The following page is a layout with a header that contains skip to content, increase and decrease font size feature, and the search AT Network function. Page sections are identified with headers. The footer contains About Us, CFILC, DOR, Site Map, and contact information.
One of the hallmarks of voting is the secret and private nature of the ballot that allows a person to make the choices that is that person’s own. However, many people with disabilities have not been able to enjoy the privilege of that private vote. People who are not physically able to hold or maneuver a pen, pencil or hole puncher to vote or who cannot see the actual ballot have had to verbalize their vote to an attendant, poll worker or family member. To these citizens, a private ballot has been a foreign concept.
Beginning in 1999, Riverside County, among others, offered secret accessible voting. Then, with the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), a completely accessible ballot seems closer to reality than ever before in our nation’s history. HAVA allocates $850 million to provide accessible voting. It mandates one accessible voting system in every polling place by January 1, 2006 and covers 95 percent of the cost. California has already appropriated its five percent match.
In 2002, voters passed Prop 41, a $200 million bond measure for updated voting machines. The money raised from the bond sales assist counties in the purchase of new voting equipment certified by the Secretary of State. In order to receive state bond monies, a county must contribute one dollar of county funds for every three dollars of bond monies.
With the decertification of the outmoded and inaccessible punch-card ballot machines in 2002, California counties were faced with replacing their voting systems in time to meet both state and federal voting requirements. Systems in their entirety must be both state and federally certified before they can be used in elections. While counties would rather purchase and use one system, state and federal laws require only one accessible voting machine per polling place.
Digital Recording Electronics (DRE): Manufacturers of DRE, or touchscreen voting systems, have designed their machines so they can be modified with assistive technology to accommodate different populations. For individuals who are blind, whose primary language is not English or who cannot read, an audio component is available to read the ballot privately with ear phones. For those with manual impairments, the systems can be used with appropriate assistive technology, allowing people with significant physical disabilities to vote privately. With these built-in accommodations, people with disabilities are able be a regular part of the voting process and not an exception that takes a lot of “special treatment” from a poll worker.
Optical Scan Systems: Whereas DRE systems have accessible features, optical scan systems do not. These systems use a pencil or pen and paper to “fill in the bubble.” A machine then reads the voter’s marks to record the vote. Another problem with paper-based optical scan systems is accuracy. Paper-based systems are routinely less reliable when counting ballots cast by voters. In the 2004 presidential primary, the statewide average of uncountable votes for optical scan was 2.76 percent. By comparison, DRE averaged 1.5 percent uncountable votes, and as low as 0.7 percent for one system.
Electronic Ballot Marking Systems: These systems, which are under development, combine the accessibility of DRE systems with the optical scan system. Like the DRE, the ballot marking system can be slightly modified with audio or other components, enabling those with manual or visual impairments to vote. The system then marks a paper ballot. As of June 2004, the AutoMark brand of this system has not been federally certified and standards have not been developed, making any Electronic ballot marking system unavailable for use in elections. Also, this ballot system cannot be easily modified for use in other languages.
Internet and Phone Voting: Some countries (France, England and Estonia) and states (Michigan and Arizona) have looked into internet voting as a means to increase voter turnout, though wide implementation hasn't been tested. However, California’s task force on internet voting issued a report in 2000, opposing a move toward internet voting because of security risks and potential computer hacking. Telephone voting has been endorsed for use in union elections such as the Teamsters by the National Mediation Board and in corporate shareholder voting processes, such as Bell South or Americorp. England uses telephone voting, including text messaging, meeting the access needs of many voters, while Oregon is testing telephone voting for absentee voters.
Absentee Ballot: Though it is not a machine, an absentee ballot is a method many people with disabilities choose to use in casting their votes. An absentee ballot is a ballot submitted (as by mail) in advance of an election by a voter who is unable to be present at the polls. Any registered voter may apply to vote by absentee ballot. Prospective absentee voters must submit a completed application or letter to the county elections official between 7 and 29 days before the election. Once the application is processed by county elections official, the proper ballot type/style is sent. The voter must then send the ballot, postmarked no later than election day, back to election officials. Still, many people with disabilities need assistance in filling out the paper-based absentee ballot.
After the passage of HAVA, California Proposition 41 and the decertification of punch card systems in 2002, counties moved toward purchasing DRE systems to satisfy all state and federal modernization and accessibility guidelines. However, as counties purchased DRE systems, computer academics began coming forward to question the systems security measures. The so-called “experts” only addressed the hardware and software system issues and did not take into account the security safeguards election officials put into place to negate tampering of individual machines and of vote tallies. Nevertheless, fear mongering of election stealing prompted a vocal minority of election advocates to call for a paper trail so voters could review their vote.
On the surface, this seemed like a reasonable request. However, a paper trail is in itself inaccessible to people with visual impairments. As well, there isn’t much evidence that a paper trail would add security or accuracy to the vote. Yet, in May 2004, the California Secretary of State decided to add a paper trail to all systems despite expressing confidence in the security of the systems. He also called for an accessible system, though none exists. The result of his decision has put a halt to all purchases of DRE voting systems for fear of spending more money on adding printers for verifiable paper ballots, thereby taking accessible voting away from one million Californians with disabilities in the 14 counties that have been using DREs.
The disability community has always stressed the importance of security as it pertains to voting and preserving democratic integrity. Disability advocates have also vigorously opposed the paper trail as a security method because of its inherent inaccessibility and the added burden it brings to counties who will now think twice of full implementation of DRE systems in polling places.
Persons with disabilities are the largest block of the population that does not vote. From inaccessible polling sites where a person cannot physically get into his or her polling place to inadequately-trained poll workers whose cultural insensitivity may inadvertently discourage people with disabilities to vote, there are clear barriers that deter people with disabilities away from the voting booth.
Accessible voting machines can help reverse this trend. Whereas previous elections were decided on inaccessible equipment that allows for a private and independent ballot for people with disabilities, there is assistive technology available that levels the playing field for all citizens regardless of disability. Therefore, people with disabilities have a great deal at stake when it comes to the equipment used in elections. Accessible equipment gives people with disabilities greater comfort in involving themselves in the democratic process. As a result, more voters with disabilities come out to vote, further integrating them into their community. As well, with more people with disabilities voting, issues important to the disability community become more important to the community at large. This community includes politicians who create and shape the policies that affect people with disabilities. Weighing in on the debate over voting machines has an effect on the ability of the disability community to advocate for the laws and services needed to further integrate into their community.
In the end, securing full access to the electoral process is the primary goal for disability advocates. Making sure this access includes the voting instrument is paramount. No matter the machine, no matter the system, a person should be assured they are able to vote privately, securely and independently. Anything less is unacceptable.
To learn more about assistive technology and the AT Network, please contact the AT Network at:
(800) 390-2699
(800) 900-0706 (TTY)
info@atnet.org / www.atnet.org
Funded by the California Department of Rehabilitation
The AT Network is dedicated to protecting the rights of our consumers and allowing them to remain independent in the community. If you have a question, concern, or a story to share with us then please don't hesitate to contact us:
Toll-Free: 800-390-2699
TTY: 800-900-0706
E-mail: info@atnet.org
Thanks to the California Telephone Access Program (www.ddtp.org/CTAP), Vipasha received an Ameriphone Dialogue RC-200, a telephone designed to provide independent communication for persons with any degree of mobility and/or dexterity loss. ."
