EAC - Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

Name : | Christina Galindo-Walsh
Organization : | National Disability Rights Network
Post Date : | 9/30/2005
Section Comments
Section : | 2.2.7
Page no. : |
Line no.: |
Comment : | GENERAL COMMENTS VVSG must be Consistent with UnambiQuous Lanquaqe of HA VA Section 301 (a)(3) of HAVA requires that voting systems be accessible to individuals with disabilities in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation, including privacy and independence, as is available for other voters.2 By its clear language, this provision requires that voting be made accessible for all voters with disabilities, including, but not limited to, those who are blind or visually-impaired. Additionally, this provision makes accessibility a requirement, not an aspiration. The Commission has demonstrated its commitment to fulfilling HAVA's accessibility mandate in the past and should do so now by modifying the WSG to make accessibility mandatory for voters with all types of disabilities. In a July 5, 2005 letter to the Chairman of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), the EAC notified the TGDC that it needed to make certain changes to TGDC's recommended guidelines in order to comply with HAVA.3 The EAC's legal review resulted in changes to several of the recommended accessibility guidelines to make those provisions mandatory rather than permissive. For example, the Commission changed proposed Human Factors Requirements 2,2.5 and 2.2.6 to require a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) that is accessible to voters who are blind in situations where the WPAT is the official ballot of record. HAVA's requirement that all voters be able to review their ballots privately and independently before the ballots are cast and counted necessitated this change.4 We applaud the EAC for its diligence in reviewing TGDC's recommended guidelines to ensure the VVSG's compliance with HA V A's requirement that voting systems be accessible to voters who are blind. However, we are concerned that the legal rationale that guided these changes to the accessibility guidelines has not also compelled changes to the guidelines that apply to voters with other disabilities. Because HAVA requires access for all individuals with disabilities, not only those who are blind, we urge the Commission to apply its legal analysis to all of the accessibility guidelines in order to give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress to make voting systems accessible to all individuals with disabilities.5 For example. Human Factors Requirements 3.5 should be modified to also require a mandatory private and independent VVPAT for individuals who lack motor control. In short, permissive accessibility language should be made mandatory in order to comply with the clear statutory directive. Finally, the WSG totally excludes the many individuals with mental disabilities whose disabilities are not cognitive in nature, despite the fact that the guidelines relating to voters with cognitive disabilities would also benefit voters with other mental disabilities. The VVSG must be modified to make clear that HAVA's coverage extends to individuals with all types of mental disabilities, not just those with cognitive disabilities. We also recommend that the guidelines recognize that accessibility for people with mental disabilities includes preventing the denial of access to voting systems. Despite the fact that they meet state voter qualifications, many individuals with mental disabilities are routinely denied access to voting based on their disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the U.S. Constitution.s It is appropriate for the WSG to contain a guideline providing that individual must not be denied the opportunities to access voting systems on account of a mental disability unless the person has been determined by a court to lack the capacity to vote.