 26 problems (15.9%) with size, contrast, or display of
the text; 47 problems (28.8%) with placement or design of controls; and 90 problems (55.2%)
with audio/sound output. Not unexpectedly, VWD reported experienced a greater number of
problems as compared with able bodied voters. Of particular interest is the fact that 16% of
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 16 -
participants overall reported that the lack of privacy was a key concern in the use of e-voting
machine. Not all survey results were negative towards e-voting. For example, 78.4% of those
responding were in agreement with the statement, “Using an electronic voting machine improved
my voting experience.” There was no statistical difference between the two groups. Similarly,
72.9% of all respondents agreed with the statement, “I believe electronic voting machines will
encourage more VWD's to vote.” There was no statistical difference between VWD and people
without disabilities.
Several questions related to voter satisfaction with the voting process proved distinct
between how VWD viewed their experience when compared with voters without disability.
These can be grouped into three categories:
•
“satisfaction with voting experience” - VWD were more likely to report being
dissatisfied with the experience, t= 237, p<.01.
•
“satisfaction with polling officials/place” – VWD were less likely to express confidence
in the knowledge of polling officials relative to accessible voting equitment (NS).
•
“satisfaction with voting machine accessibility” - VWD less likely to report satisfaction
with level of accessibility of voting equipment, t= 237, p<.02.
General Observations from Open-ended Questions:
Some 253 respondents7 responded to at least one of the open-ended survey questions,
which explored a variety of potential problems that occurred while they were voting. While
many responses were not large in terms of numbers, the nature of the responses merit some
degree of examination, particularly as they deal not as much with problems with the
technological (machine) aspect of the voting per se, but rather with human, process, or
contextual aspects of voting:
The insights provided by the open ended responses nationally were sufficiently interesting to include them as a
whole.
7
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 17 -
With respect to problems with the voting process:
•
12% of the respondents reported complaints concerning use of a voting device that
tended to impact all users. 97% of these respondents were electronic voters, 50% were
VWD and 45% were VWD using electronic voting
•
9% of the respondents reported complaints regarding poll worker activity that impacted
all voters with 86% of these having used electronic voting, 36% VWD, and 29%
reporting that they were VWD and having used electronic voting machines
•
5% reported complaints regarding poll worker activity that somehow impacts
accessibility of voting; 65%of these respondents were electronic voters, 80% were VWD
and 33% were VWD using electronic voting.
•
6% reported complaints concerning use of a voting device that primarily impacted VWD;
77%of these respondents were electronic voters, 77% were VWD and 66% were VWD
using electronic voting.
•
VWD respondents were twice as likely as able-bodied (16% vs. 7%) to agree with the
statement that "It was clear that the polling officials understood how to operate the
electronic voting machines."
CONCLUSIONS:
Fifteen years after the implementation of the ADA, and three years out from passage of
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), results of this pilot survey suggest that people with
disabilities continue to report greater problems with all aspects of the voting process than people
without disabilities. While e-voting technology represents a solution to some of the problems of
voting, as currently implemented, it still (if inadvertently) presents additional barriers for some
voters.
Overall, voters indicated that e-voting was a significant improvement over non-DRE
voting. It should be noted that accessibility features were appreciated by both able bodied voters
and VWD. However, specific features, such as ability to adjust the text, were identified as
needing improvement. A review of the literature suggests that many technological aspects of e-
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 18 -
voting have been already addressed to varying degrees. However, a gap still exists in many of the
“soft” human factors (or meso-level) issues related to poll worker awareness and understanding
of the specific needs of VWD and the complexities of adjusting voting machines to the needs of
individual voters. Addition study also is merited of such process related issues as machine
placement, management of voters slowed by voters that might need more time to work with the
machines, and general levels of frustration with alteration of familiar voting processes. Based on
these findings it is not unreasonable at this point to suggest that improved outreach and
awareness efforts need to be undertaken to insure that poll workers are made aware of the
strengths and weaknesses not only of the voting machines, but more importantly, of voters with
disabilities. Additional research that can provide increased resolution on these issues (needs of
VWD as well as the processes by which poll workers engage VWD) will allow the development
of improved training and materials. The findings of this preliminary study point to aspects of the
voting process that might still be problematic. The issues of access to voting facilities (macro
level barriers) and fine-tuning machine technologies (micro-level barriers), have been relatively
well identified, but the meso-level process barriers, consisting of not one but an array of
interrelated potential barriers, represent a policy problem area that can be addressed once
sufficiently understood.
While not by any means conclusive, the findings of this study suggest that while e-voting
can assist in reducing barriers to voting by people with disabilities, 1) continued technological
efforts need to be made to fine tune their efficacy; and 2) increased efforts need to be made to
improve the voting context (human as well as environmental factors) in which voting machines
operate.
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 19 -
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
The authors wish to acknowledge the research contributions of Carl Blunt, and Dennis
Folds, of GTRI, and Andrew C. Ward, Ph.D., CACP, to this study. This research was conducted
under the Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center (ITTATC) at
Georgia Institute of Technology’s Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access
(CATEA) a unit of the College of Architecture. ITTATC is sponsored by the National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education under
grant number H133A000405. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantee
and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education.
WORKS CITED
Bell, Dorothy M., Colin McKay, and Kathryn J. Phillips, “Overcoming the Barriers to Voting
Experienced by People with Learning Disabilities,” British Journal of learning
Disabilities 29 (2001): 122-127.
Danielsen, Christopher S. and Matt Zimmerman. “Electronic Voting,” Human Rights: The
Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities 32, no. 2 (Spring 2005):
9-12.
Federal Election Commission, “Help America Vote Act of 2002: Public Law 107-252,” (2006).
Online at [http://www.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm]. Accessed on 1 May 2006.
Goldman, Jonah H., “Partisanship, Problems, and Promise,” Human Rights: Journal of the
Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities 32, no. 2 (Spring, 2005): 4-7.
Grove, Jeff. “ACM Statement on Voting Systems,” Communications of the ACM 47, no. 10
(October 2004): 69-70.
Harrington, James C. “Pencils Within Reach and a Walkman or Two: Making the Secret Ballot
Available to Voters Who Are Blind or Have Other Physical Disabilities,” Texas Journal
on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights 4, no. 2 (Summer/Fall 1999): 87-105.
Herrnson, Paul, Benjamin Bederson, Lee Bongshin, Peter Francia, Robert Sherman, Frederick
Conrad, Michael Traugott, and Richard Niemi, “Early Appraisals of Electronic Voting,”
Social Science Computer Review 23, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 274-292.
Jaeger, Paul T., “Beyond Section 508: The Spectrum of Legal Requirements for Accessible EGovernment Web Sites in the United States,” Journal of Government Information 30
(2004): 518-533.
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 20 -
Jenkins, Richard, “Disability and Social Stratification,” British Journal of Sociology 42, no. 4
(December 1991), 557-580.
Klein, Alyson, “Many States Lagging in Upgrading Election Systems for ’06,” Congress Daily
(May 9, 2005): 7-8.
Kruse, Douglas, “Persons with Disabilities: Demographic, Income, and Health Care
Characteristics,” Monthly Labor Review 121, no. 9 (September 1998): 13-22.
McNeil, John M., “Employment, Earnings, and Disability,” paper presented at the 75th Annual
Conference of the Western Economic Association, June 29-July 3, 2000, Vancouver,
British Columbia.
Moynihan, Donald, and Carol Silva, “What is the Future of Studying Elections? Making the
Case for a New Approach,” Policy Studies Journal 33, no. 1 (2005): 31-36.
Myers III, Edward L., “Disability and Voting: An Analysis of the Implementation of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 in Arizona,” (2004). Online at
[http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv10n2/myers.htm]. Accessed on 11 May 2006.
National Organization on Disability, “Barriers Restrict Voting by People with Disabilities,”
(October 19, 2004). Online at
[http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=1430&nodeID=1&
FeatureID=1463&redirected=1&CFID=7075564&CFTOKEN=29276785]. Accessed on
12 May 2006.
Rosenstone, Steven J. and John Mark Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in
America. New York, NY: Longman, 1993.
Schneider, Elizabeth, “Voting Machines and the Disabled,” Campaign and Elections 26, no. 4
(May, 2005): 35.
Schriner, Kay and Todd G. Shields. “Empowerment of the Political Kind: The Role of
Disability Service Organizations in Encouraging People with Disabilities to Vote,”
Journal of Rehabilitation 64, no. 2 (April-June 1998): 33-38.
Schriner, Kay and Andrew I. Batavia. “The Americans with Disabilities Act: Does it Secure the
Fundamental Right to Vote?” Policy Studies Journal 24, no. 4 (2001): 663-673.
Schur, Lisa and Douglas Kruse. “What Determines Voter Turnout?: Lessons from Citizens with
Disabilities,” Social Science Quarterly 81, no. 2 (June 2000): 571-587.
Schur, Lisa, Todd Shields, Douglas Kruse, and Kay Schriner. “Enabling Democracy: Disability
and Voter Turnout,” Political Research Quarterly 55, no. 1 (March 2002): 167-190.
Silvers, Anita, and Michael Ashley Stein, “From Plessy (1896) and Goesart (1948) to Cleburne
(1985) and Garrett (2001),” in Linda Hamilton Kreiger, ed. Backlash Against the ADA:
Reinterpreting Disability Rights. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003.
(e)Voting for People with Disabilities - 21 -
Texas A&M University and the Congressional Research Service, “Voting Systems and Election
Reform: What Do Election Officials Think?” College Station: The George Bush School
of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 2005.
Tobias, Sarah. “HAVA or Havoc?” National Civic Review 94, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 69-72.
United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, “About the National Voter
Registration Act,” (2006). Online at
[http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/nvra/activ_nvra.htm#enforce]. Accessed on 12 May
2006.
________, “Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting Methods”
(GAO-02-107). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 2001.
Weiss, Donna V., “Work with Local Officials to Make Polling Places Accessible,” Journal of
Rehabilitation 54, no. 2 (April-June, 1988): 8-9.
Williams, Brit and Merle King, “Implementing Voting Systems: The Georgia Method,”
Communications of the ACM 47, no. 10 (October 2004): 39-42.
Yelin, Edward H., and Katz, Patricia, “Labor Force Trends of Persons With and Without
Disabilities,” Monthly Labor Review 117, no. 10 (October, 1994): 36-42.