Unnamed: 0
int64 0
4.52k
| report
stringlengths 7
512
|
|---|---|
4,000 | , or activity. State and local governments may comply with ADA accessibility requirements in a variety of ways, such as redesigning equipment, reassigning services to accessible buildings or alternative accessible sites, or altering existing facilities or constructing new ones. However, state and local governments are not required to take actions that would threaten the historical significance of a historic property, fundamentally alter the nature of a service, or impose any undue financial and administrati |
4,001 | ve burdens. Moreover, a public entity is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance. Title III of the ADA covers commercial facilities and places of public accommodation, such as private schools and privately operated recreational centers that may also be used as polling places. Public accommodations must make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to facilitate access for people with disabilities. These fa |
4,002 | cilities are also required to remove physical barriers in existing buildings when it is “readily achievable” to do so, that is, when the removal can be done without much difficulty or expense, given the entity’s resources. When the removal of an architectural barrier cannot be accomplished easily, the entity may take alternative measures to facilitate accessibility. All buildings newly constructed by public accommodations and commercial facilities must be readily accessible, and any alterations to an existi |
4,003 | ng building are required, to the maximum extent feasible, to be readily accessible to people with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, provides for voter assistance in the voting room. Specifically, the Voting Rights Act, among other things, authorizes voting assistance for blind, disabled, or illiterate persons. Voters who require assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or the inability to read or write may be given assistance by a per |
4,004 | son of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union. Most recently, Congress passed HAVA, which contains a number of provisions to help increase the accessibility of voting for people with disabilities. In particular, section 301(a) of HAVA outlines minimum standards for voting systems used in federal elections. This section specifically states that the voting system must be accessible for people with disabilities, including nonvisual |
4,005 | accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation as is provided for other voters. To satisfy this requirement, each polling place must have at least one direct recording electronic or other voting system equipped for people with disabilities. HAVA established the EAC as an agency with wide-ranging duties to help improve state and local administration of federal elections. Among other things, the EAC is responsible for (1) providi |
4,006 | ng voluntary guidance to states implementing certain HAVA provisions; (2) serving as a national clearinghouse of election-related information and a resource for information with respect to the administration of federal elections; (3) providing for the certification of voting systems; and (4) periodically conducting and making publicly available studies regarding methods of ensuring accessibility of voting, polling places, and voting equipment to all voters, including people with disabilities. The EAC also m |
4,007 | akes grants for the research and development of new voting equipment and technologies and the improvement of voting systems. Furthermore, HAVA requires the Secretary of HHS to make yearly payments to each eligible state and unit of local government to be used for (1) making polling places accessible for people with disabilities and (2) providing people with disabilities with information on accessible polling places. HAVA vests enforcement authority with the U.S. Attorney General to bring a civil action agai |
4,008 | nst any state or jurisdiction as may be necessary to carry out specified uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements under HAVA. These requirements pertain to HAVA voting system standards, provisional voting and voting information, the computerized statewide voter registration list, and voter registration by mail. The Voting Section, within Justice’s Civil Rights Division, is responsible for enforcement of civil provisions of federal voting laws, such as HAVA. The Votin |
4,009 | g Section’s internal process for initiating HAVA-related matters and cases consists of four phases: initiation, investigation, complaint justification, and litigation. See appendix III for an overview of this internal process. The Disability Rights Section, also within the Civil Rights Division, is primarily responsible for protecting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA, which includes ensuring that people with disabilities have access to basic services, such as voting. Providing an access |
4,010 | ible voting system encompasses both the voting method and the operation of the system. In terms of the voting method, HAVA specifically identifies direct recording electronic systems to facilitate voting for people with disabilities or other voting systems equipped for people with disabilities. For the most part, these systems are electronic machines or devices equipped with features to assist voters with disabilities. A brief description of these types of systems follows. Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) |
4,011 | Devices. DRE devices capture votes electronically (see fig. 1). These devices come in two basic models: push button or touch screen. DRE ballots are marked by a voter pressing a button or touching a screen that highlights the selected candidate’s name or an issue. Voters can change their selections until they select the final “vote” button or screen, which casts their vote. These devices can be equipped with such features as an audio ballot and audio voting instructions for the blind. Ballot Marking Devices |
4,012 | . These devices use electronic technology to mark an optical scan ballot at voter direction, interpret the ballot selections, communicate the interpretation for voter verification, and then print a voter-verified ballot. A ballot marking device integrates components such as an optical scanner, printer, touch-screen monitor, and a navigational keypad (see fig. 2). Voters use the device’s accessible interface to record their choices on a paper or digital ballot. For example, voters with visual impairments wil |
4,013 | l use an audio interface as well as a Braille keypad to make a selection. Voters who prefer to vote in an alternate language can also utilize the audio interface. Voters with disabilities can make their selection using a foot-pedal or a sip-and-puff device. Vote-by-Phone. Vote-by-phone systems use electronic technology to mark paper ballots. This system is made up of a standard touch-tone telephone and a printer (see fig. 3). When voters call from a polling place to connect to the system, the ballot is read |
4,014 | to the voters who then make choices using the telephone keypad. The system then prints out a paper ballot at either a central location (central print) or a polling site (fax print). Central print ballots are read back to the voter over the telephone for verification, after which the voter can decide to cast the ballot or discard it and revote. Fax print ballots produce a physical ballot at the polling place for the voter to review, verify, and cast in a ballot box. Regarding accessible voting system operat |
4,015 | ion, HAVA specifies that the voting system must be accessible for people with disabilities, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation as is provided for other voters. The operation of the voting system is the responsibility of local election officials at individual polling places. For the voting system to be accessible, the system should be turned on, equipped with special features such as ear phones, set up to accommodate voters using wheelchairs, and positioned in a way t |
4,016 | o provide the same level of privacy as is afforded to other voters. Also, poll workers should be knowledgeable of the operation of the voting system to provide assistance, if needed. Alternative Voting Methods As we have previously mentioned, the VAEHA requires that any elderly voter or voter with a disability who is assigned to an inaccessible polling place, upon his or her advance request, must be assigned to an accessible polling place or be provided with an alternative means for casting a ballot on the |
4,017 | day of the election. However, states generally regulate absentee voting and other alternative voting method provisions, which provide voters with disabilities with additional voting options. Alternative voting methods may include curbside voting; taking a ballot to a voter’s residence; allowing voters to use another, more accessible polling location either on or before Election Day; voting in person at early voting sites; or removing prerequisites by establishing “no excuse” absentee voting or allowing abse |
4,018 | ntee voting on a permanent basis. Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible voting system. In 2008, based upon our survey of polling places, we estimate that 27.3 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path from the parking area to the voting area—up from 16 percent in 2000; 45.3 percent had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27.4 percent had potential imp |
4,019 | ediments and did not offer curbside voting. All but one polling place we visited had an accessible voting system to facilitate private and independent voting for people with disabilities. However, 46 percent of polling places had an accessible voting system that could pose a challenge to certain voters with disabilities, such as voting stations that were not arranged to accommodate voters using wheelchairs. In 2008, we estimate that 27 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path from |
4,020 | the parking area to the voting area—up from 16 percent in 2000 (see fig. 4). Potential impediments included a lack of accessible parking and obstacles en route from the parking area to the area to the voting area. voting area. Figure 5 shows some key polling place features that we examined, and appendix IV contains a complete list of potential impediments. These features primarily affect individuals with mobility impairments, in particular voters using wheelchairs. Many of the polling places that had potent |
4,021 | ial impediments offered curbside voting or other accommodations to assist voters who may have had difficulty getting to or making their way through a polling place. For all polling places, we found that 45.3 percent had one or more potential impediments and offered curbside voting, 27.4 percent had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting, and 27.3 percent had no potential impediments. Some polling places provided assistance to voters by bringing a paper ballot or provisional ballot to a vote |
4,022 | r in a vehicle. In addition to curbside voting, officials we interviewed at most polling places said they would provide assistance to help people with disabilities vote in the polling place. For example, some polling places had wheelchairs available, if needed. Similar to our findings in 2000, the majority of potential impediments at polling places in 2008 occurred outside of or at the building entrance, although improvements were made in some areas. Fifty percent of polling places had one or more potential |
4,023 | impediments in the path from the parking area to the building entrance (see fig. 6). At the same time, the percentage of polling places with potential impediments at the building entrance dropped sharply—from 59 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 2008. As shown in table 1, the most common potential impediments in 2008 were steep ramps or curb cuts in the parking area, unpaved or poor surfaces in the path from the parking lot or route to the building entrance, and door thresholds exceeding ½ inch in height. F |
4,024 | igure 7 shows an example of a polling place with two potential impediments from the parking area to the building entrance. It is important to note that our assessment of polling places in 2000 did not include measurements of ramps or curb cuts in the parking area. With this additional accessibility indicator, we did not see a reduction of potential impediments in the parking area overall. However, polling places made significant gains in providing designated parking for people with disabilities, which decre |
4,025 | ased from 32 percent with no designated parking in 2000 to only 3 percent in 2008. In comparison to our findings in 2000, the proportion of polling places with multiple potential impediments decreased in 2008. Specifically, polling places with four or more potential impediments decreased significantly—from 29 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2008 (see fig. 8). At the same time, the percentage of polling places with one, two, or three with one, two, or three potential impediments stayed about the same as in |
4,026 | 2000. potential impediments stayed about the same as in 2000. All but one polling place we examined had at least one accessible voting system—typically, an accessible machine in a voting station—to facilitate private and independent voting for people with disabilities. Accessible voting machines had special features for people with disabilities, such as an audio function to allow voters to listen to ballot choices. According to an election official we interviewed, the accessible voting systems have been sig |
4,027 | nificant in helping some voters with disabilities—such as blind voters—vote independently for the first time. The most common type of accessible voting machine was the Automark, followed by the Premier ier Accuvote, iVotronic, and Sequoia, respectively (see fig. 9). Accuvote, iVotronic, and Sequoia, respectively (see fig. 9). To help facilitate the use of accessible machines, polling place officials told us that they received training and would provide assistance to help voters with disabilities operate vot |
4,028 | ing machines or overcome difficulties while voting. Almost all (98 percent) of the 626 polling place officials we interviewed said that some or all of the poll workers working on Election Day received training on how to operate the accessible machine. In addition, polling place officials told us they would provide assistance to help people with disabilities with the voting process. All polling place officials we interviewed said they would explain how to operate the machine, and 79 percent said they would d |
4,029 | emonstrate how to operate the machine (see table 2). Virtually all polling place officials we interviewed told us they would allow a friend or relative to assist a person with a disability with voting. Although polling places had accessible voting systems, nearly one-half (46 percent) had systems that could pose challenges for people with disabilities to cast a private or independent vote. We assessed four aspects of the accessible voting system that, if not met, could pose a challenge to private or indepen |
4,030 | dent voting: (1) voting system is set up and powered on; (2) earphones are available for audio functions; (3) voting system is set up to accommodate people using wheelchairs; and (4) accessible voting system provides the same level of privacy for voters with disabilities as is offered to other voters. Figure 10 shows an accessible voting station for people with disabilities. Overall, 35 percent of polling places did not meet one of these four aspects, 10 percent did not meet two eet two aspects, and 1 perce |
4,031 | nt did not meet three aspects. aspects, and 1 percent did not meet three aspects. The 95-percent confidence interval for polling places with one challenge is 27.6 to 41.8. The 95-percent confidence interval for polling places with two challenges is 5.9 to 15.7. The 95-percent confidence interval for polling places with three challenges is 0.2 to 2.1. As shown in table 3, the feature most commonly not met—at 29 percent of polling places—was an accessible voting machine located in a voting station with the mi |
4,032 | nimum height, width, or depth dimensions to accommodate a voter using a wheelchair. This was followed by 23 percent of polling places that offered people with disabilities less privacy for voting than is provided for other voters. For example, some voting stations were not positioned to prevent other voters from seeing how voters using the accessible machine were marking their ballots. The majority of states have established accessibility requirements and funded improvements to help facilitate accessible vo |
4,033 | ting, and all states reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting methods. Forty-three states reported on our survey that they required accessibility standards for polling places in 2008, up from 23 states in 2000. Additionally, most states reported that they used federal HAVA funds to improve the physical accessibility of polling places. Further, all states reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting methods, such as absentee voting. To help fa |
4,034 | cilitate voting for people with disabilities, most states have established standards by which to evaluate the accessibility of polling places and have required inspections of polling places to help ensure accessibility. The number of states with requirements specifying polling place accessibility standards grew from 23 states in 2000 to 43 states in 2008 (see fig. 11). These standards can vary in terms of specificity of requirements and which aspects of accessibility they address. For example, California es |
4,035 | tablished requirements for ramps and entrances, among other things. By comparison, Indiana required that the voting area must have adequate maneuvering space for voters who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids and must allow space for a person who uses a wheelchair to navigate behind and around the accessible machine. Figure 12 is an example of state guidance for setting up the voting room and for placement of the accessible voting system. The number of states that required accommodation of wheelchairs in |
4,036 | the voting area has more than doubled—increasing from 17 in 2000 to 38 states in 2008. In addition to specifying standards, since 2000, more states have required polling places to be inspected and local jurisdictions to submit inspection reports to the state to help ensure the accessibility of polling places. Like the accessibility standards, these practices can also vary from state to state. For example, according to its Election Procedures Manual, Arizona requires counties to inspect polling places befor |
4,037 | e each election or to have provisions that counties be contacted if a polling place is altered prior to an election. In contrast, Wisconsin recently revised its accessibility survey and requires all local jurisdictions to conduct their inspections on a primary Election Day so that state and local officials can evaluate the accessibility of polling places during an election. Most states reported using HAVA funds or a combination of HAVA and state funds to support a variety of activities designed to facilitat |
4,038 | e voting for people with disabilities. In our report on the 2000 election, we found limited funding was one of the main barriers that most state officials faced in improving voting accessibility, especially in providing accessible voting systems and, in some cases, making temporary or permanent modifications to polling places to make them accessible. However, with the availability of HAVA funding since that time, most state officials reported on our survey that they used HAVA funds or a combination of HAVA |
4,039 | and state funds to help improve accessibility in these areas. The majority of states (45) reported spending or obligating HAVA funds and, in some cases, also using state funds to enhance physical access to polling places. For example, election officials in Nebraska reported spending HAVA funds to evaluate the accessibility of polling places throughout the state and to ensure they were compliant with ADA standards. Furthermore, 39 states reported obligating or spending HAVA funds or a combination of HAVA and |
4,040 | state funds to improve voting systems and technology. For example, Minnesota used HAVA funds to buy ballot- marking machines so that voters with disabilities could mark regular paper ballots privately and independently and to develop instructional videos on how to use the machines. Even though states have taken actions to make the voting process more accessible, many states reported that it was very or moderately challenging to implement certain aspects of HAVA’s voting access requirements. According to ou |
4,041 | r state survey, 31 states reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was very or moderately challenging. (See table 4.) For example, one area in California reported that it was challenging to find enough accessible polling places in some rural communities because limited accessible buildings are available. Additionally, 24 states reported that it was very or moderately challenging to purchase DREs or other accessible voting systems. For example, several states said that it was difficult to buy acces |
4,042 | sible systems because of EAC’s delay in certifying voting systems. In addition to efforts to ensure polling place accessibility, most states offered alternative voting methods, such as absentee voting, that could help facilitate voting options for people with disabilities. All states offered absentee voting as an option, although 26 states reported on our survey that they required voters to meet at least one of several reasons—typically referred to as an “excuse”—to be eligible to vote via absentee ballot, |
4,043 | such as having a disability, being elderly, or being absent from the jurisdiction (see table 5). However, the number of states that allow absentee voting without requiring that voters provide a reason has increased slightly since the 2000 election, from 18 states to 24 states in 2008. Of the 43 states that reported requiring local jurisdictions to offer in-person absentee voting, 40 states required that locations used for in-person absentee voting abide by the same accessibility provisions and accommodation |
4,044 | s as Election Day polling places. In addition to absentee voting, all 23 states that reported that they required or allowed local jurisdictions to offer early voting also required early voting locations to meet the same HAVA and state accessibility requirements as Election Day polling places. Some states required polling places to provide other accommodations for voters with disabilities, such as curbside voting and audio or visual aids, although fewer states required some of these accommodations in 2008 th |
4,045 | an in 2000. According to our state survey, the number of states that required curbside voting decreased from 28 states in 2000 to 23 states in 2008 (see fig. 13). Likewise, the number of states that required staff in local jurisdictions to take a ballot to the residence of a voter with a disability who needed assistance on or before Election Day decreased from 21 states in 2000 to only 9 states in 2008. These practices may have declined because more states have taken actions to make polling places accessibl |
4,046 | e since the 2000 election, and more states reported allowing people to vote absentee without having to meet specific criteria. See appendix V for a comparison of state requirements, accommodations, and voting alternatives from our 2000, 2004, and 2008 surveys. Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility and conducted an initial assessment of states’ compliance with HAVA’s January 2006 deadline for accessible voting systems. Since then, Justice’s oversight of HAVA’s access requirements is part o |
4,047 | f two other enforcement efforts, but gaps remain. Justice currently conducts polling place observations for federal elections that identify whether an accessible voting system is in place, but it does not systematically assess the physical accessibility of polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided to voters with disabilities. Justice also conducts a small number of annual community assessments of ADA compliance of public buildings, which includes buildings designated as polling places |
4,048 | . However, these assessments do not provide a national perspective on polling place accessibility or assess any special features of voting areas and accessible voting systems that are set up only on Election Day. From shortly after the passage of HAVA until 2006, Justice officials said they conducted educational outreach on HAVA voting system requirements. Justice provided guidance on the new HAVA voting system requirements, while the EAC, which was authorized by HAVA to develop guidance and serve as a clea |
4,049 | ringhouse for election information, was being formed. During this time, Justice officials said they made a considerable effort to educate state and local election officials and national organizations representing election officials and people with disabilities on HAVA voting system requirements. For this effort, Justice officials met with state and local election officials across the country and gave presentations on HAVA requirements at National Association of Secretaries of State and National Association |
4,050 | of State Election Directors meetings. In addition, Justice provided information about HAVA voting system requirements on its Web site and posted answers to frequently asked questions. Justice also provided informal responses to questions from state election officials on specific aspects of HAVA voting system requirements. In one response, Justice stated that a HAVA-compliant voting system requires both the voting system and polling place to be accessible to people with disabilities. Furthermore, the EAC, in |
4,051 | consultation with Justice, developed an advisory opinion stating that a HAVA-compliant voting system should be accessible to people with disabilities (as defined by the ADA), which includes not just the technical features of the voting system, but configuring the system to allow people with disabilities to vote privately and independently. As part of these early efforts, Justice provided guidance to poll workers on how to assess and create a physically accessible polling place. In 2004, Justice published t |
4,052 | he Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places, which provided information to voting officials on key accessibility features needed by most voters with disabilities to go from the parking area to the voting area. The checklist also describes how to take measurements of sloped surfaces, door openings, ramps, and other features to help identify potential impediments and suggest possible alternatives and temporary modifications. Justice officials said they have distributed 16,000 copies o |
4,053 | f the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places, primarily to advocacy groups and state and local election officials, and received over 80,000 hits on its Web site since the checklist was released in February 2004. According to our survey, 34 states found the checklist to be moderately to very helpful and several state election officials with whom we spoke said they used it to develop their own state assessments of polling place accessibility. While the checklist provides limited gui |
4,054 | dance on accessibility features within the voting area, it does not provide information about the configuration of the voting system—such as positioning the voting system in such a way as to allow a person using a wheelchair to vote privately and independently. In 2005, the EAC adopted Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, which include accessibility standards that specify the configuration of the voting station to accommodate people using a wheelchair. The main purpose of these guidelines is to develop techn |
4,055 | ical specifications and standards for voting systems for national testing and certification. HAVA does not require adoption of the guidelines at the state level, although states may choose to adopt the guidelines and make them mandatory in their jurisdictions. While these guidelines are used to specify voting system testing standards, EAC officials told us that user-friendly guidance targeted to poll workers on HAVA voting system requirements, polling place accessibility, and voting assistance to people wit |
4,056 | h disabilities is needed. In addition to early guidance, Justice also conducted an initial assessment of states’ progress toward meeting the January 2006 deadline for compliance with HAVA voting system requirements. In 2003, Justice sent letters to state election officials summarizing HAVA voting system requirements. Justice followed up with letters in 2005 and 2006, which outlined HAVA voting system requirements and asked states to respond to a series of questions to help gauge whether every polling place |
4,057 | in the state had at least one accessible voting machine and whether poll workers were trained in the machine’s operation. Although states were not required to submit reports to Justice under HAVA, Justice officials said all states responded to the department’s letters. Justice officials reviewed state responses and followed up with state officials, sometimes on a weekly basis, if they were not satisfied with the progress being made. Justice also monitored local media outlets and state election and procureme |
4,058 | nt Web sites and consulted with national disability groups, election organizations, and local advocacy groups to independently verify information provided by states. If Justice determined that sufficient progress toward HAVA voting system compliance was not being made, it initiated investigations and, in two cases, pursued litigation when all other options were exhausted. Justice filed complaints against New York and Maine in 2006, in part because these states had not made sufficient progress in purchasing |
4,059 | and implementing HAVA accessible voting systems. Since then, according to Justice, both Maine and New York acquired and implemented HAVA accessible voting systems for the November 2008 federal election. Justice officials told us that their assessment of HAVA voting system requirements was part of an initial effort to ensure that all states had accessible voting systems by the required January 1, 2006, deadline. Once the 2006 deadline passed and all states reported having accessible voting systems, Justice c |
4,060 | ontinued only limited oversight of HAVA voting system requirements and polling place accessibility, as part of two ongoing enforcement efforts. These limited efforts leave gaps in ensuring voting accessibility for people with disabilities. For example, Justice supervises polling place observations for federal elections on Election Day to primarily assess compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965; however, some limited observations on other federal voting statues, such as HAVA, are also included. Specifi |
4,061 | cally, polling place observers look for accessible voting systems and assess whether poll workers are trained in their operation. In calendar year 2008, 1,060 federal observers and 344 Justice staff members observed 114 elections in over 75 jurisdictions covering 24 states. For such efforts, Justice officials select polling places where they believe there may be a problem, on the basis of negative news coverage, complaints received, or information provided by election officials. Information from polling pla |
4,062 | ce observations can provide evidence for an ongoing investigation or lawsuit. Justice sometimes initiates investigations on the basis of complaints and other information received. In some cases, the information may also be used to initiate a matter if an investigation has not already been opened. Justice officials told us that, as part of their Election Day 2008 observations, they came across some polling places where accessible voting machines were not turned on or poll workers were unable to operate the a |
4,063 | ccessible machine. However, based on our Election Day assessments, the potential impediments and challenges for voters with disabilities to access and cast a ballot on accessible voting systems may be more common than what Justice officials said they found through their observations. Importantly, Justice did not systematically assess the physical accessibility of the polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided to people with disabilities by the accessible voting system, which limits the |
4,064 | department’s ability to identify potential accessibility issues facing voters with disabilities. In addition, Justice officials said they annually initiate a small number of community assessments of ADA compliance in public buildings, including buildings designated as polling places, but these assessments include a small portion of polling places nationwide and are generally not conducted on Election Day. According to Justice, these assessments—called Civic Access assessments—can be resource-intensive, whi |
4,065 | ch, in part, may limit the number that the department can complete in a given year. Justice initiated three Civic Access assessments in calendar year 2008. Justice selects communities for Civic Access assessments on the basis of a number of characteristics within a community, including size of the disability community, geographic location, complaints received from citizens and advocacy groups, and proximity to a university or tourist attraction—which, according to Justice officials, might attract people wit |
4,066 | h disabilities from outside of the community. In planning for the assessment, Justice requests information from the communities about their polling places, such as their locations, modifications made on election days, and steps taken to make polling places accessible. The on-site reviews assess as many polling places as possible within the scope of the overall review. Justice officials said they prioritize polling places for assessments on the basis of geographic location, proximity to other buildings targe |
4,067 | ted for assessment in the review, and extent of public use of the facility for any purpose. To conduct on-site reviews—which typically take 1 to 3 weeks to complete—Justice deploys teams of attorneys, architects, and investigators to take measurements of a variety of public buildings. Afterwards, Justice compiles a list of physical barriers and impediments for people with disabilities found during the on-site review. Then Justice generally negotiates and enters into a settlement agreement with the election |
4,068 | jurisdiction, which includes recommendations for improvements, a time frame for implementing needed changes, and requirements for reporting and documentation. Between 2000 and 2008, Justice entered into 161 Civic Access settlement agreements, of which, 69 contained one or more recommendations aimed at polling place provisions. However, given the small number of Civic Assess assessments conducted annually, the information on polling place accessibility does not provide a national perspective on polling place |
4,069 | accessibility. In addition, since these assessments are not conducted during elections, they do not assess any special features of voting areas and accessible voting systems that are set up only on Election Day. State and local election officials across the country took a considerable step toward improving voting access for people with disabilities by having accessible voting systems at virtually every polling place we visited on Election Day 2008. These voting systems have been significant in enabling som |
4,070 | e Americans with disabilities to vote privately and independently at their neighborhood polling place for the first time. This also shows that Justice’s efforts to assess states’ implementation of HAVA voting system requirements achieved the desired outcome of ensuring that polling places had at least one accessible voting system. Despite these significant efforts, voters with disabilities may have had difficulty casting a ballot on these systems because the majority of polling places still had one or more |
4,071 | potential impediments that could prevent a voter with a disability from even getting to the accessible voting system. Furthermore, in close to half of polling places, the accessible voting system itself could pose challenges for voters with disabilities to vote privately or independently. If these conditions continue, there may be some voters with disabilities who will experience frustration and dissatisfaction with the voting process on future election days, while others could be discouraged from voting en |
4,072 | tirely. Ensuring that voters with disabilities can successfully vote privately and independently requires government to think broadly about access: how voters will arrive at the polling place, enter and move through the building, and cast a ballot using an accessible voting system. For example, just taking an accessible voting system out of its case and setting it up on any voting station is not enough if a voter using a wheelchair cannot reach it. Although Justice’s Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Che |
4,073 | cklist for Polling Places has been widely distributed and is considered helpful by states, it only includes limited information on creating an accessible voting area and does not have guidance on configuring voting systems for people with disabilities. In addition, Justice’s current oversight of HAVA voting system requirements and polling place accessibility does not address all aspects of voting access. Without monitoring that focuses on the broad spectrum of voting accessibility for people with disabiliti |
4,074 | es, it will be difficult for Justice to ensure it is meeting its oversight duties under HAVA and other federal voting statutes and to know whether voters with disabilities are being well-served. We acknowledge that extensive monitoring of polling place accessibility could be a costly and challenging undertaking. However, Justice already demonstrated its ability to leverage resources when it worked with states, disability advocacy organizations, and others to conduct its initial assessment of states’ impleme |
4,075 | ntation of HAVA voting system requirements. As the proportion of older Americans increases, the number of people with disabilities will also likely continue to grow, and it will become even more important to ensure that voting systems are accessible to all eligible voters. To identify and reduce the number of potential impediments and other challenges at polling places that might hinder or detract from the voting experience for people with disabilities, we recommend that the Department of Justice look for o |
4,076 | pportunities to expand its monitoring and oversight of the accessibility of polling places for people with disabilities in a cost-effective manner. This effort might include the following activities: working with states to use existing state oversight mechanisms and using other resources, such as organizations representing election officials and disability advocacy organizations, to help assess and monitor states’ progress in ensuring polling place accessibility, similar to the effort used to determine stat |
4,077 | e compliance with HAVA voting system requirements by the 2006 deadline; expanding the scope of Election Day observations to include an assessment of the physical access to the voting area and the level of privacy and independence being offered to voters with disabilities by accessible voting systems; and expanding the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist of Polling Places to include additional information on the accessibility of the voting area and guidance on the configuration of the accessible v |
4,078 | oting system to provide voters with disabilities with the same level of privacy and independence as is afforded to other voters. We provided a draft of this report to Justice, EAC, and HHS for review and comment. Justice generally agreed with our recommendation to expand its monitoring and oversight of accessibility of polling places for people with disabilities in a cost-effective manner, although it had some concerns about specific activities we suggested as part of this recommendation. Specifically, Just |
4,079 | ice generally agreed with our suggestion to work with states to use existing state oversight mechanisms and other resources to help assess and monitor states’ progress in ensuring polling place accessibility, similar to the effort it undertook shortly after HAVA was enacted. Justice said that it can look for opportunities to enhance educational efforts to states and gather some additional information to assess state accessibility programs, and work with election officials and disability rights organizations |
4,080 | to stress the importance of polling place accessibility and ask for their assistance in improving compliance with federal requirements related to accessibility, but said that it is unlikely to have the resources for a comprehensive undertaking similar to its earlier effort. Justice also generally agreed with our recommendation to expand the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places to provide additional information on ensuring the accessibility of the voting area and in |
4,081 | clude guidance on the configuration of the accessible voting system. Justice expressed concerns about our suggestion to expand the scope of Election Day observations to include an assessment of the physical access to the voting area and the level of privacy and independence being offered to voters with disabilities by accessible voting systems. In particular, it had concerns about shifting the focus of the federal observer program from its primary purpose of ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act of |
4,082 | 1965, and not having the resources to train and deploy observers to conduct extensive assessments of polling places on Election Day. At the same time, Justice said that it will continue to have Election Day observers and monitors note whether polling places have an accessible voting system and will consider incorporating some additional questions such as observing whether the accessible voting system appears to be situated in a way that voters can use the system privately and independently. In response, we |
4,083 | believe that the actions we suggest to expand Justice’s monitoring and oversight activities are consistent with the agency’s stated function. As laws are enacted and revised to support voting accessibility, Justice can be positioned to fully meet its duties by modifying its assessment approaches. That stated, we believe that incorporating additional questions such as these would satisfy our recommendation and could be done without adding significant work and interfering with the primary purpose of the Elec |
4,084 | tion Day observer program. Justice also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The EAC expressed appreciation for our research and said that the report will be a valuable resource for the EAC and election officials as they continue to develop, implement, and evaluate effective election administration practices regarding voting accessibility. It also identified some of the resources that the EAC has made available to election officials and the public regarding voting accessibility |
4,085 | , and stated that it will continue to work in collaboration with election officials, experts, and advocacy groups to identify additional resources needed to address this area. HHS said that our findings were consistent with what states have reported and the report highlights concerns that HHS has found for some of its grantees. Written comments from Justice, EAC, and HHS appear in appendixes VI, VII, and VIII. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further |
4,086 | distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to Justice, EAC, HHS, the U.S. Access Board, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact Barbara D. Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or [email protected], or William O. Jenkins at (202) 512-8777 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Of |
4,087 | fices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX. Our objectives were to examine (1) the proportion of polling places that have features that might facilitate or impede access to voting for people with disabilities and how these results compare to our findings from the 2000 federal election; (2) the actions states are taking to facilitate voting for people with disabilities; and ( |
4,088 | 3) the steps the Department of Justice (Justice) has taken to enforce the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) voting access provisions. To determine the proportion of polling places that have features that might facilitate or impede access to voting for people with disabilities and how these results compared to our 2000 findings, GAO staff visited polling places on Election Day, November 4, 2008, to make observations, take measurements, and conduct short interviews of polling place officials. To obtain inf |
4,089 | ormation on our first and third objectives, we administered a Web-based survey of election officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). For all of our objectives, we interviewed officials at Justice, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and from national organizations that represented election officials and disability advocacy organizations. We also reviewe |
4,090 | d federal laws, guidance, and other documentation. We conducted our work from April 2008 through September 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. On El |
4,091 | ection Day, November 4, 2008, we sent out teams of two GAO staff to each county in our sample. Each team was equipped with data collection instruments (DCI) on which to record their observations and the necessary measurement tools: the ADA Accessibility Stick II™ , a fish scale, and a tape measure. We monitored the activities of the teams throughout Election Day and provided assistance by telephone from our Washington, D.C., office. To ensure uniform data collection across the country, we trained all teams |
4,092 | in how to properly fill out each question on the DCI, use the necessary measurement tools, and interview the chief poll worker in each polling place about the accessible voting systems as well as accommodations for voters with disabilities. See figure 14 for examples of measurements and items for observation that were used to train GAO teams for Election Day visits. We also instructed teams on the appropriate times for visiting polling places and not to approach voters or interfere with the voting process i |
4,093 | n any way during their visits. Each GAO team that visited a county on Election Day received a list of up to 8 polling places to visit. The first polling place on their list was randomly determined. We then used geocoding software and the address of the polling places to determine the latitude and longitude coordinates for all of the polling places they were scheduled to visit. The latitude and longitude coordinates were used to determine the ordering after the first polling place, which minimized the net tr |
4,094 | avel distance. This geocoding of the addresses allowed the GAO teams to minimize the travel distance between their polling places on Election Day. To maintain the integrity of the data collection process, GAO teams were instructed not to disclose the location of the selected polling places before their visits. In some cases, states or counties placed restrictions on our visits to polling places. For example, laws in some states prohibit nonelection officials from entering the voting room or voting area. Ele |
4,095 | ction officials in several counties granted us access on the condition that we not interview polling place officials on Election Day, and, in several polling places, officials were too busy assisting voters to be interviewed. In these cases, we e-mailed and called chief polling place officials after Election Day to complete the interview. Polling place officials contacted after Election Day were asked the same questions as the officials interviewed on Election Day. Due to the constraints of time and geograp |
4,096 | hy, some teams were not able to visit all 8 polling places, but overall, GAO teams were able to visit 98 percent of the randomly selected polling places, or 730 of 746 polling places in 79 counties across 31 states. GAO teams used a DCI that was similar to the one used in our 2000 study of polling places to record observations and measurements taken inside and outside of the polling place and to capture responses from our interviews with chief polling place officials. However, we updated the DCI on the basi |
4,097 | s of changes that have occurred in federal laws and guidance since 2000. The primary sources we used to determine the most current requirements and standards for evaluating polling place accessibility were the voting system requirements specified in HAVA and polling place accessibility guidance in the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places, issued by the Department of Justice in 2004. In addition, disability advocates and representatives of the U.S. Access Board reviewed a draft v |
4,098 | ersion of our DCI, and we incorporated their comments as appropriate. We also received input from officials at Justice and the EAC and from national organizations that represented election officials. Finally, to ensure that GAO teams could fill out the instrument in the field and complete it in a reasonable amount of time, we pretested the DCI during the presidential primary election in South Dakota in June 2008 and during the congressional primary election in Wisconsin in September 2008. In analyzing the d |
4,099 | ata collected on Election Day, we first examined features that might facilitate or impede access on the path to the voting area. In doing so, we looked at features at four different locations at the polling place: the parking area, the path from the parking area to the building entrance, the building entrance, and the path from the building entrance to the voting area. These features included the following: Slope of ramps or cut curbs along the path are no steeper than 1:12. Surface is paved or has no abrup |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.