This voting access guidebook is dedicated to the memory of Justin Dart (August 29, 1930-June 21, 2002).

"Get into politics as if your life depended on it. It does."
- Justin Dart

This manual has been created to help develop an understanding of the issues involved in making the voting process accessible to people who are blind. Much of the information contained herein is dynamic: that is, it will change over time. At best we suggest that you read this book as a generic guide. Many of the strategies and tactics we will recommend will apply but the equipment will change and, obviously, the circumstances that we describe as operating at the local, state and federal levels will change. We are trying to give each of you enough information to understand the issues and some practical advice about how to move forward to make your community take voting access seriously.

We are dividing the book into various sections. The first segment will provide a general introduction to accessible voting. Next we will look at the equipment that is currently available to create accessible voting. Our next section will try to provide more detailed notions of what we can do and how we can do it at the local, state and federal levels. Then, we will describe some progress that is actually being made in several states and will also outline some of the barriers that are emerging and how best to counter these. Finally, we will provide a section that describes the current legal situation and also outlines the resolutions on this subject which ACB has passed.

This first edition will probably be just that. In a year or two we will need to update it to describe new developments. The real value of this book will be to provide all of us with a clear understanding of what the issues are and what steps each of our chapters can take.

Time is of the essence. The last federal election clearly created a readiness at all levels to pursue electoral reform. Before September 11, 2001, many people thought that a substantial federal allocation would be made available to assist states and counties to modernize their approach to elections. Given the new political and economic realities which resulted from the September 11 attack on America, the degree of federal involvement in reforming election processes is far less easy to predict. The problems associated with finding funding to fix the elections process at the federal level are almost insignificant when compared to the economic situations of state and local governmental entities. Virtually every state and local government in the country has been affected by the events of the last six months and none has the money to spare that they had last year. This makes our job more difficult and means that we must now, I believe, push for change based on doing what is right and what is legal. We will probably have to accept that it will take a little longer and we will have to work harder to build alliances. Clearly, though, what we seek can be obtained. Later in this book you will find examples of localities where success has happened. Unless we act, nothing will happen.

So, as you read the sections that follow, remember that you will make the difference. If you do not act, we will continue to be denied accessible, private access to the ballot.

You may think you don't need to read this section. We hope you won't skip it. Voting access is complicated and it is as much a philosophical issue as it is a mechanical one. Unless you read on, you may not understand the frame of reference into which we believe voter access must fit.

To begin with, let us be clear that universal suffrage is very new. In fact, it is arguable that it still doesn't exist. When our country became independent, no more than fifteen percent of the people in the United States had the right to vote. Our voting system was based on the British approach and, at the time of American independence, the ownership of property created the capacity to vote. A few people controlled many actual votes by telling those who were economically or socially dependent on them how to vote. Over the past two centuries and more we have fought an uphill battle to see the right to vote extended. In 1919, we decided women could vote. As late as 1964, the Voting Rights Act was passed because there were systematic efforts being carried out in several states to make sure that many African-Americans would not vote. There are still millions of Americans who are not registered to vote and, in spite of legislation that has come to be called the Motor Voter Law, many of these millions are people with disabilities. Equally disheartening is the fact that, in a very recent report from the General Accounting Office, a majority of the precincts where voting occurs were found to have elements that are inaccessible. So, as a first point, let us be clear that there is a whole range of actions that we need to take to make things better. First, we have to be sure that people with disabilities are registered to vote. Next we have to work to make certain that voting places are accessible. Third, we need to look at the equipment that voting places use. Now such equipment can be made fully usable by blind people so that we can vote independently and privately. A tiny proportion of voting places have such accessible equipment. We must, fourth, make sure that personnel (mostly volunteers) know how to deal with people who are blind. Fifth, we need to educate county, state and federal lawmakers and officials so that they understand the issues and realize that most of their simplistic solutions, such as the absentee ballot, will not meet our needs.

We must remember that we are part of the largest single minority in the country. There are 53 million people with disabilities in the United States. This makes us a powerful pressure group if we can be wooed by either major political party. Far too few of us have made any effort to become involved in party politics. This essentially allows parties to regard us as marginalized and to convince themselves that we will not vote. We hope this will change. The more local and state parties are forced to accommodate disabled people, the more voter access moves forward. All of our Congressmen, Commissioners, and state legislators are members of political parties and will be affected more by what comes out of their party than they will by pressure applied once they are elected by organizations who lobby from the outside, so to speak. We on the task force would like to see every local chapter conduct a voter registration drive. County election departments will usually send somebody to register groups of people. Under the Motor Voter legislation, state vocational rehabilitation departments and local colleges and universities are supposed to actively assist people with disabilities to become registered voters. Most of the time, this is not happening and we must put pressure on all these agencies to see that they abide by the law.

Unless we are registered, we cannot vote. Right now, even if we are registered, it is hard for us to vote. Many counties encourage people with disabilities to use absentee ballots to vote. They argue quite cogently that the cheapest way to create accessible voting is to simply allow people with disabilities to request an absentee ballot and then to fill out the ballot individually at their leisure and send it back. The counties and some federal officials argue that this is the best way to deal with the whole issue. Disabled people can read the material at home and can utilize family members to exercise their right to vote for them. Disabled people don't have to struggle to get to a polling station and don't have to trust a stranger to do the right thing at the polling place once they get there. There is no pressure to get all the elements of the ballot completed quickly because of long lines waiting for access to the voting booth. The absentee ballot, they argue, is a winning solution for everyone.

For those who have never tried the absentee approach, here's how it works. The voter requests an absentee ballot be sent to his or her home address. What arrives is background material, sometimes very minimal background material, and a punch card of some kind that is used to record the actual vote. This punch card has huge numbers, often over one hundred, of small holes that must be punched out to record choices in the various races and referendums that are on the ballot for that particular election. There is no way that a totally blind person can exercise his or her right to vote independently or privately. There is also no way that the blind person can be sure that the vote has been recorded correctly by the person he or she chooses to provide assistance.

Without meaning to demean anyone, family members may make an error either by accident or purposely. The blind person cannot know for sure that his or her vote has been cast in the manner that he or she wishes. It is as simple as that. The absentee ballot does not guarantee effective access to voting and is not likely to in the foreseeable future.

If the absentee ballot is so fair and effective, why is it not used by everyone, whether or not a disability is involved? Part of the answer is that absentee ballots are harder to count and part of the answer is that the exercise of casting a ballot at a polling station is an inherent part of our electoral tradition. We have grown up knowing that voting means going to a polling station and exercising our right to make choices. Most of us actually look forward to the right to vote when we reach voting age. It is part of our maturation process. Voting and the draft are both symbols of adulthood. We must not forget just how deeply rooted in our tradition the whole voting process is. Only if we look backward through our history can we understand how our electoral process has evolved.

In many ways, our country is like the American Council of the Blind. It was created by a group of states who wanted to maximize their independence and who only grudgingly gave authority to a federal government they saw as dangerous. The same applies to the degree to which each county fought to maintain autonomy when it could. Put another way, states and the federal government were only granted powers when counties saw themselves as having no choice. So our education system and our voting system both give most prerogative to local governments. The role of state laws is to make sure that all the local authorities operate in a consistent way. The federal government's role has focused on making sure that all state and local laws meet standards and, historically, the federal laws have tended to extend the franchise and to protect those in danger of being disenfranchised at the state or local level.

This is why we will need to focus in a later section on how each level works. Elections are one of those areas where states' rights and local autonomy must be understood as core values of how our country operates. Unfortunately, we cannot be successful unless we work at all these levels.

Because of the thousands and thousands of counties in the United States which each have the right to decide how they will arrange elections, some of what follows must be seen as a generalization rather than necessarily how it is where you are. That is why it is important that local chapters arrange for a presentation from county officials as a beginning point. You will not only manage to begin to build bridges to your county that way, but you will also be able to get a clear picture of how things are done where you live.

In general, though, here is where we are now. Counties set up polling stations and, when you register to vote, you will receive a voter registration card that will tell you where you are to go to cast your vote. This polling station will often be located in a church or a school close to where you live. Most counties have laws that now ostensibly protect the right of disabled voters to vote at local polling stations. In most counties, voters with disabilities are identified on the voter rolls and are entitled to assistance if they request it. In some jurisdictions, people must take the assistance provided at the polling place. In others, people with disabilities can bring an "assistant" with them. If the voter chooses to use the assistance available from the polling station, there is some variance in the way this assistance is provided. In some cases, one person from the polling place will go with the voter and help him or her cast the ballot. In other counties, two people, one from each party, are supposed to accompany the voter to the booth. This is obviously better since it makes it less possible for a poll worker to disregard the wishes of the voter and cast a ballot in favor of his or her party. Even when the law calls for two people, much of the time there is only one available. Even when there are two people to help, there is no guarantee that the ballot will be cast according to the wishes of the voter.

Another issue that we may as well deal with here is the fact that most blind voters are not up to speed on the various issues when they go to the polling place. This is because many of the referenda and minor races on the ballot do not get discussed on accessible media. They are sometimes discussed in newspapers but are often fought out with posters in local areas. Often counties prepare materials about the various issues as do political parties. It is crucial that we as blind people demand access to these materials in advance of elections. The Americans with Disabilities Act clearly requires that counties make such documents available in accessible formats. This will not happen if we do not demand it. "No" is not an acceptable answer. You should also ask people running for office to make their campaign documents available in accessible formats.

As things stand now, though, most blind people have no notion of what is involved in many of the races and referenda they vote for. (It is arguable that the same is true for many voters with no disabilities!) The important issue here is that this ignorance is unnecessary and illegal. It is often difficult to get "assistants" to read all the information on each race and, too often, we are conscious of the time we are taking to cast our ballot and often settle for making quick decisions based on insufficient information. Also, it is important to note that many referenda are written so as to confuse voters and need to be read very carefully.

For all these reasons, then, the absentee ballot and the lack of accessibility to and in current polling places are unacceptable. In the past, this minimal access might have been all we could get. Now the situation has changed.

More and more, elections and computers have come together. Depending on the county and the state, computers can play a greater or lesser role but it is clear that, as time goes on, the computer will become the core of every county election. We are, in fact, pretty close to that day now. Even if mechanical machines are being used, most of the time votes are actually tallied by computers and results are almost always created using computers. Before we can understand how things work, we had better spend a little time talking about the mechanics of voting machines, and how they have evolved.

One of the tests that used to be applied to determine one's ability to vote was literacy. So at some stages of our history, it was necessary to write in the name of the candidate of your choice. Gradually, however, ballots became forms that were prepared in advance by the county with boxes or circles that were to be checked by voters. Once the computer came along, it became a convenient mechanism for tallying votes. Today, the three most common systems all involve computers. The oldest involves the use of punch cards. Some of these use small machines and ballot boxes while others use larger machines that customarily store the voters' choices mechanically. Both the cards and the machines are then fed into a computer to be independently read. These machines were the ones that produced all the misplaced punches and hanging chads in the last election in Florida and there is strong pressure to replace all machines that depend on punching before the 2004 election.

Both of the machines that are proposed as replacements are heavily dependent on computers. The less expensive system involves the use of special paper and pencils which are then optically scanned into the computer. An advantage this system has over its main competition is that it retains the use of paper which can be examined for irregularities after the election. In many states election laws are built around having paper ballots available after the election for recount purposes. The paper used by this system is very expensive and cannot be made usable by blind people. Even though the initial expenditure for this optical scanning system is lower, the paper is a huge recurring expense.

The other system involves the use of a fully computerized system where the voter does not actually use paper. Instead the vote is cast using a touch screen and the results are stored in a computer which can be linked directly to election headquarters in the county for retrieval of results. Since this system is entirely digital, it has the ability to create complete access for blind people. This typically involves building an alternative input device that can be used instead of the touch screen and building in speech and, potentially, access to braille displays. Obviously, in most respects, this is the ideal solution for blind people. It costs more initially but the ongoing costs are lower. In our equipment section, we will have much more to say about the various systems that are out there. For now, there is just one more area we need to discuss in this general overview.

We must not find ourselves absolutely tied to a single approach. In some small jurisdictions specially prepared braille ballots are being used. In others, experiments using the Internet for voting are being tried. In still other places, the use of a device that would cast a ballot by telephone is being considered. Any of these options have the potential of making voting accessible to people who are blind.

To summarize this overview, then, we have a lot to do. We must get our people registered to vote. We must develop and foster good relations with county, state and federal authorities so we will be heard when changes are being considered. We must become more active within political parties and must demand accessible formats from all of those required to provide materials to voters. Above all, we must become "experts" capable of refuting the many arguments against voter access that we will hear. Now that we have painted the big picture, let's get to specifics.

There are two types of voting systems on the market today that are replacing the antiquated lever machine and the unreliable punch card ballot. They are the optical scan voting system that uses a mark sense ballot, and the touch screen or direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system. They operate using basically the same types of information storage, retrieval and counting systems. What differentiates them is the manner in which they intake information.

The optical scan system scans the ballot information into its data bank by actually scanning a specially prepared paper (mark sense) ballot marked by the voter. Some municipalities offer access to the paper optical scan (mark sense) ballot by creating a template which is used in tandem with phone access to a reader or recorded ballot information. However, this is not a viable option for those who do not possess good tactile skills and/or manual dexterity, as you will see later in this manual. The voter directly puts ballot information into the touch screen or direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system by touching the screen in the same manner used in information or transaction kiosks. The software needed for the audio component of the touch screen equipment is installed in each system. The hardware is portable and there need be only one component in each precinct as it easily connects and disconnects from the touch screen unit.

Several manufacturers provide both touch screen and optical scan voting systems and the computer systems that store, retrieve and count the ballot information are run by the same or interfacing computerized data systems. If you live in a municipality using the optical scan voting system, it is, therefore, an excellent idea to ask which system is being used and then to learn whether or not the manufacturer also provides a touch screen or direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system and if, indeed, their data systems are compatible. If they are, you might consider advocating for one touch screen system with its access package in each or in key precincts. Some manufacturers of election systems that have this capability as of this writing are: Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Hart InterCivic, Global Election Systems, Sequoia Pacific and UNILECT.

I was told by more than one company representative that if given the option, everyone would use the touch screen system and no one in the precinct would choose to use the optical scan ballot. Remember that any system advocated for must have state certification. Remember, too, that municipalities are mandated to use only one voting system. Be prepared, therefore, when advocating for this access option, to counter the argument that you are requesting an accommodation of using two systems which by law the supervisor of elections cannot honor. Explain that the primary difference is the manner in which the voter's ballot choices are taken into the system, that it is an access issue, not a system choice or management issue.

How are voting systems chosen? In most cases, the supervisor of elections does the research and comes to the county commissioners with bids from two or three entities and a recommendation. The optical scan system is initially less expensive than the touch screen system. As a result, county commissioners are, in these fiscally volatile times, much more likely to choose that option. They fail to take into account the fact that there is an ongoing expense for the preparation of the mark sense ballots and voter error is frequent which means that once the machine has discarded the ballot, that voter is eligible to try again. Supervisors of elections and county commissioners and others involved in local and state government must be reminded that access to government programs and services is ours by law as is the right to the secret ballot. The touch screen or direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system provides seamless access to the secret, independent and verifiable ballot to all Americans whether they can read, speak English, or have physical or sensory impairments.

The Avaya Voter Solution is a phone system that can be used to interface, in other words, interact, with any voting system. It is not a voting system; it is a voting system interface. All of the voting systems that have applied for national and/or state certification of which ACB is aware are covered in this document.

When discussing voting systems with company representatives, it is good to remember that this is a highly competitive business. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the state and municipal certification requirements for voting systems and be sure to closely quiz vendor representatives about the market readiness and certification status of their product in your state.

Although there are no criteria for a voice interface for visually impaired voters in the Florida Voting Systems Standards or in the current edition of the Federal Election Commission Standards, the Florida Voting Systems Standards state:

Voting systems and components shall be designed and constructed to simplify and to facilitate the functions required and to eliminate the likelihood of erroneous stimuli and responses on the part of the voter or operator.

Voter interfaces, such as a voice interface, are components of a voting system. Historically, voter interfaces have been punch cards, mark sense ballots, button arrays, and touch screens. We now are asked to evaluate a new type of voter interface which provides the voter with audio stimulus and allows the voter to communicate his or her intent to the voting system through vocalization or physical actions. Hereinafter we shall refer to this interface as an "audio ballot."

We believe the standard stated above is applicable to any voter interface. When applied to an audio ballot, the standard requires that the audio ballot provide the voter with the following functionalities:

* After the initial instructions which the system requires election officials to provide to each voter, the voter should be able to independently operate the voter interface through the final step of casting a ballot without assistance.

* The voter must be able to determine the races which he or she is allowed to vote in and to determine which candidates are available in each race.

* The voter must be able to determine how many candidates may be selected in each race.

* The voter must be able to select candidates with confidence that using the physical or vocal inputs allowed by the system has enabled him or her to select the candidates which he or she intended to select.

* The voter must be able to review the candidate selections which he or she has made.

* Prior to the act of casting the ballot the voter must be able to change any selection previously made and confirm the new selection.

* The system must communicate to the voter the fact that the voter has failed to vote in a race or has failed to vote the number of allowable candidates in any race and require the voter to confirm his intent to under vote before casting the ballot.

* The system must prevent the voter from over-voting any race.

* The voter must be able to write in a candidate name in races which allow write-in candidates.

* The voter must be able to review his or her write-in input to the interface, edit that input, and confirm that the edits meet his or her intent.

* There must be a clear, identifiable action which the voter takes to "cast" the ballot. The system must make clear to the voter how to take this action, such that the voter has minimal risk of taking the action accidentally, but when the voter intends to cast the ballot, the action can be easily performed.

* Once the ballot is cast, the system must confirm to the voter that the action has occurred and that the voter's process of voting is complete.

* Once the ballot is cast, the system must preclude the voter from modifying the ballot cast or voting or casting another ballot.

Touch screen voting systems offer:

1. Multi-language access;

2. Print font size options;

3. Access to the voting process to those who have mobility impairments;

4. Access to the voting process to those who are blind and visually impaired;

5. Access software installed in every system;

6. Price breaks on the portable system access package hardware that can easily be connected to the touch screen system; and

7. Digital or wave file recordings of the human voice reading the ballot or the option of text to speech using synthesized voice.

Editor's Note: The following descriptions of accessible voting systems were submitted for inclusion in this publication by authorized company representatives.

VOTE-TRAKKER is a new voting system where for the first time in modern election history, voters can verify that their votes are counted and counted correctly!

VOTE-TRAKKER completely eliminates all residual and spoiled ballot problems. Under-vote ballot determinations are totally resolved with voters making a "Skip Contest (No Vote)" selection if they do not wish to participate in specific contests. Every vote cast will be counted and counted correctly!

VOTE-TRAKKER addresses all of the known problems involved in the voting process. Even vexing "fleeing voter" issues have been resolved to assure every vote cast truly represents the voter's intent and choice.

VOTE-TRAKKER provides several formats of voter receipts to assure voters of the integrity in the voting process.

Voter is given a voter receipt with a randomly generated reference number so they will be able to track their votes after the election.

Voter reviews their receipt with the randomly generated reference number through a window. The receipt is retrieved by the Vote-Trakker and kept inside the machine as part of the permanent election audit trail.

Voter is given a voter receipt with a randomly generated reference number including whether they voted (or not voted) for a contest. VOTE-TRAKKER has been designed to meet the 21st century voting requirements. When fully utilized, a voter can vote anywhere in the world where a VOTE-TRAKKER is installed. The following benefits can be materialized without changing election law.

Military personnel can vote in bases and facilities on the same day with their votes counted on election day instead of days or weeks later if counted at all.

Overseas absentee voters may be allowed to vote at embassies and consulate offices with the votes cast and counted on the same day. VOTE-TRAKKER is one of the user-friendliest voice-assisted voting systems for visually and physically impaired voters.

Four "raised" corner keys are used to process commands that control the voter's selections.

Voters choose the voice, pitch and speed of the speech.

"Raised" keys for fist voting.

Tongue-activated voting for special physical disabilities. Registration-Trakker is a real-time, on-line voter registration system that is accessible to every voter!

Signature pads are installed in public libraries, which are available to every voter.

Voice Assist for blind and other disabilities.

Saves the county money -- no more manual data entry.

Contact:
James Minadeo
(609) 799-8896 extension 113

The Avaya Voter Solution is one of the first systems to meet all of the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) proposed standards for accessible voting systems, as based on amendments to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1998.

The Avaya Voter Solution provides increased accessibility, independence and privacy to voters with virtually any physical disability. This simple interface to a standard voting system allows voters to cast ballots using a familiar assistive communications device or the speech-enabled feature of the automated system. The flexible, low-cost system can accommodate voting from polling sites or remote locations -- such as a voter's home or office -- and can support absentee and military voting.

Voters casting ballots through the speech-enabled feature must pre-register a voice imprint with the system to ensure security. This is accomplished by simply repeating an assigned voter identification number into the system. When the voter is ready to cast a ballot, advanced voice imprint technology matches the live and pre-recorded voice to verify the voter's identity. The Avaya Voter Solution asks the voter whether he or she would like to vote for a specific office. If the voter responds affirmatively, the system provides the slate of candidates, prompts the voter for their selection and immediately confirms the selection. After completing the ballot, the system reads all selections and requests full confirmation of the voter's intent. A "new ballot" can be requested in the event of an error or if the voter has changed his or her mind.

Developed with participation from the disability community, The Avaya Voter Solution leverages Avaya's long history of developing accessible communications devices to increase freedom and eliminate boundaries.

Contact: Sedalia Boudreaux
Phone Number: (704) 594-9509
E-mail: sedalia@avaya.com

ES&S patented iVotronic (tm) voting system is the first touch screen voting device ever certified in Florida. IVotronic's Audio Ballot feature for the visually impaired is the only one of its kind officially accepted in the state. Election Systems & Software (ES&S) is the world's largest election management company. ES&S is the first and only election management vendor to have a touch-screen voting device certified in Florida. Weighing only 9 pounds and approximately one foot square in size, the ES&S iVotronic with its patented touch screen technology is portable, wireless, and has an Audio Ballot option. On-screen ballots are graphically displayed in multiple colors, and the iVotronic can support a second textual language in addition to English. ES&S touch screen systems are now in use in seven states and in Toronto, Canada. The iVotronic prevents the voter from over-voting and alerts the voter of undervoted races. The patented iVotronic is the first touch screen voting device to ever be certified in Florida, and its Audio Ballot feature for the visually impaired is the only one of its kind to be officially accepted in Florida.

The ES&S iVotronic (tm) voting device with its Audio Ballot feature, simple four-button operation, and logically organized structure is a very good solution for blind or visually impaired voters. The iVotronics innovative Audio Ballot presentation with individually worn headsets maximizes the essential requirements of voter privacy, independence, and verifiability of selections made during the voting process.
-- James Kracht, Assistant County Attorney, Miami-Dade County, Fla., and member of the Florida Council of the Blind who is visually impaired

Not only was ES&S iVotronic touch screen system the best choice among the vendors we examined, it also delivers the most value to the New Jersey taxpayer. We especially liked the iVotronics ease of use, high clarity screen, and ability to support voters with disabilities. In addition to its simple programmability and full security safeguards, our poll workers found opening and closing the polls much easier with the ES&S iVotronic.
-- Joe BelBagno, Chairman of the Sussex County, New Jersey Board of Elections

An important factor in our vendor selection (of ES&S) was the recent official certification of ES&S touch screen and optical scan election solutions by the Florida Division of Elections. The ES&S iVotronic is the first and only touch screen voting device certified for use in Florida, and its ADA-compliant technology enables all voters, especially those visually impaired to easily and correctly cast their ballots in complete privacy.
-- Kurt Browning, Supervisor of Elections, Pasco County, Fla.

"I look forward to the day when Florida's almost 300,000 blind or visually impaired voters witness extension to them of the fundamental basic civil right of voting," stated James Kracht, who personally tested the iVotronic.

Contact: R. Jeffrey Berg, Director Corporate Marketing, ES&S Phone: 800-247-8683 / (402)
970-1121
Fax: (402) 970-1275
E-Mail: rjberg@essvote.com
Visit the web site ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE - BETTER ELECTIONS EVERY DAY.

The AccuVote-TS is a state-of-the-art touch screen voting system designed to meet the administrative and logistical needs of election administrators without sacrificing varied and unique requirements of voters and poll workers. Complete and powerful, each AccuVote-TS enables election officials to arrange and store a vast array of ballot styles on each ballot station. Each stand-alone unit can contain up to 6,000 precincts, 500 ballot styles, and as many as nine languages, while offering a choice of audio or visual voting. With the simple use of Smart Card technology, the voter's correct ballot style appears in audio or visual mode. With a mere touch of the screen, voters can select their language preference for voting. Elderly voters appreciate the AccuVote-TS's bright, easy to read screen and large type. The simple instructions and on-screen prompts make the voting process both intuitive and enjoyable. Voters are protected against over-voting and warned against under-voting. A summary of their choices is presented on the final screen to confirm their selections and highlight races in which the voter failed to make a selection. A touch of the race or measure takes the voter directly back to the desired location to make a change.

Voters with foreign language needs can select their preferred language in complete privacy by touching the language option on the first screen. No stigma or embarrassment encumbers their voting experience. The AccuVote-TS supports all language fonts offered by Microsoft Windows' font manager, including graphical languages such as Chinese and Japanese. Election officials can offer a virtually unlimited array of languages without additional expense or waste of paper ballots. Blind and visually impaired voters have reacted with enthusiasm to the AccuVote-VIBS (Visually Impaired Ballot Station). They are able to cast a secret, unassisted ballot for the first time using a simple headset and keypad to listen to an audio ballot and to make their selections with the keypad. The human-voice recording is pleasant and clear. The ballot navigation process is simple, and it enables the user to access the instructions at any point. Poll workers can issue the audio ballot using an easy, one-step option on the Smart Card encoder. Voters in wheelchairs find easy access to the AccuVote-TS with its fully adjustable screen angle. In addition, the AccuVote-TS is housed in a wheelchair-accessible booth for privacy with accessibility. Voters with limited dexterity also enjoy use of the AccuVote-VIBS' tethered design of the keypad which can be placed in their lap for use without the need to raise their arms. The AccuVote-VIBS can be configured for sighted voters with extreme dexterity limitations, by offering a combination of headset and keypad to listen to and make selections as well as a screen for visual confirmation of the voter's options and selections. Voters with zero dexterity appreciate the ability to cast a secret, unassisted ballot on the AccuVote-TS as well. The wheelchair accessible booth and the adjustable screen angle enable them to position themselves close to the touch screen. The highly responsive screen and the wide voting target enable them to vote with confidence and secrecy using a simple mouthstick.

Poll workers appreciate the ease of setup and use. Each AccuVote-TS is transported in a self-contained booth for ease of setup without networking or tethering units. By simply turning on the ballot station, the poll worker can receive a zero results tape and begin the voting process. A single command enables poll workers to end the voting process and receive a results tape. A simple, but thorough, training process gives poll workers confidence to ensure the voting process is conducted with speed and accuracy. Election officials enjoy the tremendous capacity of each AccuVote-TS and the flexibility to use as few or as many units as needed in a given polling location. The large screen with its flexible one, two, or three-column ballot layout accommodates 50 or more candidates on a single screen. To meet the most demanding security requirements, the AccuVote-TS has a full complement of Electronic Audit Files that can be converted to hard copies on demand. Real time pre- and post-election transaction audit logs are also available. At the very heart of the system is a powerful but user-friendly election management system, GEMS. An industry leader, GEMS application software is a proprietary multi-user/multi-functional NT-based package that performs all election functions, from election definition, to ballot layout, to tabulation and reporting, with seamless efficiency and ease of use. Global Election Systems has proven its ability to serve the needs even of the nation's largest and most diverse jurisdiction, Los Angeles County, Calif. In less than eight weeks from contract signing, Global successfully implemented an early voting touch screen system to enable any one of 4.1 million voters in more than 5,000 precincts to cast a ballot, using an audio or visual ballot, in the correct one of 263 ballot styles and in one of seven languages. A voter survey conducted by the county resulted in a 98 percent approval rating among voters of all conceivable needs. Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Conny B. McCormack called Global's effort "a miracle."

Global Election Software
Accuvote-TS System
1611 Wilmeth Road
McKiney, TX 75069
Phone: (972) 542-6000
Web site: Global Election Systems

Hart InterCivic's eSlate Electronic Voting System is one of the most affordable, fully featured Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting systems on the market today. The eSlate system and its components provide central, regional and precinct tabulation as well as complete reporting and auditing. All eSlate components are designed to be easy-to-use, incorporating strict design standards to ensure access for visually impaired or physically challenged voters. eSlate has won acclaim for its ease of use, accessibility to disabled voters and fast, efficient ballot tabulation. The eSlate system has been examined by the Office of the Secretary of State of Texas, who determined that eSlate meets all of Texas' stringent criteria for disability access based on ADA standards. Texas is a national leader in requiring that voting systems be accessible to all disabled voters.

Among its many unique features, eSlate is the only DRE that employs a rotary dial for the voter to make his or her selections. eSlate's Rotary Select ballot navigation system is easy to learn and use, providing precise, highly accurate selection and confirmation. Benefits of eSlate's Rotary Select interface have been acclaimed by national organizations representing persons with disabilities. For example, eSlate's Rotary Select interface provides a perceptible click as it scrolls through each race, a feature that is particularly important to visually impaired voters. Among other key features incorporated into the eSlate's ADA compliant electronic voting system are:

An interactive audio ballot reader to support visually impaired voters, including audible instructions and confirmation of each vote;

An interface for the physically challenged that uses a simple 2-switch input to provide access for a wide range of impaired motor skills. This interface supports the use of other switches, including head movement switches and "sip and puff" switches (that allow severely physically impaired voters to cast their ballot using only their breath).

All disability features can be used interchangeably, in whole or part, with the eSlate's standard interfaces, allowing the voter to overcome whatever challenges he or she might face in casting his or her vote.

"Disability access was a key design goal from the outset in developing eSlate," said Neil McClure, vice president of Hart InterCivic's Colorado Elections Solutions Group that developed eSlate. "All of us are just temporarily able-bodied, and any one of us, at any time, may need a system to accommodate our special needs. This system will empower disabled voters and allow them to exercise their constitutional right to cast their ballot unassisted, independently, in privacy and secrecy."

For more information about Hart InterCivic's eSlate Electronic Voting System, visit the Hart InterCivic Website at Hart InterCivic or call 1-800-223-HART (4278).

Our cutting edge is a copyright Image Base Systems, developed by Roger R. Perez, retired IBM Systems Engineer and founder of Millennium Year 2000 Solution Company. Headquarters office in Fayetteville, Ga. This technology allows us to developed an audio touchscreen program for the blind and hearing impaired Americans to be able to cast their ballots on any election in the country. The following touchscreen voting systems for the deaf and blind voters, are as follows:

1) Blind but could hear, and use hands or any substitute to push a left or right button.

2) Blind & deaf, but can read braille.

Instruction will be bilingual, through audio step-by-step questions and answers using the left and right mouse/or push button type of response. A typical narration in English is translated in voice audio for the blind to listen to and act accordingly by pushing the left or right mouse buttons for the correct selection. At the end of each voting, an audio voice will confirm the names of what has just been selected. Corrections can be made if so desired.

For more information, please call toll free 1-888-636-0581.
E-mail: roger@image-mail.net
Millennium Year 2000 Solution Company
110 Habersham Drive, Suite 365
Fayetteville, GA 30214
(770) 371-5158
1-888-636-0581

Audio: Sequoia's Audio Voting Accessory provides blind and visually impaired voters, physically impaired voters, and voters with reading limitations an easy way to vote independently using a spoken, audio ballot format. The ballot can be recorded in multiple languages. The Audio Voting Accessory plugs into the AVC Edge voting machine and consists of a keypad, headphones, a wheelchair strap, and a carrying case for transport and storage.

Commonly Asked Questions:

Is audio voting private and secure?

Yes. The control unit is equipped with a standard headphone jack and optional headphones are provided (or the voter can use his/her own) for navigating through the audio ballot and making ballot selections. Voter selections and changes are not displayed on the Edge voting machine while the Audio Voting accessory is in use.

How will voters in wheelchairs use your system?

Sighted voters in wheelchairs can easily vote on the Edge with a simple adjustment of the touch screen to the lower, vertical position. Blind and visually impaired voters in wheel chairs can vote using the Audio Voting Accessory, which the poll worker will provide, to vote without assistance.

Is Sequoia's Edge Audio Voting Accessory ADA compliant?

Sequoia based its design for the Edge Audio Voting Accessory on the human interface standards specified by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, button size on the keypad is based on the standard button size for elevators, and buttons have raised Braille and pictograms and are shaped according to their function.

What disability groups have evaluated your product and what were their findings?

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) evaluated a prototype Audio Voting Accessory early in 2000. Their opinion was that it was a good product for those with visual and physical impairments, and they encouraged Sequoia to carry the design through to completion. Sequoia Voting Systems is working with various organizations for the blind and visually and physically impaired in an ongoing effort to perfect the design of its Audio Voting Accessory into the most accessible product on the market.

Is access for disabled voters available on every Edge voting machine or only on special units?

Most jurisdictions provide at least one Edge touch screen voting machine with an Audio Voting accessory at each polling place. Any Edge can be so equipped.

What is the additional cost to counties to provide access for disabled voters?

The additional cost for the Audio Voting accessory for the Edge is $200-$300 per unit, depending on the quantity ordered.

How are the audio files produced and what types are available?

Audio files can be produced by recording a human voice reading the ballot or through the use of synthesized voice programs. Numerous facilities located throughout the United States that routinely provide recordings for the blind are available to make these recordings, and many jurisdictions use their own court certified translators to make their recordings.

Will audio files be available in multiple languages?

Yes. The audio files can be provided in any language. Which languages are provided is determined by the jurisdiction.

Sequoia Pacific
AVC Advantage System
811 North Main Street
P.O. Box 1399
Jamestown, NY 14702-1399
Phone: (716) 487-0161
Web site: Sequoia's

Welcome to the Next Generation of Audio Ballot -- Easy to Use, Multi-lingual Support, No Extra Cost. The Shoup Voting Solution has equipped its latest model of touch screen based voting station with a new audio ballot. It is easy to use, supports multiple languages, and there is no extra cost.

* Touch Screen: The touch-screen-based voting station eliminates all the unnecessary buttons and dials. The voter just touches the screen to activate a certain function. For the audio ballot the touch screen is divided into four quarters, the top left, the top right, the bottom left and the bottom right. The blind voter can easily locate the four quarters by following the edge of the frame around the screen.

* Specific Functions for each quarter: To assist the blind voter navigating through the ballot, each quarter is assigned a unique function. The top left quarter is for selection, the top right quarter for the next screen (or cast the ballot), the bottom right quarter for the next item in the list, and the bottom left quarter for the previous item in the list. (An item can be an office, a candidate, or a referendum question option.)

* The Language Selection screen: The audio ballot starts with the Language Selection screen. The voter needs only to tap the bottom right quarter to enumerate all the supported languages. For now the voter can select either English or Spanish by tapping the top left quarter. More languages will be supported in the near future.

* The Ballot screen, the Office Contest screen and the Referendum screen: The voter taps the top right quarter of the Language Selection screen for the Ballot screen. Tap the bottom right quarter to enumerate all the contests and referendum items. Tap the bottom left quarter to revisit the previous item. Tap the top left quarter to select that contest or the referendum. In the Office Contest screen or the Referendum screen tap the bottom right quarter to enumerate all the candidates for the office or all the options for the referendum. Tap the top left quarter to select an item. Tap the top right quarter to return to the Ballot screen. Tap the top right quarter of the Ballot screen for the Review screen.

* The Review screen: The blind voter is prompted to review the ballot before casting it. If the voter declines to review his/her selections, just tap the top right quarter to cast the ballot. Otherwise tap the top left quarter to return to the Ballot screen. Now the voter is free to browse the ballot and change his/her selections.

* The Write-in screen: If the ballot supports write-ins for an office, the blind voter may do so in the write-in screen. Tap the bottom right quarter to enumerate the alphabets and space. Tap the top left quarter to select the alphabet. Tap the top right quarter to accept the write-in candidate's name and return to the Ballot screen.

* No Extra Cost: The audio ballot is an integral part of the Shoup voting station. Every voting station supports blind access. There is no extra cost involved.

SHOPE VOTING SOLUTIONS
Contact: Kimberlee Shoup-Yeahl
(972) 731-8901 (Main)
(267) 259-1613 (Cell)

The heart of the SureVote telephone voting solution, SurePhone, is that each voter gets their own unique ballot containing two PIN codes for each candidate; the voter first enters one of the codes (the VoteCode) over the phone to securely and privately vote for the candidate; then the other code (the SureCode) is read back to and checked by the voter so that the voter can know for sure that their actual choice was correctly received. (Someone tapping into the line, since they would not know your unique codes, cannot learn your vote, change your vote, or falsely convince you that your vote was counted.)

Of course one of the first things that the system asks you to key in using the touch-tone keys is the ballot serial number, so that it can recognize your unique codes. The toll-free phone number can be accessed from anywhere for absentee voting or even from a cellular or other phone at a polling place. At specially equipped polling places, however, each booth has a telephone, but these are connected to computerized voice-response-system equipment in the polling place so that no actual outside phone line is needed.

Ballots for the sighted are printed, each with their own serial number and unique codes. Braille ballots contain exactly the same information, organized in a convenient tabular form. (Special thanks to Norm Gardner of the Brice Center for his assistance with this aspect of the system.) For those who prefer, a ballot on tape is also available, where each cassette is simply a professionally narrated but computer-edited form of the same information as the other ballot forms. Any of the three types of ballots can be mailed out to the appropriate requesting voter, and can be used for absentee voting. In all SurePhone systems, localities can provide their voters a choice of languages narrated by native speakers. You can try out a basic SurePhone demo by calling 1 (877) SUR-VOTE and using the demonstration ballot number: 52234. One VoteCode for that ballot is 9323 and its corresponding SureCode is 8020. Codes for another office include VoteCode 7047 and SureCode 6927. Full sample demonstration ballots, whether printed, Braille, or tape are available from SureVote and can be requested by email to info@surevote.com.
For more information about the SureVote telephone voting solution, contact David Chong at (818) 512-1024.

UniLect has developed the "Freedom" unit for the blind or visually impaired so that they may vote unassisted. At the voting location, a FREEDOM unit attaches to our Precinct Control Unit in the same manner as our standard Touch-Screen voter unit. The impaired voter uses a set of earphones and the ballot is verbally read to the voter. In front of the voter is our FREEDOM unit consisting of four raised figures and a standard computer keyboard. These figures are: round, square, large arrow to right, large arrow to the left. The impaired voter can feel these figures and uses the push button inside each figure to register their selection. The round figure is to select a candidate, the square figure is to change their selection, the right arrow is to advance one office in the ballot and the left arrow is to go back one office in the ballot. A write-in name may be entered by using the keyboard on the FREEDOM unit. Each letter entered is confirmed back to the voter after a letter is entered by a voter. As the voter makes a selection (pushing the round button), a recorded voice confirms the selection before going to the next office. At the end of the ballot, the voter then pushes the round button to "cast their ballot" or the voter may review all of selections by pushing the square button. When the voter is satisfied with the selections, the ballot is cast by pushing the round button. The impaired voter's selections are recorded in the Control Unit in the same manner as the other voters using the Touch-Screen.

Headphones allow spoken instructions and ballot information to be heard and acted upon by each blind voter, from beginning to end.

Each voter only needs to recognize four shapes to complete their ballot.

Every candidate name and party within each office is heard prior to voter's selection.

No voice synthesis is used in order to correctly pronounce candidate names.

The keyboard is used only to enter write-in names.

Each office and candidate is only spoken once per county or city.

UniLect Corporation
7080 Donlon Way
Suite 220
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 833-8660

Here are some questions to keep in mind when discussing accessible voting equipment with vendors.

1. Is your equipment certified in my state?

2. If so, is the access package certified?

3. If the voting system and/or access package are not certified, is the company actively participating in the state certification process?

4. In what other states is your equipment certified?

5. In what municipalities is your equipment being currently used? (Note: Contact several of the municipalities referenced and be sure to determine the length of time and scope of the system used. Each voting entity, city or county, has an office of supervisor of elections. Someone in that office will be in a position to verify the information that you have been given.)

6. The supervisor of elections from my county is considering presenting a bid from your company to the county commissioners. What funding incentive is your company prepared to offer for the additional purchase of the access package?

7. If your county or city has recently purchased an optical scan system and changes to a touch screen, and direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system is not in the immediate future, ask the supervisor of elections which company manufactures the system. Then contact the company and ask whether the manufacturer also provides a touch screen system and if the computer systems that run both systems are compatible.

8. When participating in a demonstration, assure yourself that the voting system will allow you to cast a secret, independent and verifiable ballot. In other words, be sure that you can use the system without assistance once you have begun the voting process. Be sure that the system allows you to verify your choices and, if necessary, to change any of them. Be sure, too, that the system provides an audible cue to inform you that you have cast your ballot.

9. Determine the intuitive nature of the system. Can someone you know and care about who has little or no computer experience learn the system at the polling place and use it to cast a secret, independent, verifiable ballot?

10. Ask if the system provides multi-language and print font size options.

11. Seek a complete description of the access options for individuals with physical disabilities. Ask specific questions about machine positioning options to meet the access needs of people who use wheelchairs. Gain at least a basic understanding of the operating mechanism for people with little or no use of their hands and arms. If you are uncertain as to the viability of this access, seek the opinion of individuals with physical disabilities because access to the secret ballot for all American citizens is moral and essential and ultimately serves to strengthen our cause.

Melanie Brunson:

"The voting systems are very intuitive in terms of knowing how to proceed. However, some of them provide too much instruction. There should be a way to select the amount of instruction needed and then to move easily through information without having to hear material that you do not need to hear. It's important to remember that making this kind of information available audibly is new to the manufacturers of voting equipment and they aren't exactly sure how much ought to be provided. The write-in process is doable but is, in most cases, very cumbersome and time-consuming in that you go through the alphabet and choose one letter at a time of the chosen candidate's name. Having seen some of the earlier models of these systems, and having seen what is now available, I see that all of the manufacturers have made some very positive changes. I am quite pleased. There are some really good voting systems out there."

Penny Reeder, after seeing one accessible voting system, said:

"I put on the earphones and voted, independently! 'Buy it, buy it,' I urged the county decision-makers. Since 1964, I have wanted to vote independently, and here's the perfect mechanism for doing so! Many of us dare to believe that, by the next time we vote for a United States Chief Executive, we may be able to do it independently, with an excellent system."

Abby Vincent, after using one system, said:

"I used the machines in Los Angeles County available during the absentee voting period in November 2000. Unless you very badly wanted to write in a candidate, the whole experience was very satisfactory."

Ardis Bazyn, after using one system, said:

"I like the system immensely. It is voter-friendly. You can read each choice twice if you wish but may jump to the next choice if you prefer. It also repeats each choice you make so you can change it if it's not correct or if you change your mind. Since it uses the arrangement of the phone touch system, it is easy to use."

Sheila Styron, after using one system, said:

"It was a real thrill to be able to vote independently with this system, and since the conclusion of the pilot project, having to seek pollsters' help when voting has been depressing to say the least."

Charlie Crawford:

"Whether it was the voice mail type system combined with the classic touch pad attached to a computerized voting system or a dial and select system voicing candidate choices on the e-Slate machine, it all added up to one thing. I voted and I voted in secret. Some might call it a miracle, but for my part, I call it democracy."

Charles S. P. Hodge:

"I had a first in my lifetime, utterly novel and unique experience today. I went to vote today in the statewide gubernatorial election in Virginia at my usual voting precinct at the Claremont School in Arlington County, Virginia. Much to my surprise and amazement, at my voting place, there was a demonstration voting machine with headphones and audio output for use by blind and vision impaired voters. After I tried the demonstration ballot on the demonstration machine and received some rudimentary training and acclimation to the technology, I was asked whether I felt confident enough to attempt to cast my actual ballot in today's election by using one of the audio output equipped voting machines. Naturally, I jumped at the chance. I was able to navigate my way through the ballot completely by myself without any sighted assistance whatsoever, and at the bottom of the ballot, the machine walked me through the review process so that I could check for myself the selections which I had made. After going through the review process and reassuring myself that all of my selections had been properly recorded, I punched the final vote button on the machine. I have been voting regularly in every election since 1968, and today, for the very first time after thirty-three years of voting experience, I was able to cast my own independent, truly secret, confidential and verifiable vote for the very first time in my life without any intervening sighted assistance. This was a very unique and wonderful thrill."

Debbie Grubb:

"I was the first blind person in the State of Maryland to cast a secret ballot in an election. In 1996, Baltimore County agreed to initiate a pilot program in one precinct to enable people who are blind and visually impaired to have access to the optical scan ballot. Any blind or visually impaired resident of Baltimore County who wished to could cast his/her vote in that precinct in order to participate in the program. The process used was much like the method mandated in the Texas Election Code presented here except that the ballot information was presented in a Braille booklet. The poll worker put the ballot into the folder and frame right side up, gave me the booklet and special pen and I was on my own. I guess that those who value civil rights the most are those to whom they have been denied. I felt completely empowered as I made my choices in secret and with confidence that my choices were actually appearing on the ballot. When it was over, I rose to place my ballot into the box that would allow it to be scanned into the machine. As I had been waiting my turn to vote, I heard several error messages and instructions to individuals to try again. When my ballot entered the machine, I heard that little beep that said 'success!'. I said, 'Hallelujah!' and that word went all over the Baltimore metropolitan area as the presenting of my ballot was filmed. When I voted in 2000, I was back in kindergarten. My husband and I sat at a table with a very nice poll worker who acted as though we were precocious children. Anyone who cared to, heard our ballot choices. We had no assurance that our choices actually made it to the paper of the optical scan ballot. We can win this one! Technology exists to provide everyone wanting to vote with access to the secret ballot. We must advocate and educate and stand firm and claim what is already ours!"

In the overview, we talked about the fact that voting issues are handled at the local, state and federal levels. This section will generalize about what each level does and will suggest approaches that can be taken. Unquestionably, primary responsibility for the conduct of elections rests at the local level so it is there that we will start. One quick warning needs to be taken to heart. Each level will blame each other level for their inability to help which is why we must be active at all levels. You will very often hear how sympathetic a given level is. "We really understand what you want and are all in favor but, you see, another level is where the changes have to be made. Until you can do that, we can't help you." Sometimes this is actually true. Your approach must be to seize the opportunity and insist that the level with which you are dealing makes the changes you want and leave influencing the other level up to you and your allies. Don't let the various levels say that they must wait till other levels act. Be pleasant but insistent that the level with which you are dealing do what it can so that it will be taking the lead in doing the right thing. In general, you will get a lot further by selling all levels on their opportunity to become the level that makes the secret ballot a reality for blind people. The local level is where the rubber meets the road. Local government has to buy the equipment. They have to set up the polling places and publish most of the materials surrounding the election. They are the people who register voters most of the time. There are so many approaches that are taken throughout the United States to handling elections that it is difficult to generalize in this section. You will need to ask a lot of questions so that you have a clear idea of just how your county does things. These things you can expect. There will be two areas with which you will have to work. One involves the elected officials who pass county ordinances. The second area involves those employed by the county who must put together the elections. You have to deal with both groups because it will do no good to persuade the election department that you are right only to have the appropriation for your machines turned down by the commissioners. This is one of those times when alliances are often valuable. The touch screen systems have the potential to make voting easier for those who are illiterate or learning disabled and also for people whose second language is English. It is actually possible to make the ballot available in two or more languages using this system. This means that the adoption of touch screen systems will often be supported by a much larger group than you might expect. Actually, it might even be supported by the elected crew as well. They may see or be made to see the touch screen system as a way of mobilizing a much larger cadre of voters than currently cast ballots. It is worth remembering that many local elections only persuade 10 or 20 percent of eligible voters to turn out, and even presidential elections only attract just over fifty percent of the electorate. Politicians at all levels may well buy any argument that will make it possible to broaden participation significantly. Your best approach begins with information gathering. Your next step involves developing a plan. Decide what you are going to demand. This decision will be based on your assessment of what you can sell and on what you can persuade the coalition you build to support. In trying to decide what to push, it is difficult to be specific. For the moment, let us talk about two scenarios. If your jurisdiction has recently purchased a new system, you are unlikely to persuade them to scrap it. Your approach must center on the provision of a single alternative machine in each precinct. Essentially you will stress the need for access for blind people that supercedes the acquisition of a new system. You should, of course, stress the other constituencies that this machine can impact. There are real difficulties with this approach. The county will undoubtedly say that the state requires that a single system be adopted in each jurisdiction. See the state section for more detail on this issue. This is the spot where you must be most persuasive. Focus on history, morality and, only third on the law. History should focus on low turn-outs, mechanical errors and the availability of safer and more secure alternatives. Morality should focus on the need for every citizen to have access to the secret ballot. Now blind people have a chance to truly vote independently and privately which is the way everyone else does it. For an analysis of the legal situation, see the final section of this report. If you must, consider prioritizing accessible machines in precincts that are easy for blind people to get to and that are accessible to public transit. One machine per voting place is not an unreasonable demand, though, so stick to your guns as long as you can. We think that you will be faced more usually with the scenario where the county will be making a decision to buy new equipment. You should offer your organization's help to persuade state and federal lawmakers to subsidize these purchases. You should begin with the proposal that touch screen systems that are accessible be the only ones considered. You may not be able to maintain this position because of the huge cost differential and may be forced back to a proposal similar to that outlined in the previous scenario. Remember to stress that optical scanning has a much higher ongoing expense than does touch screen technology. Also be sure to have members of your coalition ready to push the touch screen option based on how much more accessible it is to people other than those who are blind. Whichever scenario you work with, remember that your job does not begin or end with the adoption of a particular system. If there are task forces or citizen participation groups surrounding elections, ask to participate. If there are advisory boards, be there. Remember that you have the potential to sell ACB because it can work for things with the local election entity at the state and federal levels. Remember that you should not be focusing solely on voting machines. You want to create model access to all elements of the electoral process. This means that you should work on registration, document availability and precinct access. If polling places are set up away from bus lines or where potentially problematic crossings of busy main streets are required, these placements should be questioned in terms of their accessibility. Don't focus on whether you could get there but on whether a member of your chapter less capable than you can do it!

Take a good hard look at the county ordinances and see whether they need to be amended. If you can get explicit language into local laws about the rights of all citizens to a secret ballot, you substantially increase your chances of getting the county to do what you want. Also, the more explicit the law is regarding accessibility of polling places and the electoral system, the easier it will be to get a court to uphold your rights. The degree to which state governments get involved in policing local elections and county procedures varies a lot from state to state. Once again, you will need to do some research. Most of the state laws are available on line now and you should be able to download them. If you can't find them or access them, contact our national office and we will help you. To oversimplify a bit, the state has three major roles. First, they are responsible for overseeing state elections in the way that the county oversees local ones. Second, they are responsible for developing standards that will apply to all elections held in the state. Third, as a subset of such standards, most states certify the voting machines that are allowed in each state. Clearly, then, some of the interventions we need to make at the state level are the same as those at the local level. We need to be certain that documents are available in accessible formats; we need to be certain that supplemental and actual ballot information is available in a form we can use; and we need to try to incorporate into state laws and regulations language that will strengthen us in the event of a court challenge.

The element that needs special attention in this document is the machine certification process. Many states have taken an extremely active role in determining what machines counties will use. In some cases this is because of their legal mandate to do so. Far more often, it is because it is far easier for a state to deal with a single system or approach to elections. Later in this paper, you will see that Florida set up a task force on electoral reform which ended up coming out strongly in support of optical scanning systems as the best solution for this state. We have fought an uphill battle to get this changed and, as you will see later, have succeeded. Nevertheless, even though there was no legal mandate for their decision, the state chose to play a significant role in the determination of what systems counties could even look at. We strongly believe that the arbitrary decision by the state to champion one system over another constitutes a violation of the local autonomy of counties. We also believe it can potentially violate the ADA unless they can demonstrate that the system they are choosing to advocate for is fully accessible. The position that we should take is that local jurisdictions should have the right to choose the system that seems best to them. Since they must have a range of choices available to them, we must also work with the states to make sure that a broad range of machines are certified.

We must monitor and be prepared to intervene at all levels of the certification process. We should ask to see the documents that are being used to invite requests to certify machines. If possible, we should try to be certain that access is included in the certification parameters. We must also monitor how the certification documents are being handled. We cannot stress too much that we cannot and should not trust companies with accessible systems to do the right thing. We are an afterthought. Every company wants certification in every state. They will therefore submit the proposal that they believe affords them the best opportunity of meeting what they take to be the preferences of the state. This very, very often means that they do not even include their certification information about access in their proposal. The net result of their effort is, unless we are vigilant, that we end up with machines certified and access elements not mentioned. This means that the state is rubberstamping and authorizing equipment that does not include accessibility elements which, in turn, means that counties are free to adopt without them as well. There will be some pressure applied by some companies to have your organization come out in favor of their machine and their machine only. We do not recommend this. It might be tempting but, in the long run, it ties you to a horse that is as yet unproven. We want to stress that accessible voting systems are brand new and do not have a track record. Over time, one company may emerge as the best but this will not happen for at least a decade and that company may well be the one that is prepared to continue to make their system better while others sit quietly on their laurels. It is far too soon to put our money on any horse no matter how good it looks in the paddock. None of these machines have yet run the race. Before summarizing our state approach, there remains one issue. It has already become clear that counties and states will both try to use the argument that a single system must be used in each jurisdiction. They will argue that trying to incorporate touch screen machines from one company with optical scan machines from another is impossible. At the county level you will be told that the state won't allow it. At the state level you will be told that there simply cannot be two different systems because the machines are incompatible. This is just one of a whole range of red herrings you must see past. In the first place, the computer is infinitely malleable. It can emulate anything. The argument that two machines cannot communicate using the same protocols is rubbish. Even were this not true, it isn't our problem. Our issue is access. Our issue is moral, legal and clear. How either the state or the county or the companies accomplish accessibility is their problem. If the state certification documents need to be rewritten so that a standardized protocol that allows for access can be included, so be it. This red herring is just one of many you will have to deal with. Be clear that you are not an expert. Be clear that it has been done elsewhere. Be clear that mere technological incompatibility or any other weighty, technical barrier is irrelevant. The issue must remain focused on the entity's responsibility to allow everyone access to an independent and private ballot. At the state level, then, our approach must be similar to what we have already discussed at the county level. We must participate on task forces and submit written testimony to them as well. We should seek to work directly with legislators who serve on the appropriate committees. We should meet with the head of the state election department at least once a year. We should work closely with state officials as they plan amendments to regulations or new legislation. Use model language from other states. Show your state officials what is happening in states like Florida, Texas, California and Oregon. The best defense against "it can't be done" is that it is being done elsewhere. The federal government has rules for operating federal elections that it administers. For the most part, though, it sees voting as a state and local issue. Over the past 50 years the federal government has become involved in this area only where it saw the need to pass legislation that extended and reinforced the rights of affected individuals to enable them to appropriately cast their votes. Thus, the Voting Rights Act of 1964 was passed because systematic efforts were being made to restrict voting access in some southern states. The Motor Voter Act was passed because it was recognized that people with disabilities have some special problems getting registered to vote. It is worth noting that it is easy to pass laws. It's much harder to enforce them. In a recent General Accounting Office report, it was clear that nearly a majority of all precincts in the country still have accessibility problems. This is in spite of the fact that Voter Access laws have been on the books since 1984. Because federal law takes precedence over state and local laws, any language we can place directly into federal legislation would be invaluable. At the moment, it is likely that federal legislation will pass that will include language about accessible voting. However, it will not mandate accessible machines. Instead it will create financial incentives of some kind that will cover some of the costs of acquiring accessible equipment and making more polling places accessible. It's impossible for us to be more specific at this point because there are still several potential scenarios that are being debated. Clearly ACB must work with federal legislators and regulators to build more and more accessibility language into legislation. We must also seek to participate in Federal initiatives so that we can be certain that our needs are included. Several of the members of this committee participated in a federal task force last year which produced a document that moved the accessibility issue several steps forward. Ultimately, our goal must be to see a federal commission set up that will write standards that state and local jurisdictions will be required to seriously consider when adopting new systems. There is a good deal of support for this approach both from legislators and from the disability community. It is a longer term solution because the standard-setting process is a lengthy one. It must be pursued but so must the work at all the other levels. We have a lot we can accomplish. Our organization has the people who can make a difference. The question is whether we care enough about our right to a secret ballot to devote the time and effort that the job will take. This section has provided some general guidelines of what we need to do and how we can do it. In the following section, you will read about some of the places where things are happening right now so that you will know that it can be done!

If one were to describe the progress toward accessible voting for those with visual impairments in California, perhaps the most applicable metaphor would be that it began with a few individuals trying to push a large boulder down a mountain, and has picked up momentum ever since. A number of blind and visually impaired individuals, including representatives from the California Council of the Blind, began working on this problem approximately 4 years ago. California, like a number of other states, has a constitutional provision guaranteeing its residents the right to vote in secret (Section 7, Article 2, California Constitution). With this amorphous requirement as a legal backdrop, extremely cordial discussions were held with the California Secretary of State's office, and that office even began working with an informal task force on voting access issues, but little real progress was made. However, over the last two years, things have begun moving rapidly in a positive direction. Two years ago, the Secretary of State sponsored its first demonstration of accessible voting equipment, and four vendors attended this event. In the November 2000 general election, Global Elections Systems placed its accessible direct recording electronic systems in pilot locations in two California counties, Los Angeles and Alameda. From the evidence at hand, the blind and visually impaired individuals who voted at these locations were thrilled at the opportunity to vote independently and were pleased at the outcome of their voting experience. At the same election, Riverside County became the first county to conduct a complete countywide election through the exclusive use of a direct recording electronic system. It was the view of county elections officials that touch screen voting represented the most cost-effective voting system, the system that would most effectively enable the county to conduct fair elections, and a system that also was extraordinarily popular with voters. However, because Sequoia's AVC Edge, its accessible component, had not yet been certified in California, people with vision impairments did not have the privilege of engaging in touch screen voting in Riverside County. During the 12 months since that election, much progress has been made. The Secretary of State has determined that California will ultimately be voting exclusively through the use of touch screen technology, and it is hoped that all counties have systems in place by not later than 2006. Moreover, the Secretary of State is committed to ensuring that all voting systems certified in California have accessible components. Although Global Elections Systems and Sequoia are the only two accessible systems certified to date, ES&S and Hart Intercivic are hoping to receive certification in the near future, and other voting systems manufacturers are, or will be, seeking certification. The Secretary of State has also appointed a formal task force on accessible voting for those with visual impairments, and his office works closely with that group as well as with consumer organizations whose members are blind and visually impaired. Riverside County has made a strong commitment to having a sufficient number of AVC Edge devices for use in the March primary election. The Riverside County Registrar of Voters noted that the additional cost of such a device is between $200 and $300, thus destroying the notion, at least in this case, that accessibility for those with visual impairments is an expensive proposition. Alameda County, which includes the city of Oakland, and Los Angeles County, both of which are likely to be using Global Elections Systems throughout, have also made strong commitments to ensure accessible voting for those with visual impairments. Advocacy efforts are also having an impact in other counties. Related to the whole issue of voting access for those who are blind or visually impaired is the fact that a bond issue has been placed on the March 2002 statewide primary election ballot in order to raise revenue to permit modernization of voting systems throughout the state. Because the Secretary of State is committed to ensuring that accessible voting is a part of each county's modernization efforts, the availability of this revenue would be extremely beneficial to our cause. Finally, after discussions with the Secretary of State, Avante is working on the design of a pilot online registration system for those who are blind or visually impaired. Efforts of this type will hopefully lead to an increase of registration among people who are blind or visually impaired. In conclusion, although there is much work to be done in order to ensure the right of all blind and visually impaired Californians to cast a secret ballot, there is also growing optimism that the achievement of that goal may, in the not too distant future, become a reality.

Texas law sets forth standards for access to polling places and precinct conventions as well as access to the voting process itself. Currently certified voting methods include early voting by mail, optical scan and touch screen systems. By law, voting systems purchased after September 1, 1999 must provide a practical and effective means for a voter with a physical disability to cast a secret ballot. In some communities where optical scan systems are used, elections officials have determined that it is "practical and effective" for voters who are blind or visually impaired to rely on the assistance of a live reader for marking the ballot. In others, voters are offered an audiotaped ballot which they can read, accompanied by a template which they can use to mark the ballot. You will note that such methods do not meet the standard set forth in ACB resolution 2001-12, that the voter shall have a reliable means of privately and independently verifying each selection and should be able to correct an unintended selection. It was pointed out in the equipment section of this manual that at least one manufacturer of optical scan voting systems has begun providing a speech interface, so that blind and visually impaired voters can use the same equipment used by other voters. Demand for other manufacturers to begin providing speech interfaces for new equipment, as well as a means of retrofitting optical scan equipment which is already in use will increase, as blind and visually impaired voters in communities using the outdated methods described above begin to speak out. This will give local elections officials an incentive to move toward greater access. Some communities in Texas have already begun using touch screen voting systems, and many of these are accessible. It is our hope that with greater contact between blind and visually impaired voters and elections officials, use of these systems will increase in Texas. In any case, we will continue to work toward creating much higher expectations with regard to what constitutes a "practical and effective" means of casting a ballot, so that blind and visually impaired voters will have the same degree of independence and privacy when they vote as do other voters.

After the disastrous 2000 election it was clear that Florida would be among the first to clean house. Thus in January 2001, Governor Bush convened his task force. Several blind people appeared, but in spite of our appeals, the task force included no disability recommendations and favored optical scan voting systems which lacked accessibility features. The resulting voting reform legislation passed by the Florida legislature in the spring of 2001 was no more disability-friendly. Consequently, by April 2001, many of us felt that the battle was already lost. In spite of our best efforts, it seemed that Florida was determined to do the wrong thing. But rather than giving in, we persisted. The Florida Council of the Blind and individual chapters wrote strong letters and resolutions which we submitted to officials in Tallahassee and locally. We got other disability interest groups and individuals to join in our mission to obtain voting accessibility. By late May we began meeting with state election officials and pushing for a commitment to convene a special task force to explore voting access for people with disabilities. It's important to understand that FCB did not obtain this commitment by itself. We built coalitions with others, and we made sure that we would have adequate representation on the task force. In fact, there were three FCB members who served on the task force. We also worked for and got a commitment from the Division of Elections to: (1) draft regulations focusing on standards for accessibility, (2) inform counties of an obligation to purchase only voting systems which included accessibility features, and (3) work to encourage obstinate vendors to seek and obtain certification of their accessible voting components. The task force by itself would never have been enough. While local chapters kept pressure on county governments, we worked with manufacturers and the state Division of Elections to make certain that voting machines with accessibility features were certified. The certification process has been fraught with difficulty. Accessible voting system standards had to be developed. Many companies having accessibility components failed to include them in their initial requests for certification. And today, a year later, many are still refusing to go forward with certification or continue product development of their accessible components. Hence, our work must go on. We were afraid that, regardless of the outcome of the Task Force on Accessible Voting, there would be no certified machines for counties to purchase. We have made some progress with certification; many counties have now purchased certified accessible machines. We continue applying pressure on the manufacturers -- many still refuse to pursue certification, believing it is unnecessary or that their accessible products are not yet developed enough to be certified. More importantly, without our pressure and education, state officials simply would not have known enough to make good decisions. At the same time by threatening to sue, outside forces have frequently tried to interfere with our accomplishments with the Division of Elections, local officials and vendors. It's important to build cooperative relationships and thus far we have, but we were very concerned that people were interested in suing in Florida for the wrong reasons. We certainly believe that there are times when litigation is the only answer. In Florida, with election accessibility poised on the cusp of success or failure, we feared that a suit would upset all the careful relationship building we had done. We would have supported suing counties acquiring new voting systems which lacked accessibility features, but we strongly contended that the state should be left out of such a suit because it was demonstrating a strong commitment to doing the right thing. Imagine our horror when we learned that a suit had been filed against Jacksonville and the State of Florida. We were then necessarily required to react by going to great efforts to disassociate ourselves from the suit and those who filed it. Based on this experience, we must remind everyone that groups appearing friendly may well have their own agenda -- sometimes your worst enemies are those who say that they are your best friends. Our presence on and commitment to the work of the task force was significant and meaningful. It is important for us as people who are blind or visually impaired to be seen and observed working to accomplish the accessibility and equality in voting that we have argued so strongly for over the past year. We worked to be heard, to take part in presentations and dialogue, suggesting, debating and editing. We did not sit back and allow others to fight for the advancement of our rights. We were there, we were heard, and we made a meaningful difference. The initial version of the final report of the accessibility task force was not good. After voicing objections and complaints, the group was reconvened to work on rewriting and editing. The final report is now out and has a lot to recommend it. It includes: (1) accessibility requirements and guidelines for both voting systems and polling places, (2) some suggested guidelines for mandatory poll worker training on disability sensitivity and etiquette, (3) suggested changes in the voting process to increase voter registration and voter participation, (4) requirements for improved access to official election and candidate information, (5) recommendations for the creation of a Disability Advisory Council, (6) a brief discussion of funding sources, and (7) proposed legislative changes to implement its recommendations. Although not fully resolving the dilemma for counties which are using optical scan and touch screen systems which do not have accessible components, the report strongly recommended that all polling places in Florida have at least one accessible voting system. The Final Report of the Secretary of State's Select Task Force, released January 14, 2002, can be found at Florida Department of State - Elections.
The group worked through the issues and significantly improved the knowledge and sensitivity of legislators who are now sponsoring major voting reform legislation in Florida's House and Senate which mirrors the recommendations contained in the task force report. SB1504 is sponsored by Senator Richard Mitchell and HB1645 is sponsored by Representative Larry Crow. We are by no means done. We are hopeful that the legislature will pass legislation that will finally guarantee voting access for people with disabilities. We have had input into that language and are cautiously confident that our legislators will do the right thing. Many counties in Florida have already done the right thing. We are convinced that many more will follow as more and more Florida counties recognize that we will not go away. In the long run, we are sure that we will triumph. Among other things, we believe this is true because of the Florida Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the right to a secret ballot. That we did not discover this constitutional requirement until after the task force began to meet shows how important it is to do your research and homework as early in the process as you can. This constitutional provision represents a powerful argument for our success thus far, and it is a strong mandate for the needed legislative reform. In January 2002, Florida's largest county, Miami-Dade, acquired an accessible voting system at a cost of $24.5 million. It joins a significant number of Florida counties that have decided that a touch screen system with accessibility is the right way to go. We were as successful as we have been in Florida because of the hard work of task force members Robert Miller, Debbie Grubb and Jim Kracht. Many others have also worked on this project, especially at the local level. Our last two state conventions included presentations on voting access, which prepared our members to do battle. This process has not been easy or without disappointments, and we still have a lot of work to do. But many counties in Florida will have accessible voting for the 2002 general election. We are not done. We cannot ease up. Now we must work with the legislature to make sure that it passes strong legislation implementing the well-reasoned recommendations of the task force on accessibility. We must work with state officials to be sure that they enforce the laws that are passed. We must keep working with county officials to make sure that blind people are registered to vote and properly trained to use accessible voting machines as they are acquired. We must work to ensure that all Florida counties acquire at least one accessible voting system in every polling place and that every polling place is accessible to people with disabilities. With the persistence of the many that have worked on this project, we have come a long way. Florida is well on the way to becoming a model for the rest of the country. The Florida Council of the Blind deserves much credit for this success. Hard work, negotiation, compromise and patience have gotten us where we are. Their continuation can only bring about legislation, regulations, local implementation, and ongoing collaboration which will give our great beginning a truly magnificent ending.

While other states provide absentee ballots by mail for individual voters who cannot come to their respective precinct polling places on election day, Oregon is currently the only state in the union that has gone the whole way toward conducting elections solely by mail-in ballots, without any use of neighborhood polling places whatsoever on election day. Ballot-by-mail elections represent both a boon and a bane to blind and low-vision voters, wishing to independently cast a truly secret, verifiable ballot. On the plus side, such ballots can be completed in the privacy of one's home with a selected reader of one's choice, allowing for an in-depth examination and re-examination of all relevant election candidate and issue literature, until the voter feels sufficiently well-informed about each candidate or issue on a particular ballot to make what that voter considers the best possible choice. Oregon state election officials have even indicated that, if requested, counties can provide ballot reading assistance to those non-visual voters who do not have readily available reader assistance to use in completing a mail-in ballot. On the negative side, though, is the unavoidable fact that such a non-visual voter is still relying on another person to fill out a paper ballot on his or her behalf. When any voter requires the help of another to complete his or her ballot, that voter has no certainty about the exact choices made on his or her ballot, since the actual work of ballot completion of such a mail-in election's paper ballot is being done by another's hand. To at least partially offset this uncertainty over lack of ballot choice certainty, Marion County, Ore., which includes Salem, the state capital, has created a tactile ballot. While a non-visual voter cannot verify the choices made on his or her ballot, at least each voter is making those choices by his or her own hand. Marion County's tactile paper mail-in ballot solution consists of a two-sided, cardstock paper overlay into which the paper ballot is inserted. Both the ballot and the overlay into which it is inserted each have a single cut corner, to insure proper ballot orientation. Columns of oval-shaped holes indicate the exact positions of each ballot choice. A specific choice is selected by inserting a pencil into the appropriate hole and making a mark directly onto the paper ballot. The overlay contains horizontal raised lines to indicate the beginning and ending of each voting contest area on the ballot. The overlay contains a vertical line, to separate left-column choices from right-column choices. Both the front and back sides of the ballot each have a separate set of ballot choices. An included audio tape takes the non-visual voter step by step through the entire voting process. For example, the script for the 1998 Marion County, Ore. general election tactile ballot audio instruction tape is eight pages long. The tape even has detailed instructions for placing the voter's signature on the correct place in the envelope for submission by return mail. Thus, the whole process can be completed without any sighted assistance. The instructions even indicate a ballot area for inserting write-in candidates' names, for those non-visual voters with sufficient handwriting skill. If one must complete a paper ballot to vote independently, the Marion County tactile vote-by-mail paper ballot would seem to be the closest thing to true independent voting that can be devised.

In the state of Maryland as in other states, the drive to improve the electoral process is complex. Shortcomings in systems requirements, policies and procedures were demonstrated in the election of 2000, and shortly after that election, Maryland's governor established a special task force to study the types of equipment we currently use, and how these compare to more modern solutions, and to determine how Maryland's election policies and procedures may impact each citizen's ability to cast an independent vote. The Special Committee on Voting Systems and Procedures held several public forums where they heard from many interested citizens and organizations. As part of the formal presentations to this committee, individuals testified on the current state of Maryland's voting technology and how it compares with more current solutions. The special committee also made recommendations concerning how to finance acquisition and implementation of any new technologies which might be recommended. The subcommittees that dealt with election policies and procedures also attempted to define standards for ensuring fairness for processes involving absentee voting and provisional balloting. According to the State Board of Elections, the current technology certified in Maryland includes optical scan voting systems (19 counties), mechanical lever voting machines (3 counties), and one punch card system. After January 1, 2002, the mechanical lever voting machines will be decertified and the punch card technology will also be discontinued. Maryland still plans to continue its use of the optical scanner technology for absentee ballots. To use a mechanical lever machine, an individual enters a voting booth and pulls a lever, which corresponds to a candidate's name. The vote is recorded on paper strips when the voter pulls the curtain handle to leave the booth. In the U.S. only 22 percent of precincts still use mechanical lever machines and this percentage is expected to decline in the next few years. These machines have not been manufactured since 1972, and replacement parts are extremely scarce. In addition, the paper strips needed in these machines are difficult to produce and the printers that can produce them are quickly becoming obsolete. These paper strips cannot be used in a paper audit, so therefore there is no paper trail that can be used if an election is contested. These machines can weigh up to 800 pounds and are difficult to store and service. Although voters for the most part are comfortable with these machines, their use in Maryland elections will be discontinued. For persons with disabilities, especially blind and low-vision voters, this system is completely inaccessible. If a person with a disability wishes to use this system, he or she must sacrifice a desire to have a secret ballot. In Montgomery County, Md., voters must use the DataVote system, which consists of punch cards on which the ballot questions have been printed. A voter punches a hole next to each selected choice. The cards are then sent to a central location where they are tabulated. Nationally, only four percent of precincts use the DataVote system. This system does provide an excellent audit trail and votes can be tabulated very quickly. The system, however, does not allow voters to correct any under-voting or over-voting that might occur from inadvertently punching two selections for the same office. Once again, individuals with disabilities cannot use this system independently. The optical scan system used widely in Maryland involves the use of a special pencil and requires voters to fill in circles or draw arrows which correspond to the choices they wish to make. Each ballot is fed into a tabulator, which reads and records the marks on the page and stores the ballot in a secure location. This voting procedure has the advantage of providing a very good audit trail but can be very temperamental if the ballot is not marked properly or there are stray marks on the form. In addition to not being disability-friendly, this method mandates that the voter use a special pencil to fill out the ballot. Once a ballot is cast there is no way for the voter to go back and correct for over-votes. Direct recording electronic voting (DRE) systems represent an innovative and exciting possibility for localities who want to replace outdated equipment and allow disabled citizens to experience the joy of casting ballots without assistance. These systems allow voters to make selections on a screen by turning a wheel, pressing a button, or touching the screen in a given location. After a selection has been made a voter can confirm the selection by hitting a submit button which stores the ballot in the pc memory or hard drive. Ballots can be designed to appear on one screen or multiple screens. At the present time only about seven percent of the precincts in the U.S. use the direct recording electronic voting systems. Because of their flexibility, ability to show the ballot in foreign languages, and provide keyboard access and voice output to persons with disabilities this system is highly sought after by the disabled community. Another advantage of these DRE systems is the software's ability to warn the voter of a potential over-vote. If a voter tries to over-vote, a dialogue box will pop up warning the voter that his or her action is incorrect; then the voter is prompted to go back to the spot of the over-vote and correct the ballot. When a voter reaches the end of the ballot, the software presents a summary of all the votes cast and ask one more time for confirmation before the ballot is submitted. This ability to confirm choices multiple times before submitting the ballot is a characteristic that only direct recording machines have. Many of these units have the ability to produce a paper ballot if one is needed so an audit trail is intrinsically available. The direct recording electronic voting systems do have their detractors. Many officials have expressed concerns about the relatively high purchase cost of these new systems and how much training and re-education might be necessary for poll workers, officials and judges before they are comfortable with the new systems. Once an electronic system is certified by Maryland, procedures may be required to assure the citizenry of the system's accuracy. Pre-testing of the software by qualified individuals and post-election testing to insure accuracy will be mandatory. Making poll workers who are familiar with the new system available to assist voters, including people with disabilities, will be very critical to assure that all voters have a successful experience. We congratulate the state of Maryland for requiring that a uniform voting system be procured and for making accessibility one of the deciding elements for the procurement of any system. It is also significant that the Special Committee on Voting Systems and Procedures has reached this decision after much study and debate. It indicates that even though a new system will be costly to implement the benefits derived from this technology will help to insure a more democratic and fair election system. Much research is available that confirms many of the recommendations that the Special Committee has put forward. The State Board of Elections along with its consultants has published The Maryland Voting Systems Procurement Manual. The Federal Election Commission's Office of Election Administration also publishes an excellent series entitled Innovations in Election Administration, which offers comprehensive information on all aspects of election administration. Three helpful volumes relate specifically to the work of the Special Committee; Volume 8 ("Election Document Retention in an Age of High Technology"), Volume 10 ("Ballot Security and Accountability") and Volume 17 ("Acquiring Election Systems and Equipment") can serve as useful resources to jurisdictions making technological advancements in voting systems and equipment. The following items are the recommendations from the Special Committee on Voting Systems and Procedures: The State Board of Elections, in consultation with the local boards of election, should, as soon as possible, move toward the selection and certification of a uniform, mandatory voting system for use in all polling places in all jurisdictions and a uniform absentee voting system in all jurisdictions. The preferred voting system at the polling place should be a Direct Recording Electronic voting system. The preferred absentee ballot voting systems should be an optical scan voting system. A Direct Recording Electronic voting system should meet the following criteria: Present the voter with a ballot where it is easy to recognize all races, candidates, and issues that are to be voted on. (A "full-ballot face" is preferred, however "multi-page ballot" technology (similar to an ATM) may be acceptable if it is clear to voters that several screens must be viewed to complete the ballot and that they are allowed to skip races and issues on which they do not wish to cast a vote.) a) Provide the voter the highest degree of secrecy as practicable when casting his or her ballot. b) Properly record a voter's ballot choices by preventing over-voting and unintentional under-voting. c) Allow for a precinct count of votes as well as future linkage and simultaneous counting at a central location to facilitate reporting. d) Provide the voter an opportunity to review his or her choices and, if necessary, to correct any ballot errors prior to casting the vote. e) Is capable of creating a paper record of all votes cast in order that an audit trail is available in the event of a recount. f) Provide individuals with disabilities the ability to cast a secret ballot and the ability to verify votes being cast. g) Allow, during the pre-election testing of voting systems, a random number of ballots or votes to be tested to ensure accurate tabulation. h) Be available for leasing rather than purchasing in order to take advantage of anticipated technological advances. The state should ensure that the Maryland statewide personal computer contract has the purchase v. lease option as a standard item.

There are a number of barriers that inhibit an increase in the number of blind and visually impaired voters who are able to cast their votes in a private, independent, and verifiable manner. The objectives of this section will be to identify these barriers and discuss how they may be overcome.

Many blind and visually impaired individuals do not desire to vote unless they can do so in a way that will enable them to vote privately and independently. Some do not trust a system under which they must rely upon another person to ensure that their vote is cast in the manner they desire. Others just don't want to put up with the indignity of such an arrangement. It is ACB's goal to bring about an end to the choice between relying upon the assistance of a friend, relative, or election worker, and not casting a vote.

Just as with the public at large, many blind and visually impaired citizens do not realize the importance of exercising their right to vote. The right to elect those whom we desire to make our laws is the underpinning of our democratic system. In addition, groups that flex their muscles at the voting booth will be listened to by the federal, state, and local officials who make the decisions that impact all of us. It is, therefore, essential that we persuade our blind and visually impaired friends and acquaintances that they must exercise their right to vote, and pressure federal, state, and local governments to ensure that we have the right to do so in the same private, independent, and verifiable manner already enjoyed by most Americans.

The lack of knowledge about both our right to cast a secret ballot and the availability of various methods that can enable us to do so is a barrier in two different ways. This lack of knowledge is prevalent both among those of us with visual impairments, as well as among state and local elections officials. We must educate blind and visually impaired people about their right to cast a secret ballot and the various methods that allow us to independently accomplish this task. This educational process must begin at the grassroots level. ACB members can engage in this process in a variety of ways: talking with blind or visually impaired friends and acquaintances on a one-on-one basis, speaking to different types of blindness-related groups, including veterans and seniors organizations and social gatherings, and distributing documents such as this one at every available opportunity. Moreover, even among those blind and visually impaired individuals who are aware of the various methods that make voting accessible to us, there is a certain level of fear about using unknown machines or other types of technology. It is, therefore, crucial that state and local affiliates sponsor demonstrations of accessible voting technologies in order to make both ACB members and non-members alike better informed about the ease of voting using these technologies. In those jurisdictions that have implemented accessible voting systems, whether through the use of direct recording equipment or through other methodologies, evidence indicates that the vast majority of blind and visually impaired persons who have used these systems have been pleased with their ability to vote independently. Although more state and local officials charged with making decisions concerning the voting systems to be used in their states and localities are becoming aware that accessible voting systems for those with visual impairments do exist, many remain unaware of this fact. Furthermore, even among those who have some knowledge of these technologies, many have the mistaken belief that these systems are far too primitive to be effective or to expensive to be a practical component of their voting system. State and local ACB affiliates must work diligently to inform state and local officials that, based upon existing technology, accessible voting for those with visual impairments can, and indeed should, be a reality implemented in an expeditious manner. A method that has proven successful not only in educating state or local elections officials, but also in educating the blind and visually impaired public, is to persuade these officials to sponsor demonstrations of accessible voting systems. When those officials actually observe us using the accessible voting systems and are also provided with the opportunity to ask questions of both vendors and consumers, skeptical attitudes on the part of these officials are often turned into a desire to attempt to implement these systems. In addition, petitions, letter-writing campaigns, telephone calls, and all of the usual methods of informing public officials of your concerns and desires can be very effective in increasing the potential for positive action with respect to the implementation of these systems. Finally, ACB members must be vigilant concerning any state and local meetings wherein this issue will, or might be, a topic of discussion. Since many states and counties are, or will be, purchasing new voting technology within the next few years, we must not let this window of opportunity slip by because we have failed to monitor these activities until decisions have been made that may preclude or hamper the impacted blind and visually impaired community from achieving the results they desire. When we fail to make our desires known to public officials, we should not be surprised when they respond to us by asserting that they are not aware of our interest in accessible voting. It is up to all of us to ensure that this does not happen.

In most states, voting machines or other voting systems cannot be purchased until they have been certified by state elections offic