electionline Weekly

Our Say

II. Our Say

Our Say is an occasional section giving elections officials, academics, policymakers or elections geeks a chance to have their say on election administration. If you’ve got an opinion about some element of election administration and would like to write about it, please email electionline.

Comments on “Turning Out or Turning Away? Ballot Accessibility for People with Disabilities”

Lisa Schur, Ph.D, J.D., Rutgers University
Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs

This paper addresses an important issue — the experiences and preferences of people with disabilities regarding voting.

While the data can be used to provide some useful descriptive information on the barriers encountered by people with disabilities, there are a number of serious methodological problems that limit the comparisons that can be made.

Apart from these methodological problems, the data the authors present do not support their two main conclusions and those conclusions appear to be based on a perception that “voting with human assistance” is acceptable and individuals with disabilities should have a right to vote “privately and independently” as guaranteed by HAVA.

First, the methodological problems:

• The sample is drawn from two sources—membership lists of disability organizations and service providers, and a list of registered voters over the age of 80. While it’s understandable to use disability organization lists as a way to save money, many people with disabilities are not part of these organizations, so the results cannot be generalized to all people with disabilities. The non-disabled sample appears to come wholly from the over-80 group of registered voters, who are obviously not representative of all non-disabled citizens due to both the age restriction and the voter registration restriction. Also, many of these people over 80 who do not self-identify as having a disability nonetheless have significant impairments and would qualify as having a disability under standard measures.
• The data collection is by mail survey and Internet, with a response rate of only 15%. The self-selected sample is likely to be highly unrepresentative, both because many people with disabilities do not have computer access, and because people who take the time and effort to respond to mail surveys are those who are most likely to be interested in the topic. This is strongly indicated by the finding that over 90% of respondents say they vote regularly, which is much higher than in the general population.
• The study attempts to make a comparison of 2012 voter turnout levels among voters with disabilities in Marin County, all of California, and the U.S. But apart from the select nature of the sample, the survey does not even ask respondents whether they voted in 2012. The paper does not use a standard turnout question but apparently bases it’s finding on responses to the question “If you have voted in the past, how often you vote? [sic]” The finding that 97 percent of people without disabilities, and 92 percent of people with disabilities, voted is way out of line with data from the Census Bureau and Marin County Registrar that only 66.5 percent of the voting-eligible population voted in 2012. This supports the idea that it’s a highly unrepresentative, select sample.
• To be scientifically valid, measures have to be distinct from the outcomes they are trying to predict. The disability measure is problematic, asking “What is the functional limitation you have that interferes with your ability to vote?” This non-standard measure is tied up with the outcome being assessed, which makes it an invalid predictor. In addition, the measure conflates the effect of impairment and environment—for example, it may be that an inaccessible polling place causes an interference with the ability to vote, but an accessible polling place would not interfere with voting so that a respondent with a disability would answer “no” to the question and not be counted as having a disability.
• One conclusion is that “The use of [accessible voting machines (AVS)] among the disabled population is not significant, however, this is not due to the lack of AVS availability.” But the paper reports that only 76.4 percent of respondents said they had never used an AVS, which indicates that 23.6 percent, or nearly one-fourth, have used one. This is a large number, particularly given that most people with disabilities do not need to use accessible voting machines. Rather than downplaying this result, the study should pay substantial attention to the high reported rate of accessible machine usage, especially since many accessible machines can still pose problems for people with disabilities. The cited GAO study said that while almost all visited polling places had an accessible voting system, “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.” (The finding that usage of AVS does not significantly differ by disability type is a side issue that has little bearing on the question of whether accessible machines are important in general.)
• Another conclusion is that “voting by mail has a significant impact on the turnout of disabled voters—more so than the (un)availability of any machine.” There is no test made of this hypothesis. While a majority in this select sample said they would prefer to vote by mail, there is no test of how this preference influences the likelihood of voting. Similarly, there is no test of how the availability of an AVS influences the likelihood of voting, so there is no basis for the statement that “the mode of voting is a more significant explicator of turnout than disability.”
• The finding that 8.3 percent of people with disabilities say they would prefer to vote on an accessible machine, as well as 17.5 percent of people without disabilities(!), indicates that there is a real need for accessible voting machines. (The high rate for people without disabilities probably reflects that they are drawn from the over-80 population, or else reflects bad question design.)

Apart from these methodological problems, the conclusions don’t follow from the data presented.

There are numerous statements in the study that indicate the authors do not make a value distinction between voting with human assistance and voting privately and independently. It appears either is seen as acceptable so long as the voter turnout is improved.  

The study states “There are two important revelations about voting methods based on our study results; one that accessible machines have limited consequence, and second that voting by mail has more impact. As relates to the first, for those who want to vote at the polls, polling place accessibility (i.e. location) and machine usability is more important than machines designed to be accessible for voters with disability.”

While polling place “accessibility” is indeed a critical issue, that term does not mean the “location” of a polling place to people with disabilities. Polling place “accessibility” means a person with a disability can get into the building and into the polling place without physical barriers (inaccessible entrance with steps, etc.) Machine “usability” is also important but is meaningless if your disability prevents you from accessing the voting system at all. A blind individual will not care much about usability if the voting system does not provide an audio-tactile ballot.

Usability will mean nothing to a quadriplegic who has no switch access to be able to mark, verify or cast a ballot (and if they cannot get into the building, nothing else will matter.) The goal for individuals with disabilities should be “voting privately and independently” not just “voting”.

The study also states “Public policy has required that specially designed accessible machines be at every polling place, but disabled voters are not using them. Based on the low usage of the target population, the policy is arguably a costly failure.” Using this logic, almost all accessibility requirements are a “cost failure” because the number of individuals using them is small.

Talking ATMs are used by a very small portion of individuals, but we do not consider that a “costly failure”. Visual fire alarms are required by a very small portion of the population, but we do not consider them to be a “costly failure”. With training, most individual with disabilities can use accessible voting systems to vote privately and independently.

And the study states “. . . at least one-third of the electorate cannot leave their houses. If these citizens are to vote they must have transportation assistance or be able to vote by mail, and even if they vote by mail they may need assistance in getting their ballot into the mail — such assistance is sporadically available if at all in most jurisdictions across the country.  

Indeed many individuals with disabilities have transportation challenges and voting from home is convenient or perhaps necessary – however, that does not mean these individuals want to give up their right to vote privately and independently which a mail-in paper ballot will not provide. Paper ballots are inherently inaccessible – many if not most individuals with disabilities will require human assistance marking the ballot, verifying the ballot content, getting the marked ballot into an envelope, and mailing the ballot resulting in no privacy or independence.

The study summarizes by stating “. . . our findings indicate that both the disabled and non-disabled face challenges when using voting machines, however, guaranteeing access to the ballot has little to do with machines. If improving access to the ballot is the goal, then the availability of mail balloting should be expanded.” The use of the phrase “access to the ballot” appears to mean “availability of the ballot to the voter” rather than an accessible ballot is available to a voter with a disability. It is quite simple to make available an inaccessible paper ballot to voters at home if you are not concerned with the right to vote privately and independently.

In sum, the study is based on a very unrepresentative sample, and therefore cannot be used to draw firm conclusions on the general voting experiences and preferences of people with disabilities. The comparisons with state and national data are invalid. Even disregarding methodological problems, the data do not support the authors’ conclusions, and instead show the use of accessible voting machines by almost one-fourth of people with disabilities.

If a conclusion were to be drawn from these data, it is that voting by mail and accessible voting machines should not be seen as an either/or choice. There is a continuing need for accessible voting technology to ensure that people with disabilities have the same options as people without disabilities in exercising the right to vote privately and independently. In addition, all kinds of remote voting should be explored to support individuals with disabilities vote privately and independently without requiring them to travel to a polling place.

Eli Gelardin, the Executive Director of the Marin Center for Independent Living eloquently summarizes the concerns of the disability community with the conclusions of this study –

“Increasing voter turnout and protecting voter civil rights are not mutually exclusive. While it is critically important to increase voter turnout for all individuals, including individuals with disabilities, it cannot come at the expense of reducing physical and programmatic access at polling places and the availability of accessible voting machines. A blanket mail-in balloting policy is simply not a fair or appropriate solution. Voting privately and independently is a protected right of every American.   As an individual with a disability, running a 35 year-old community based organization that serves over 700 individuals with disabilities annually, I strongly support the Help America Vote Act which guarantees every American equal access at polling places and the ability to cast a private and independent ballot.”

Election News This Week

III. Election News This Week

• A “technical glitch” in Lucas County, Ohio changed the party affiliation of as many as 167 voters to the Green Party. According to The Toledo Blade Elections Director Gina Kaczala said a mistake was most likely made when the polling books were “wanded” as part of the vote-canvassing process, which occurred between the election and May 27. She said the board will fix the mistakes. Kaczala said that had a Green Party member not found the problem, it would have come up when auditing the precinct books. Kaczala also said that this problem seems to come up every year. “Every single year this happens. It‘s nothing new,” said Ms. Kaczala, who took over as election director March 4. “This is why we need electronic poll books,“ Kaczala told the paper. ”It eliminates human error.“
• More voter shaming, this time in Oregon. According to The Oregonian, a list of voters who made signature mistakes on their primary ballots is publicly available at county clerks’ offices. In 2013, legislators approved House Bill 3344 that allows elections offices to release the names of voters with challenged ballot signatures. The name, residence and reason the ballot is being challenged are available eight days after an election. A voter has 14 days after the election to correct a challenged ballot. The Oregon Association of County Clerks opposed the legislation in 2013.
• If the city council approves the request, poll workers in New York City could become some of, if not the highest paid poll workers in the country. The city’s board of elections recently requested an additional $7.4 million dollars that would raise the average poll workers salary to $300 and $400 for supervisors. They would each receive an additional $100 for six hours of training.
• Pro tip: If you’re going to commit voter fraud, you might not want to take to social media to brag about it. Case-in-point, a Texas man was fined $4,000 after he plead guilty to misdemeanor for voting absentee in Texas and Minnesota.
• Law & Order: The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced this week that it will hear arguments in the federal proof-of-citizenship case on August 25. Congressional Democrats have filed an amicus brief in the case. The Supreme Court is taking a look at voting rights again this session when they agreed this week to hear arguments whether or not Alabama violated the Constitution by “allegedly packing black voters into some state legislative districts making it more difficult for black office-seekers to be elected elsewhere.” In New Mexico, a lawsuit filed this week argues that barring unaffiliated voters from participating the state’s closed primary violates the state constitution. U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason this week overruled Alaska election officials and said the constitutional right to vote requires that the state translate all election materials into Native languages for voters with limited English skills. In Texas, the Speaker of the Texas House and 27other legislators asked a federal judge to quash subpoenas in the federal case with the U.S. Department of Justice over the state’s voter ID law. An Outagamie County, Wisconsin judge has thrown out the county’s April 1 election for a county board seat and ordered the county conduct a new election. The ruling was the result of poll workers providing incorrect ballots to 84 voters and the margin of victory being within 84 votes.
• Personnel News: Joseph Welch, Steuben County, New York election commissioner has resigned. Tracey Gordon, an elections official in Philadelphia, has been placed on unpaid administrative leave for 90 days during an investigation by the Board of Ethics. Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffee has appointed Stephen Erickson and Rhoda Perry to the state board of elections. Bobby Beattie has resigned as chairman of the Cherokee County, South Carolina voter registration board. In Minnesota, former Rep. Dan “Doc” Severson has been nominated to represent the Republicans in secretary of state race and State Rep. Steve Simon will represent the DFL party. Lindsey Villela is the new assistant director of the Scotland County, North Carolina board of elections. Former State Rep. Donna Barrett has been appointed to fill a vacancy on the Tennessee state election commission.

Legislative Updates

data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-data-mce-alt=”Legislative Updates” />

IV. Legislative Update

California: The Assembly has sent the Senate a bill that would allow localities to conduct all vote-by-mail elections for special elections. Under the bill, special elections to fill vacancies in the Legislature or Congress could be conducted exclusively by mail if the boards of supervisors in all involved counties agree.

Illinois: By a vote of 64-41, the Illinois Legislature approved a bill that will allow for election-day registration beginning in time for the November 2014 elections. In addition, the law would extend in-person early voting hours, remove ID requirements for in-person early voting and allow public universities to serve as locations for election day, in-person absentee voting. Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to sign the legislation.

South Carolina: Lawmakers recently repealed an ages old state law that prevented the sales of alcohol on election day. The legislation, previously approved by the House was approved 41-1 by the Senate. Gov. Nikki Haley is expected to sign it.

Research and Report Summaries

V. Research and Report Summaries

Revealing Discriminatory Intent: Legislator Preferences, Voter Identification, and Responsiveness Bias — Mathew S. Mendez, University of Southern California and Christian R. Grose, University of Southern California, USC CLASS Research Paper No. 14-17, April 8, 2014; A recent study concludes that legislative support for voter ID laws is in part motivated by discriminatory intent. The researchers conducted an experiment in 28 U.S. legislative chambers, randomly assigning legislators to receive email messages from Latino, Anglo, English-speaking, and Spanish-speaking constituents. These messages asked if a driver’s license is required for voting. Legislators who supported voter ID laws were much more likely to respond to Anglo constituents’ requests than Latino constituents.

Tech Thursday

VI. Tech Thursday

Last week we wrote about some of the new technologies elections offices and NGO’s are using to help keep voters informed and get them registered. Beginning this week, we’ll start a new section of the newsletter that will run whenever there is tech news to report.

Montana
Montana voters have a useful tool at their disposal in the “My Voter Page” available through the secretary of state’s website or as an app for Apple and Android. The site/app includes a voter’s registration information, polling place location (and map/driving directions), precinct-specific sample ballot, and absentee ballot tracker.

And with something you know is sure to make us at electionline super happy, the secretary of state’s website offers an “I Voted” electronic sticker that voters can share on Facebook and Twitter!

Upcoming Events

alt=”Upcoming Events” />

VII. Upcoming Events

Please email upcoming event — conferences, symposiums, seminars, webinars, etc. to mmoretti@electionline.org.

National Association of Counties Annual Conference and Exposition: NACo’s 79th Annual Conference and Exposition provides an opportunity for all county leaders and staff to learn, network and guide the direction of the association. This year, the conference will be held in Orleans Parish, (New Orleans) Louisiana. The Annual Conference provides county officials with a great opportunity to vote on NACo’s policies related to federal legislation and regulation; elect officers; network with colleagues; learn about innovative county programs; find out about issues impacting counties across the country; and view products and services from participating companies and exhibitors. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Where: New Orleans. When: July 11-14. For more information and to register, click here.

National Association of Secretaries of State Summer Conference: NASS is celebrating a Star Spangled Summer at this year’s annual conference in Baltimore. Members will exchange ideas, share lessons learned and highlight best practices in policy making and programming for state member offices.  Agenda programming will include: Expert speakers who will inspire new ways of thinking about state agency leadership; Real-world lessons & success stories from state peers; Topical workshops focused on communications & professional skills advancement; Networking opportunities with public and private-sector attendees; and Excursions to explore Baltimore & learn more about culture and state government. Where: Baltimore. When: July 13-16. For more information and to register, click here.

International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers’ (IACREOT) Annual Conference: IACREOT will hold its annual conference this summer in Bonita Springs, Fla. The agenda will include seminars, training sessions, a delegate awards luncheon, IACREOTs elections and board meeting as well other opportunities for networking. Where: Bonita Springs, Fla. When: July 19-24, 2014. For complete information and to register, click here.

National Conference of State Legislatures Legislative Summit: Bring home 1,000 ideas from the land of 10,000 lakes this summer. For 40 years, the Legislative Summit is where legislators and staff come together across the aisle to tackle critical problems and find solutions that work. With more than 100 sessions, the time to dig deep into issues you care about, and opportunities to make new friendships and connections. Where: Minneapolis. When: August 19-22, 2014. For more information and to register, click here.

Elections Center 30^th Annual National Conference: More information will be forthcoming, but mark your calendars now for the annual conference. Courses offered at the annual conference will include Course 5 (Ethics in Elections); Course 6 (Communications in Election Administration); Renewal Course 20 (Federal Impact on Elections-1960s to present); and New Renewal Course 27. Where: San Francisco. When: August 19-23, 2014. For more information and to register, click here.

National Association of County Recorders, Elections Officials and Clerks: More information will be forthcoming, but mark your calendars now for the annual conference. Where: Long Beach, Calif. When: August 22-25, 2014. For more information and to register, click here.

National Association of State Election Directors: More information will be forthcoming, but mark your calendars now for the annual conference. Where: San Francisco. When: August 22-24, 2014. For more information and to register, click here.

Opinions

VIII. Opinion

National Opinions: Nonpartisan races | Voter ID | Voter fraud | Hans von Spakovsky

Alabama: Secretary of state race | Voter fraud | Poll workers

Arizona: Early voting

California: Vote-by-mail, II, III | Primary system | Poll workers  

Indiana: Voter registration

Iowa: Matt Schultz

Massachusetts: Polling places

Mississippi: Voting loopholes | Election costs | Voter ID, II, III

Montana: Missoula County

Nevada: Voting reform | Voter turnout

New Jersey: Closed primaries | Turnout | Elections issues

New Mexico: Closed primaries

North Carolina: State elections board | Obstacles to voting

Ohio: Election laws | Voter fraud

Rhode Island: Master lever

South Carolina: Voter ID

Texas: Voting process

Job Openings

IX. Job Openings

electionlineWeekly publishes election administration job postings each week as a free service to our readers. To have your job listed in the newsletter, please send a copy of the job description, including a web link to mmoretti@electionline.org. Job postings must be received by 5pm on Wednesday in order to appear in the Thursday newsletter. Listings will run for three weeks or till the deadline listed in the posting.

Deputy Director of Auditing and Accounting, New York City Campaign Finance Board — unit’s core function is to perform detailed, timely audits of campaigns’ financial disclosure statements and supporting documentation in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). This position reports to the Director of Auditing and Accounting. Responsibilities: Manage the unit’s workflow. This includes assigning caseloads to audit staff, ensuring deadlines are met, and re-assigning work as needed to ensure balance and timeliness; train, supervise, direct, and evaluate senior auditors on audit assignments and ensure quality of work. Ensure that all audit staff receives appropriate training and supervision from senior auditors; review work performed by staff; approve work papers, audit findings, and audit reports; edit draft and final audit reports and other correspondence; communicate with management and other CFB units on various audit and compliance issues and assist other units in investigations and enforcement actions; make oral and written presentations to CFB staff members and the Board; and assist the Director in the overall management of the unit and perform Director’s duties in Director’s absence. Qualifications: A master’s degree or pursuing a graduate degree from an accredited university and at least six years of experience, at least three in a supervisory capacity, in one or a combination of the following: financial administration, accounting, compliance or investigative auditing, fraud reviews, forensic accounting, budget administration, economics, finance, fiscal or economic research, fiscal management, personnel or public administration, program evaluation, or a related area; OR a satisfactory combination of education and experience in the areas described above; previous experience in conducting performance audits in accordance with GAGAS and extensive knowledge of The Yellow Book; excellent written and verbal communication skills; experience editing and preparing audit communications; strong analytical, problem solving, and organizational skills; meticulous attention to detail; a demonstrated ability to meet tight deadlines, coordinate multiple projects and staff, and manage shifting priorities; and New York City residency within 90 days of starting the position. Application: If you would like to be considered for one of these opportunities, please email, fax, or mail your resume and cover letter, including current salary and salary requirements, to: Ms. Elizabeth Bauer; NYC Campaign Finance Board; 100 Church Street, 12th Floor; New York, New York 10007; Fax #212-409-1705; or resume@nyccfb.info. For the complete listing, please click here.

Director of Elections, Duplin County, N.C. — position is department head appointed by the Duplin County Board of Elections. This position requires ability to supervise and train employees, the ability to interpret and apply elections laws, ability to establish and maintain a good relationship with County Board of Elections and staff, precinct officials, media and county manager. Director attends County Board of Election meetings and records minutes. Deal courteously with general public; prepares election ballots for the Board’s approval, organizes and arranges distribution for all materials and delivery of equipment and sets-up leases for each precinct Polling Place. Prepare an elections budget proposal for Board and County Commissioners approval. Work closely with the State Board of Election, State Executive Director and Staff for legal opinions and regulations. Qualifications: Honest and strong positive attitude – Graduation from four year college or university in public administration, business or related field and two or more years computer experience or an equivalent combination of education, training and experience. Salary: $39,818-$53,588 annually. Deadline: Position open until filled. Application: For more information and to apply, click here.