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 officials. Usually, this official is the Secretary of State. In order to receive certification, a vendor of a product must be able to convince the state that the product meets elections standards and can do what the state deems necessary to ensure that its use will not adversely impact the state's ability to conduct its elections. Currently, only a handful of states have certified systems that permit the casting of secret ballots by those with visual impairments. Even in those states that have certified some accessible systems, few systems are being certified. The certification process is not one which we, as good citizens, should take lightly. Like all voters, we want only those systems that will permit the casting of private, independent, and verifiable ballots. However, as we have discussed, there are a number of available options which states and local governments can use that will achieve this result for those of us with visual impairments. We must, therefore, work to assist vendors of accessible voting systems in their efforts for certification when we believe the product will meet our needs. It is important that we make our views known to state elections officials, either by attendance at certification hearings, or if that is not possible by letter or other means. Our efforts to achieve certification of accessible voting systems would be made far easier to accomplish if the federal government were to adopt mandatory standards requiring that all voting equipment purchased by state or local governments be accessible. If such federal standards were adopted, states would be permitted to certify only those voting systems accessible to people with visual impairments. Thus, we must urge our United States Congressmen and Senators to enact such standards or, in the alternative, to permit such standards to be adopted by the appropriate federal regulatory agency through promulgation of regulations. In the absence of such federal standards, we must advocate for state requirements under which new voting systems can be certified only if they meet accessibility requirements for people with visual impairments. This can be accomplished through state legislation or, depending upon the state's laws on this matter, by action of the Secretary of State.

Whenever we seek to obtain new services from state or local governments, the topic of inadequate funding is a major concern. This is certainly the case with voting systems. However, there are certainly approaches that we can take to attempt to ensure that this obstacle will not prevent us from securing our right to cast a secret ballot.

First, we will continue to seek enactment of a federal grant program that provides funding to states for voting equipment, with requirements that the use of grant funding must be tied to accessible voting systems. It remains to be seen how successful our efforts will be. At this time, it is unclear how much, if any, grant funding Congress will allocate to the states, and to what extent these funds will be tied to voting access requirements for those with disabilities. There are, however, additional funding sources that can be used by state and local governments. One primary example, in those states and counties that have not already committed its use, is monies derived from the recent tobacco settlement litigation, under which every state will be receiving funding for an extended period of time. It is necessary for ACB members in each state to determine whether the use of these funds has already been restricted. If not, ACB affiliates should strongly consider urging that a portion of these funds be used to purchase accessible voting systems. The use of state or local general fund revenues or the levying of special assessments for purposes of obtaining the funds necessary to obtain voting equipment are also potential options. Another strategy that has been used in many places throughout the nation is to urge local governments to take a first step toward greater access by providing a limited number of pilot locations for the placement of accessible voting equipment. This option recognizes the fact that the immediate purchase of accessible voting equipment for every precinct is an expensive proposition, but that immediate action is necessary to begin the process of ultimately permitting all of us with visual impairments to vote at our local polling places. Finally, in addressing the funding issue, there are two important arguments that cannot be overlooked. First, one of the options available to state and local governments is to purchase accessible voting machines that can also be used by all voters. Since states and counties are realizing the need to immediately replace their voting systems, the purchase of accessible systems usable by all voters cannot be said to create a funding burden. Finally, we must remind public officials that we have a right to cast a secret ballot. As good citizens, we need to work with state and local officials to provide whatever assistance and support we can on issues surrounding the installation of accessible voting systems, but ultimately those officials have the responsibility of ensuring that we have the same capacity to cast a private, independent, and verifiable ballot as do all other voters.

Voters routinely receive written materials in the mail that are important to their ability to either participate at all or cast educated votes. Voters are frequently unaware of the holding of elections other than statewide primary or general elections. For example, special elections to fill vacant positions, bond acts, and other types of elections are often held at times other than during the primary or general elections. In order to make voters aware of these elections, some local jurisdictions will mail election notices to voters. Obviously, these notices are not in a format that is accessible to many blind and visually impaired voters. States and many local jurisdictions also provide voter pamphlets as sample ballots that inform voters about those items on the ballot and provide them with a sample ballot to fill out in order to select their choices prior to going into the voting booth. These documents are viewed by most voters as an integral part of the election process, yet in most states those of us with visual impairments have little, if any, access to these materials. There are a number of methods for making these materials accessible to those with visual impairments. First, election officials can routinely mail out tapes, large print, or other versions of such materials to those voters on a list retained by those officials. In addition, these materials may be distributed to entities such as regional libraries or rehabilitation agencies, for distribution to people with visual impairments who request them. These materials may also be placed on telephonic systems available to blind and visually impaired individuals in areas where those systems exist, or on Internet web sites often used by blind and visually impaired people. This list of remedies is not meant to be an exhaustive one, but merely to illustrate some of the methods by which this barrier to voting may be overcome.

Many low-income individuals fail to vote because of an absence of transportation to and from the voting place. For those with visual impairments, many of whom are on fixed incomes, this unavailability of affordable or convenient transportation may present a serious barrier to voting even after accessible voting systems become available. However, there are methods for overcoming this obstacle. First, both major political parties are willing to do whatever is necessary to get their voters to the polls, and this includes the provision of transportation. If we contact the local office of our political party or a candidate's campaign office, we can usually be guaranteed a ride to and from the polls. Secondly, a growing number of jurisdictions have opted to open certain precincts, such as the Office of the Registrar of Voters, prior to Election Day. Frequently, these polling places are open for a week or more. This practice provides us with an enhanced opportunity to make arrangements for transportation. Moreover, when a local government is providing accessible voting equipment only at selected pilot locations, it becomes even more important that we urge that these locations be opened prior to Election Day. For example, in two California counties, Los Angeles and Alameda, accessible locations were established at pilot sites for the November 2000 election. In both instances, voting was permitted at these sites approximately two weeks prior to Election Day.

It will not be an easy task to enable all Americans with visual impairments to vote independently. However, we will be successful in accomplishing this task if we have the will to do so. ACB members must work in every state to ensure that state and local officials will take the actions necessary to permit all of us to cast a private, independent, and verifiable ballot.

It is our hope that this document has given you an idea of the status of accessible voting in this country today, and some reason to look forward to the day when it will be commonplace. By way of conclusion, I want to make a few comments about the status of our advocacy efforts. Three resolutions were passed at the 2001 ACB convention dealing with accessible voting. Resolution 2001-12 urges state affiliates of ACB, and their chapters, to initiate ongoing dialogue with their state and local election officials and, when appropriate, state legislators, for the purpose of making changes to local election laws and procedures which will insure that blind and visually impaired voters in all precincts have access to voting systems that enable them to cast private, independent, and verifiable ballots. This resolution also adopts the following standards for private, independent, and verifiable ballots:

1. A person who is blind or print disabled must be able to complete his or her ballot in a manner which is absolutely private, and consistent with his or her intended selections;

2. During the process of casting the ballot, no assistance from others shall be required, an no election official, or other person, shall be able to view the selections made by the voter; and

3. Every voter shall have a completely reliable means of privately and independently verifying each selection, and shall be able to correct an untended selection.

This resolution points out that nothing in the above standards precludes a blind or visually impaired person from receiving assistance with his or her ballot from a person of their choice, if he or she prefers to do so. Resolution 2001-23 puts ACB on record as supporting legislation which mandates that all states provide access to private, independent, and verifiable ballots for voters who have disabilities, whether or not the state accepts federal funds to pay for the modernization of its election systems and procedures. Resolution 2001-28 establishes an ACB task force on accessible voting to assist members and affiliates of ACB in the development and implementation of strategies to insure that people who are blind or visually impaired will have access to private, independent and verifiable ballots, as described above. These resolutions are the result of an effort to address the issues of accessible voting in a comprehensive manner. They represent a recognition that if we are to obtain meaningful election reform that adequately addresses the needs of voters with visual impairments, we must be engaged at all levels of government where those reforms can be implemented. On the federal level, Resolution 2001-23 sets forth ACB's position on legislation currently under consideration by Congress. This position, put simply, is that ACB favors a federal law requiring that accessible voting systems be made available to voters with visual impairments in all precincts. This resolution, when viewed together with the standards for accessible voting systems in Resolution 2001-12, reiterates a position ACB has held for some time. However, if this position were to be enacted into law, it would represent a major shift in federal election law. The impact would be significant. For one thing, although federal law currently requires that polling places and methods be made accessible to people with disabilities, the only specific method for making the process of voting accessible to people with visual impairments which is referred to in federal law is the use of assistants to help with the marking of ballots. Elections officials have assumed that this is sufficient access, even though it is neither private nor verifiable, and the person who has to rely upon the assistance of another person to cast his or her vote is guaranteed that his or her ballot will not be secret. Therefore, to require that the means for casting a ballot in private, without the assistance of another person, and in a manner that allows one to verify that his or her selections have been recorded accurately, would be a major shift in federal election policy. This shift will have major ramifications for local election officials. There are jurisdictions throughout the country where punch card and paper ballots are still in use. These systems may be rendered unusable by the legislation proposed here. However, this is not a certainty, if jurisdictions can provide a means whereby a voter can privately and independently record his or her vote, and verify that it was accurately recorded. Even so, election officials across the country are currently discussing the elimination of such systems and indications are that their use will be discontinued in the near future. Technology has advanced a great deal since the enactment of current federal election laws. Accessible voting systems are available and affordable. There is every indication that the availability and affordability will only increase with rising demand for such equipment. The resolutions passed at ACB's 2001 convention support legislation which would spur this demand, and provide funding so that affordability would be ensured. Many state and local legislative bodies are also examining their voting methods and procedures at this time. At the time this section is being written, both houses of Congress have passed election reform legislation and a conference committee has been appointed to iron out the differences between the two bills. We can, therefore, hope that a federal election reform bill will be enacted into law before the end of this Congress. In the meantime, there is still much we can do. We need to work with local law makers to try to influence their decisions in favor of standards similar to those we propose on the national level, and we need to stay in touch with our Congressional representatives to insure that they heed our call for meaningful, nationwide accessibility standards. Remember that a federal election reform law will apply only to those elections which involve federal officials. State and local elections are governed by state and local laws. Our impact here could be major. State and local election officials complain regularly that theirs is the most overlooked and underfunded government function there is. They contend that they never have adequate resources to meet the demands that both state and federal legislators put on them. This is both a challenge and an opportunity for ACB in our efforts to implement our resolutions. It is a challenge because as our members and affiliates begin dialogue with their local election officials, they will quickly discover that these officials want to undertake many improvements to their election processes. There are many interests competing for a limited pie. Those officials will tell us that the impact of our proposal will be to put even greater restrictions on how far those limited resources can go. If this happens, our job will be to familiarize ourselves with the true extent of available resources, and use the information elsewhere in this report, as well as other resources, to help local election officials define their priorities in a way that will benefit as many citizens as possible, including those who are blind and visually impaired. We may also need, on occasion, to go to the state legislators and tell them that there aren't sufficient resources available for the conduct of elections and join with election officials to seek a larger appropriation in the state budget. In so doing, we can seize the opportunity to play a role in the improvement of election processes of our own communities. A final theme that runs through all three resolutions is that people who are blind and visually impaired have the same right to expect to cast their ballots independently and privately as other voters do. This message will be a surprise to many election officials. There is a commonly held presumption among these officials that all a blind or visually impaired person needs is "someone" to "help them mark their ballot." If assistance is provided, the vote is accessible. This presumption effectively gives election officials the impression that there are no accessibility problems that need to be addressed, except for the removal of physical barriers at polling places. This is not a question of hostility, or lack of good will. Rather, it is borne of lack of contact with people who are blind or visually impaired, as well as laws which address the needs of that part of the population only partially. It is our hope, therefore, that the resolutions adopted at ACB's 2001 convention will give these officials reason to reconsider their position. People who are blind or visually impaired should, of course, be given assistance if they need it, but the process of casting a ballot should be conducted in a manner that will minimize their need for such assistance and put them on equal footing with other voters whenever possible. Finally, these resolutions presuppose that members and affiliates of ACB will take an interest in the issues of election reform and accessible voting, so that they can provide elections officials in their communities with some one to give them accurate and useful information. It is our hope that affiliates will begin now to inform themselves on these issues if they haven't done so already, and identify individuals who can get involved in this dialogue. Discussions are under way across the country and our affiliates have a wealth of resources to contribute. If we let them be seen, we will benefit our communities and ACB as well as ourselves.

Some additional developments have taken place since this manual was written. Therefore, I thought an additional page or two might be in order. On October 29, 2002, President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 into law. This bill is important for a number of reasons.

First, it provides for a significant infusion of federal funds into the conduct of our nation's elections. A total of $650 million dollars is authorized by this bill to insure that states and localities will be able to modernize the equipment and procedures they use to conduct federal elections.

Second, this bill establishes the Federal Election Assistance Commission which is charged, among other things, with the task of approving voluntary standards that states and localities must meet in order to receive federal assistance under this bill. These standards will include provisions governing accessibility of the voting process for people with disabilities including people who are blind and visually impaired.

Third, even states and localities who do not seek federal assistance are required to demonstrate to the U.S. Dept. of Justice that they will comply with these standards by 2006. The standards will include a provision that at least one polling place in each precinct in the nation is accessible to people who are blind and visually impaired. This does not mandate the provision of DRE voting machines, such as the ones discussed in this manual, but the law specifically refers to them as one of the acceptable means of assuring accessibility for the blind.

Fourth, Forty million dollars is authorized over the next five years to be used by Protection and Advocacy organizations across the country for activities aimed at insuring the full participation of people with disabilities in the election process. This does not include litigation, but it does include monitoring the efforts of states and communities to insure that the entire election process is accessible to people with disabilities.

States and communities will be able to apply for federal funds to help them finance a number of election-related activities. These include replacement of obsolete voting machines and punch card systems, recruitiment and training of poll workers, and voter education. Any such request must be accompanied by a state plan which demonstrates how the money will be used, as well as how the state or community is planning to comply with the other requirements set forth in the law. In addition to the accessibility provisions mentioned above, states will be required to demonstrate that they have provided for the following:

A system that will notify a voter if he or she has made an error and provide an opportunity to correct it privately and independently;

A system that allows for a paper audit in case a recount is necessary;

A system that allows individuals whose names do not appear on voter rolls, but who believe they are entitled to vote to cast a ballot subject to challenge by election officials, and verify whether their ballot was counted or successfully challenged by election officials;

And a statewide registration database that is maintained in a manner which will prevent wrongful removal of voters from the list of registered voters, as well as insure that necessary purging is done.

This is a fairly comprehensive law, and I have attempted to provide only the highlights here. It also has its weaknesses. For instance, the enforcement provisions are not what we had hoped for. There is no right for an individual to sue a state or community for failure to comply. The U.S. Department of Justice can do so. Individuals can resort only to grievance processes set up by the state itself. Only after exhausting those remedies can an individual seek redress in the courts.

Nonetheless, ACB is hopeful that our members, affiliates and friends will make good use of the opportunities this law does provide. For some time, elections officials at all levels of government have said that the lack of funding was the major obstacle that prevented them from making their systems more accessible. Now, those funds will be available. States and localities need only provide five percent of the cost of updating the balloting process in order to apply for federal funds under this statute. Therefore, it is up to us to insure that our states and our communities move ahead on this issue. If we want independent access to a secret ballot, we need to insure that our state and local election officials seize the means to remove that obstacle which has prevented them from providing it. Building relationships with these officials is more crucial now than ever before. If you have begun that building process, double your efforts. I hope you will review the information in this manual and take to heart the suggestions for advocacy provided by the examples from jurisdictions where efforts have been successful, and do all you can to replicate them in your own community and state. Then, perhaps we will be able to include your story in the next edition of this manual. As we said in the introduction, we expect that there will be other editions as the issues surrounding access to the secret ballot evolve. The technology is developing. The players are changing. However, it is ACB's intent to stay on top of this issue until every blind or visually impaired voter in this country has access to a private, independent and verifiable ballot. We urge you to join us in this noble pursuit.

Adoption of Accessible Voting Systems under 122.0011 of the Texas Election Code

Adoption of Accessible Voting System after September 1, 1999

(1) The requirement 122.0011 of the Texas Election Code (the "Code") to implement a practical and effective means of providing a secret ballot to persons with physical disabilities is triggered when a political subdivision acquires a new voting system by lease or purchase after September 1, 1999.

(2) Only the acquisition of a new voting system (or substantial modification of an existing voting system) that will change voters' interaction with the ballot at the polling sites triggers 122.0011 of the Code. Any change made to a voting system at a central counting station or early voting ballot board that does not directly affect voters does not trigger the law.

(3) If a political subdivision acquires a new voting system, the system must be accessible to persons with physical disabilities and provide the voter with a practical and effective means to cast a secret ballot.

(4) A political subdivision may use more than one type of voting system in a single polling place for the limited purpose of providing a person with physical disabilities with a method of casting a secret ballot.

(5) The rule does not require that a newly acquired voting system be placed in every early voting and election day polling site; however, a newly acquired voting system must be accessible in each polling site it is used.

Source Note: The provisions of this 81.55 adopted to be effective September 17, 2000, 25 TexReg 8843

The following methods of providing a secret ballot to persons with physical disabilities are approved by the Office of the Secretary of State. Minor variations on these methods may be made without submitting the method to this office for approval. These methods supplement the regular voter-assistance procedures in Texas Election Code 64.031 - 64.037.

(1) Paper or Optical Scan Ballot with Template/Overlay and Telephone or Audiotape System

(A) The political subdivision creates a precinct-specific tactile ballot cover or overlay ("template") that is used to allow visually or reading-impaired voters to vote independently through the use of touch. The ballot template is in the form of a folder or other overlay into which the voter's ballot is inserted, and a binder clip or similar fastener should be attached to keep the ballot in place. The ballot template has raised lines to guide a voter to the appropriate voting locations on the ballot, and has holes punched to allow the voter to mark the actual ballot. The lines may be created with Velcro strips, fabric glue, caulk, or some other substance that will provide tactile guidance to the ballot layout. The lines should be designed to divide the races or issues on the ballot; each race or issue may be numbered by writing a number with the template-marking substance. The numbers may also be printed in Braille. If a vendor provides a ballot template with holes punched to correspond to every oval on an optical scan ballot, the authority conducting the election must make that template precinct-specific by dividing the ballot into the appropriate precinct races by using raised lines and covering the holes so that the voter may not make a mark. The material used to cover the holes must be self-adhesive and thick enough to alert the voter that a mark should not be made in that hole.

(B) When a voter with a visual or reading disability arrives at the polling site and requests to vote using this method, the election official must verify the voter's eligibility to vote; and the voter selects a ballot from the official precinct ballot stock. The election official then inserts the ballot into the template and hands it to the voter. One corner of the ballot template must be cut at an angle that corresponds to a similar cut on the ballot. This will allow the official and the voter to be sure that the ballot is correctly aligned and facing the right way in the ballot cover. The voter may choose to insert the ballot into the ballot cover rather than having the election official perform this task.

(C) If using the telephone system, the election official then makes a telephone call to a designated telephone number. A person assigned to read the ballot in English or Spanish (the "reader") to the voter answers the telephone. The election official tells the reader the precinct number only; the official does not tell the reader the name of the voter. The election official hands the voter the telephone. The reader instructs the voter how to read the ballot template to understand how it will allow him or her to mark his or her own ballot. Once the reader is sure the voter understands the procedures and the layout of the ballot template, the reader reads the first race and candidate names or propositions. The voter then marks the ballot through the hole in the ballot template corresponding to the candidate for which the voter wishes to vote (or for or against the proposition). The reader then instructs the voter to move to the next section on the ballot template to vote on the next race or issue. The reader must have a copy of the template that the voter is using so that the reader is sure to instruct the voter accurately on the proper races and candidates on which the voter is eligible to vote. The reader does not need an actual template; a carbon copy is sufficient. Once the voter has completed the ballot, the ballot is deposited in the ballot box, and the ballot cover is returned to the election official.

(D) If an audiotape system is used, the precinct election official hands the voter the appropriate audiotape, audiotape player, and a set of headphones. The voter listens to the tape to receive instructions on how to read the ballot template to understand how to mark the ballot. If the voter does not understand the instructions, the voter may call the election official over to explain the template procedures. Once the voter understands the procedures and the layout of the ballot template, the voter continues playing the audiotape. The voter may stop the audiotape as necessary while marking the ballot through the hole in the ballot template corresponding to the candidate for which the voter wishes to vote (or for or against the proposition). The voter then restarts the tape and moves down or across the ballot, as instructed on the tape, to vote on the next race or issue. When the voter has completed the ballot, the ballot is deposited in the ballot box, and the ballot cover, audiotape, audiotape player, and headphones are returned to the election official.

(E) Telephones used with this alternative method should be equipped with headsets rather than handsets. This will allow the voters to have their hands free to hold their ballot and template steady, and accurately mark the ballot through the template.

(F) This alternative method does not enable the voter with a physical disability to vote for a write-in candidate without assistance.

(G) Election officials must situate the voting booths in a manner that will ensure as much privacy and as little noise for voters as possible.

(2) Punch Card or Lever Machine with Audiotape or Telephone System

(A) Punch card and lever machine systems work similarly to the ballot template/ overlay system, as the machines used allow visually or reading-impaired voters to vote using their sense of touch to guide them through the ballot. These systems may use either a telephone or audiotape to inform the voters of the procedures and the ballot contents.

(B) If using the telephone system, the election official makes a telephone call to a designated telephone number. A person assigned to read the ballot in English or Spanish (the "reader") to the voter answers the telephone. The election official tells the reader the precinct number only; the official does not tell the reader the name of the voter. The election official hands the voter the telephone. The reader instructs the voter on the procedures for voting with a punch card or lever machine, as applicable. Once the reader is sure the voter understands the procedures, the reader reads the first race and candidate names or proposition. The voter votes, and the reader then instructs the voter to move to the next section on the ballot to vote on the next race or issue. When the voter has cast the ballot, the voter returns the telephone to the election official.

(C) If an audiotape system is used, the precinct election official hands the voter the appropriate audiotape, audiotape player, and a set of headphones. The voter listens to the audiotape to receive instructions on how to vote with the punch card or lever machine. If the voter does not understand the instructions, the voter may call the election official over to explain the procedure. Once the voter understands the procedures, the voter continues playing the audiotape. The voter may stop the audiotape as necessary while marking the ballot. The voter then restarts the tape to vote on the next race or issue. When the voter has cast the ballot, the audiotape, audiotape player, and headphones are returned to the election official.

(D) Telephones used with this alternative method should be equipped with headsets rather than handsets. This will allow the voters to have their hands free to mark their ballots.

(E) Election officials must situate the voting booths in a manner that will ensure as much privacy and as little noise for voters as possible.

Source Note: The provisions of this 81.56 adopted to be effective September 17, 2000, 25 TexReg 8843

a) A voting system shall be accessible to voters with physical disabilities including no vision, low vision (visual acuity between 20/70 and 20/200, and/or 30 degree or greater visual-field loss), no hearing, low hearing, limited manual dexterity, limited reach, limited strength, no mobility, low mobility, or any combination of the foregoing (except the combination of no hearing and no vision, see subsection (b) of this section), by providing voters with physical disabilities with a practical and effective means to cast an independent and secret ballot in accordance with each of the following, assessed independently and collectively:

(1) The voting system shall provide a tactile-input or speech-input device, or both; and

(2) The voting system shall provide a method by which voters can confirm any tactile or audio input by having the capability of audio output using synthetic or recorded human speech, which is reasonably phonetically accurate; and

(3) The voting system shall provide a means for a voter to change the voter's selection prior to the voter casting the ballot; and

(4) Any operable controls on the input device that are needed for voters without vision shall be discernable tactilely without actuating the keys. (Note: All the buttons on the device would not have to be discernable tactilely, only those buttons that are actually required for the individual to use the "operation without vision" mode.); and

(5) Any audio and non-audio access approaches shall be able to work both separately and simultaneously; and

(6) If a non-audio access approach is provided, the system shall not require color perception; the system shall use black text or graphics, or both, on white background or white text or graphics, or both, on black background, unless the office of the Secretary of State approves other high-contrast color combinations that do not require color perception; and

(7) Any voting system that requires any visual perception shall offer the election official who programs the system, prior to its being sent to the polling place, the capability to set the font size to a level that can be read by voters with low vision. (Note: Although there is no standard font size for this situation, a sans-serif font of 18 points as printed on a standard 8.5 x 11 piece of paper will allow the most universal access.); and

(8) The voting system shall provide audio information, including any audio output using synthetic or recorded human speech or any auditory feedback tones that are important for the use of the audio approach, through at least one mode (e.g., by handset or headset) in enhanced auditory fashion (i.e., increased amplification), and shall provide incremental volume control with output amplification up to a level of at least 97 dB SPL, with at least one intermediate step of 89 dB SPL; and

(9) For transmitted voice signals, the voting system shall provide a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 20 dB with at least one intermediate step of 12 dB of gain; and

(10) For the safety of others, if the voting system has the possibility of exceeding 120 dB SPL, then a mechanism shall be included to reset the volume automatically to a safe level after every use (e.g., when handset is replaced) but not before; and

(11) If sound cues and audible information, such as "beeps" are used, there shall be simultaneous corresponding visual cues and information; and

(12) If a non-audio approach is used in conjunction with an audio counterpart, any spoken text shall also be presented on screen, with the exception that any auditory confirmation of a voter's selection as required by subsection (b) of this section shall not be printed in text on the screen (Note: A graphic representation of a ballot with a check, "X," etc. beside a candidate or proposition is allowed.); and

(13) All controls and operable mechanisms shall be operable with one hand, including with a closed fist, and operable without tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist; and

(14) The force required to operate or activate the controls shall be no greater than 5 lbf (pounds per square foot); and

(15) If a forward approach by a person in a wheelchair to a voting system is necessary, the maximum high-forward reach allowed shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) and the minimum low-forward reach shall be 15 inches (380 mm). If the high-forward reach is over an obstruction, reach and clearances shall be as shown in the figure below or otherwise in accordance with the ADAAG, as written at the time the system is certified for use in the state of Texas; and

(16) If a side or parallel approach by a person in a wheelchair to a voting system is necessary, the maximum side reach allowed shall be 54 inches (1370 mm) and the low side reach shall be no less than 9 inches (230 mm) above the floor. If the side reach is over an obstruction, reach and clearances shall be as shown in the figure below or otherwise in accordance with the ADAAG, as written at the time the system is certified for use in the state of Texas; and

(17) The highest operable part of controls, dispensers, receptacles, and other operable equipment shall be placed within at least one of the reach ranges outlined in paragraphs (15) and (16) of this subsection.

(b) Although we strongly encourage voting system vendors to strive to develop systems that will provide a secret ballot for all individuals, this office recognizes that the technology available at the time of the adoption of this section will not accommodate voters who have a combination of no hearing and no vision. A voting system may be considered accessible and in compliance with state law without allowing voters with a combination of no hearing and no vision to cast a secret ballot.

Source Note: The provisions of this 81.57 adopted to be effective September 17, 2000, 25 TexReg 8843

The following regulations implement this law:

ACTION: Adopted

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of State - 1 TAC 81
SUMMARY: Office of the Secretary of State
TEXT: TITLE 1. ADMINISTRATION
Part 4. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
Chapter 81. ELECTIONS
Subchapter C. VOTING SYSTEMS
1 TAC 81.55 - 81.57

The Office of the Secretary of State adopts new 81.55 - 81.57 with Changes to the proposed text as published in the June 9, 2000 issue of the Texas Register (25 TexReg 5511).

The new sections will assist the Office of the Secretary of State, political subdivisions, and voting system vendors in the implementation and interpretation of a new state law as found in 122.0011 of the Texas Election Code.

House Bill 1053, enacted by the 76th Legislature, requires that voting systems acquired after September 1, 1999, must be accessible pursuant to Title II of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act, and must provide a practical and effective means for voters with physical disabilities to cast a secret ballot. Texas Election Code Annotated 122.0011 (Vernon Supp. 2000). Because the new law does not outline what constitutes an accessible voting system, the Secretary of State created the Elections Accessibility Task Force (the "Task Force") to assist in developing accessibility standards. Members of the Task Force included representatives from various disability groups, county election officials, the county and district clerks' association, and a voting system vendor. Based on recommendations made by the Task Force and independent research by the Secretary of State staff, the Office of the Secretary of State proposed these rules to assist political subdivisions in the interpretation and practical application of 122.0011 of the Texas Election Code.

Section 81.55 provides guidelines for political subdivisions to adopt electronic voting systems with practical and effective means of providing secret ballots to persons with physical disabilities as required under 122.0011 of the Texas Election Code. Section 81.56 authorizes alternative methods of providing secret ballots to persons with physical disabilities as required under 122.0011 of the Texas Election Code. Section 81.57 establishes criteria to assist this office in evaluating the accessibility of voting systems to enable political subdivisions to adopt electronic voting systems with practical and effective means of providing secret ballots to persons with physical disabilities, as required under 122.0011 of the Texas Election Code.

The changes to 81.55 - 81.57 are made due to public commentary, as shown in "Public Commentary and Secretary of State Response," below.

(All references to "the Code" refer to the Texas Election Code.)

Comment 1: Concerning 81.57, a voting system vendor, ELEX, and the Bexar County Elections Manager suggest that using the term "or any combination of the foregoing" in the introductory paragraph of 81.57 means that a voting system would have to accommodate a person who has no hearing and no vision. Vendors and disability advocates alike concede that there is no technology currently available that will accommodate such voters and allow them to vote a secret ballot; ELEX suggests removal of the phrase "or any combination of the foregoing."

Response 1: The Secretary of State agrees and will add the following language: "Although we strongly encourage voting system vendors to strive to develop systems that will provide a secret ballot for all individuals, this office recognizes that the technology available at the time of the adoption of this section will not accommodate voters who have a combination of no hearing and no vision. A voting system may be considered accessible and in compliance with state law without allowing voters with a combination of no hearing and no vision to cast a secret ballot."

Comment 2: Concerning 81.56(1), the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities states that the master ballot system does not provide a secret ballot since the ballot cannot be scrambled or rotated.

Response 2: Based on the large number of comments expressing concern over the secrecy of the master ballot system, we recommend removal of the master ballot method contained in 81.56(1).

Comment 3: Concerning 81.57(15), (16), and (17), the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities states that our state law says voting systems must comply with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and must also provide a practical and effective means of providing a secret ballot to voters with physical disabilities. Adopting the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (the "ADAAG" written by the Access Board, the group formed by the Department of Justice (the "DOJ") to interpret requirements of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act) will not ensure that all disabled voters are able to cast a secret ballot, especially voters with limited mobility, since the ADAAG allows either a side or parallel approach to a voting system, which may not allow a voter with limited reach to use the system.

The commentator recommends providing the ADAAG as guidance for vendors and certifiers to use, but the final test must be made by disabled voters who must use the system successfully before it may be certified or purchased.

Response 3: The Secretary of State believes the standard of "tested and used successfully by people with disabilities" is too vague for voting system developers, vendors, and certifiers. The ADAAG are the industry standards and are accepted by disability groups nationwide. The ADAAG are written to provide the most universal access, and we accept the reach ranges outlined in the ADAAG.

Under the suggested standard, the system would have to be tested by the person with the most limited reach available, since one person with limited reach may be able to use a system that another person with differently limited reach could not use. It would be extremely difficult for vendors or certifiers to attain the suggested standard, and would be burdensome, both administratively and practically (i.e., unduly burdensome).

Comment 4: The Coalition of Texans with Disabilities suggests the addition of another rule ("81.58") that requires a political subdivision to establish an advisory committee that includes individuals with disabilities to make recommendations on which system to purchase and to allow them to test the system before being purchased by the political subdivision.

Response 4: Without specific legislative authority, the Secretary of State does not have the discretion to mandate what the political subdivisions must do prior to purchasing a voting system. Although it is advisable that political subdivisions include input and testing from disability groups when purchasing a new system, we cannot require it. We may only require that the voting system be accessible and that its accessibility has been evaluated by this office.

Comment 5: Concerning 81.55 - 81.57, the Elderly and Disabled Services of the City of San Antonio states that disabled people should not face difficulty in getting into polling places or voting booths. Polling places, voting booths, ballots, punch card machines, and tables used for voting should all be accessible to the elderly and physically disabled.

Response 5: The Secretary of State agrees with this comment.

Comment 6: Concerning 81.55 - 81.57, Advocacy, Incorporated echoes the comments of the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities (see Comments 2, 3 and 4, above), but additionally suggests that since some voters with limited reach will not be able to use a system with a side or parallel approach, we should add a requirement to 81.57 that if a side or parallel approach is used, other accommodations must be available to allow people with limited reach to use the system.

Response 6: Please see Responses 2, 3, and 4, above. Additionally, the Secretary of State believes that adding language to 81.57 requiring a voting system to have "other accommodations" is too broad and does not give the voting systems vendors any direction for designing their voting systems. Consequently, we do not recommend this change.

Comment 7: Concerning 81.55 - 81.57, the Texas Civil Rights Project, the Houston and Brazoria Centers for Independent Living, the National Organization on Disability, ADAPT of Texas, the Arc of Texas, and the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities support the comments of the Coalition of Texans With Disabilities (see Comments 2, 3, and 4, above).

Response 7: Please see Responses 2, 3, and 4, above.

Comment 8: Concerning 81.55(2), the Travis County Clerk comments that the purchase and use of a precinct ballot counter should not trigger the law since "the voter is already in an environment which calls for assistance to disabled voters" and "the method of voting and the requirements for assistance do not change." The precinct ballot counter is the same as a regular locked and sealed ballot box despite the fact that the voter audits and resolves his own ballot (i.e., adoption of the precinct ballot counter system will not affect voters' interaction with the ballot at the polling sites, and thus, purchase of such a system should not trigger the law). Given these assumptions, the Travis County Clerk and the Cameron County Elections Administrator ask whether the purchase of a precinct ballot counter system triggers the law, and if so, why?

Response 8: The purchase of a precinct ballot counter after September 1, 1999, does trigger the law. Under 81.55, a substantial change to an existing system will trigger the law. Section 121.003(1) of the Code defines a voting system as "a method of casting and processing votes that is designed to function wholly or partly by use of mechanical, electromechanical, or electronic apparatus ..." Texas Election Code Annotated 121.003(1) (Vernon Supp. 2000) (emphasis added). Although voters would still use optical scan ballots in a precinct ballot counter system, the way the voters cast their ballots changes in that the voters self-audit the ballots, and the voters are depositing their ballots into a tabulator rather than a ballot box. We believe this is a substantial change in the voting system that affects voters, and, consequently, triggers the law.

Comment 9: Concerning 81.55, the Bexar County Election Manager asks whether a political subdivision may use a precinct ballot counter at a central counting station or early voting ballot board, and if so, would a precinct ballot counter used at a central counting station or early voting ballot board trigger the law? He does not suggest changes to the wording of the section.

Response 9: No. The use of a precinct ballot counter at a central counting station or early voting ballot board would not trigger the law. Section 81.55(2) states that "any change made to a central counting station unit that does not directly affect voters does not trigger the law." However, for clarification, the Secretary of State suggests changing this to read "Any change made to a voting system used at a central counting station or early voting ballot board that does not directly affect voters does not trigger the law."

Comment 10: Concerning 81.55, the Bexar County Election Manager and the Travis County Clerk ask us to clarify whether the adoption of one of the 81.56 alternative voting methods, used in conjunction with a non-accessible system, would bring the non-accessible system into compliance with the law; neither commentator suggests changes to the wording of the section.

Response 10: The alternative voting methods only allow accessibility for voters who are visually or reading-impaired. The new state law requires a voting system purchased after September 1, 1999, to provide voters with any combination of physical disabilities access to a secret ballot (note that advocacy groups concede that no technology exists that will accommodate voters with a combination of no hearing and no vision). Thus, adoption of one of the alternative methods as defined in 81.56 will not bring an otherwise non-compliant system into compliance. The Secretary of State does not recommend any changes in 81.55 pursuant to this comment.

Comment 11: Concerning 81.55, the Bexar County Election Manager, the Travis County Clerk, and the Cameron County Elections Administrator ask whether a voting system purchased after September 1, 1999, must be placed at every early voting and election day polling site throughout the political subdivision.

Response 11: No. The system must be accessible in each polling site it is used, but the accessible voting system does not need to be placed in every early voting and election day polling site. Section 123.004 of the Code states that the authority adopting a voting system may restrict its use to one or more polling places. This office does not have the legal authority to override this provision of the Code and require a voting system in all polling places.

Similarly, 123.007 of the Code authorizes the use of different voting systems in a single election (e.g. optical scan in some polling places, direct-recording electronic system in others), again suggesting that a voting system need not be placed in every early voting or election day polling site. The Secretary of State will add new paragraph (5) to 81.55, stating as follows: "The rule does not require that a newly acquired voting system be placed in every early voting and election day polling site; however, a newly acquired voting system must be accessible in each polling site it is used."

Comment 12: Concerning 81.55, the Travis County Clerk asks us to consider adding language to the rule allowing a transition period to phase-in the use of a new voting system. She states that a gradual phase-in of a new voting system should be allowed for two main reasons: cost and public acceptance. For example, the purchase of a direct-recording electronic system for use throughout the early voting and election day polling sites is cost prohibitive. Purchasing all direct-recording electronic systems immediately is too expensive, but a decision to delay or deny the purchase of a new system will adversely affect all Travis County voters. Also, people do not like drastic change; allowing a gradual transition to computer voting will increase acceptance and trust of the system by the voters while still addressing the needs of voters with disabilities.

Response 12: This office does not have the authority to implement a phase-in period pursuant to the enabling legislation.

Comment 13: Concerning 81.56(1)(G), the Bexar County Elections Manager asks why a political subdivision may not use the master ballot system with the precinct ballot counter?

Response 13: 81.56(1)(G) currently states that a master ballot system may be used with the precinct ballot counter as long as the ballots are remade at the central counting station, rather than at the precinct level. However, as the rules are being changed to remove authorization and description of the master ballot method, this question becomes moot.

Comment 14: Concerning 81.55(4), the Bexar County Election Administrator and the Travis County Clerk comment that this section appears to allow the use of an ADA-compliant component, such as an approved direct-recording electronic system, in conjunction with a precinct ballot counter. Several questions arise from this inference. First, is this combination of two voting systems in a single polling place acceptable, given 123.005 of the Code, which states that only one kind of voting system may be used at a polling place in an election? Second, is this inference true only if a direct-recording electronic system is purchased to make accessible a precinct ballot counter system that was acquired before September 1, 1999, or does this inference operate to allow a political subdivision to acquire a precinct ballot counter and a direct-recording electronic system together after September 1, 1999?

Response 14: This office is charged with the duty to obtain and maintain uniformity in the application, interpretation, and operation of provisions under the Code and other election laws. Texas Election Code Annotated 31.003 (Vernon 1986). The Secretary of State must construe 123.005 and 122.0011 together; therefore, the Secretary of State recognizes a limited exception to 123.005 in order to ensure that political subdivisions are able to meet the legislative mandate that any voting system acquired after September 1, 1999, must be accessible and provide a practical and effective means to cast a secret ballot.

Section 81.55(4) allows the use of an ADA-compliant voting system, such as an accessible direct-recording electronic system, in the same polling place as a non-accessible precinct ballot counter that was purchased prior to September 1, 1999. A political subdivision that purchased a precinct ballot counter prior to September 1, 1999, has not triggered 122.0011 of the Code, but if the political subdivision then wishes to purchase an accessible component in order to allow voters with physical disabilities to cast a secret ballot, 81.55(4) allows them to do so. A political subdivision that purchases a precinct ballot counter system after September 1, 1999, without the addition of an ADA-compliant component would be in violation of state law; the precinct ballot counter system standing alone does not provide voters with physical disabilities with an opportunity to cast a secret ballot. A political subdivision may purchase a precinct ballot counter after September 1, 1999, but only if also purchasing an ADA-compliant component (such as an accessible direct-recording electronic unit) and only if the following conditions are met: the precinct ballot counter and the ADA-compliant component will be used simultaneously at the same polling place; and both systems must be networked together via compatible reporting software or other approved method which must be certified by the Secretary of State.

In order to provide the most appropriate integrated setting and to ensure the secrecy of the voters' choices, all voters must be allowed to use any authorized voting system in the polling place to cast their votes. The ADA-compliant component should not be reserved exclusively for use by voters with disabilities; rather, any voter with or without a disability may vote on it. If a person with a disability arrives at the polling place to vote, however, that person should be given priority in using the ADA-compliant component.

Comment 15: Concerning 81.57(12), which provides that "any spoken text shall also be presented on screen, ..." the vendor Unilect asks whether this section requires that a voting system must have a screen counterpart in order to be certified as accessible.

Response 15: No, a voting system need not have a screen counterpart in order to be certified as accessible. However, for clarification, we suggest adding language to 81.57(12) as follows: "If a non-audio approach is used in conjunction with an audio counterpart, any spoken text shall also be presented on screen, ..."

The new rules are adopted under Texas Election Code 31.003, which authorizes the Office of the Secretary of State to obtain and maintain uniformity in the application, interpretation, and operation of provisions under the Texas Election Code and other election laws.

81.55. Adoption of Accessible Voting Systems under 122.0011 of the Texas Election Code.

Adoption of Accessible Voting System after September 1, 1999

(1) The requirement of 122.0011 of the Texas Election Code (the "Code") to implement a practical and effective means of providing a secret ballot to persons with physical disabilities is triggered when a political subdivision acquires a new voting system by lease or purchase after September 1, 1999.

(2) Only the acquisition of a new voting system (or substantial modification of an existing voting system) that will change voters' interaction with the ballot at the polling sites triggers 122.0011 of the Code. Any change made to a voting system at a central counting station or early voting ballot board that does not directly affect voters does not trigger the law.

(3) If a political subdivision acquires a new voting system, the system must be accessible to persons with physical disabilities and provide the voter with a practical and effective means to cast a secret ballot.

(4) A political subdivision may use more than one type of voting system in a single polling place for the limited purpose of providing a person with physical disabilities with a method of casting a secret ballot.

(5) The rule does not require that a newly acquired voting system be placed in every early voting and election day polling site; however, a newly acquired voting system must be accessible in each polling site it is used.

81.56. Authorized Alternative Methods of Providing a Secret Ballot to Persons with Physical Disabilities.

The following methods of providing a secret ballot to persons with physical disabilities are approved by the Office of the Secretary of State. Minor variations on these methods may be made without submitting the method to this office for approval. These methods supplement the regular voter-assistance procedures in Texas Election Code 64.031 - 64.037.

(1) Paper or Optical Scan Ballot with Template/Overlay and Telephone or Audiotape System

(A) The political subdivision creates a precinct-specific tactile ballot cover or overlay ("template") that is used to allow visually or reading-impaired voters to vote independently through the use of touch. The ballot template is in the form of a folder or other overlay into which the voter's ballot is inserted, and a binder clip or similar fastener should be attached to keep the ballot in place. The ballot template has raised lines to guide a voter to the appropriate voting locations on the ballot, and has holes punched to allow the voter to mark the actual ballot. The lines may be created with Velcro strips, fabric glue, caulk, or some other substance that will provide tactile guidance to the ballot layout. The lines should be designed to divide the races or issues on the ballot; each race or issue may be numbered by writing a number with the template-marking substance. The numbers may also be printed in Braille. If a vendor provides a ballot template with holes punched to correspond to every oval on an optical scan ballot, the authority conducting the election must make that template precinct-specific by dividing the ballot into the appropriate precinct races by using raised lines and covering the holes so that the voter may not make a mark. The material used to cover the holes must be self-adhesive and thick enough to alert the voter that a mark should not be made in that hole.

(B) When a voter with a visual or reading disability arrives at the polling site and requests to vote using this method, the election official must verify the voter's eligibility to vote; and the voter selects a ballot from the official precinct ballot stock. The election official then inserts the ballot into the template and hands it to the voter. One corner of the ballot template must be cut at an angle that corresponds to a similar cut on the ballot. This will allow the official and the voter to be sure that the ballot is correctly aligned and facing the right way in the ballot cover. The voter may choose to insert the ballot into the ballot cover rather than having the election official perform this task.

(C) If using the telephone system, the election official then makes a telephone call to a designated telephone number. A person assigned to read the ballot in English or Spanish (the "reader") to the voter answers the telephone. The election official tells the reader the precinct number only; the official does not tell the reader the name of the voter. The election official hands the voter the telephone. The reader instructs the voter how to read the ballot template to understand how it will allow him or her to mark his or her own ballot. Once the reader is sure the voter understands the procedures and the layout of the ballot template, the reader reads the first race and candidate names or propositions. The voter then marks the ballot through the hole in the ballot template corresponding to the candidate for which the voter wishes to vote for or against the proposition). The reader then instructs the voter to move to the next section on the ballot template to vote on the next race or issue. The reader must have a copy of the template that the voter is using so that the reader is sure to instruct the voter accurately on the proper races and candidates on which the voter is eligible to vote. The reader does not need an actual template; a carbon copy is sufficient. Once the voter has completed the ballot, the ballot is deposited in the ballot box, and the ballot cover is returned to the election official.

(D) If an audiotape system is used, the precinct election official hands the voter the appropriate audiotape, audiotape player, and a set of headphones. The voter listens to the tape to receive instructions on how to read the ballot template to understand how to mark the ballot. If the voter does not understand the instructions, the voter may call the election official over to explain the template procedures. Once the voter understands the procedures and the layout of the ballot template, the voter continues playing the audiotape. The voter may stop the audiotape as necessary while marking the ballot through the hole in the ballot template corresponding to the candidate for which the voter wishes to vote (or for or against the proposition). The voter then restarts the tape and moves down or across the ballot, as instructed on the tape, to vote on the next race or issue. When the voter has completed the ballot, the ballot is deposited in the ballot box, and the ballot cover, audiotape, audiotape player, and headphones are returned to the election official.

(E) Telephones used with this alternative method should be equipped with headsets rather than handsets. This will allow the voters to have their hands free to hold their ballot and template steady, and accurately mark the ballot through the template.

(F) This alternative method does not enable the voter with a physical disability to vote for a write-in candidate without assistance.

(G) Election officials must situate the voting booths in a manner that will ensure as much privacy and as little noise for voters as possible.

(2) Punch Card or Lever Machine with Audiotape or Telephone System

(A) Punch card and lever machine systems work similarly to the ballot template/overlay system, as the machines used allow visually or reading-impaired voters to vote using their sense of touch to guide them through the ballot. These systems may use either a telephone or audiotape to inform the voters of the procedures and the ballot contents.

(B) If using the telephone system, the election official makes a telephone call to a designated telephone number. A person assigned to read the ballot in English or Spanish (the "reader") to the voter answers the telephone. The election official tells the reader the precinct number only; the official does not tell the reader the name of the voter. The election official hands the voter the telephone. The reader instructs the voter on the procedures for voting with a punch card or lever machine, as applicable. Once the reader is sure the voter understands the procedures, the reader reads the first race and candidate names or proposition. The voter votes, and the reader then instructs the voter to move to the next section on the ballot to vote on the next race or issue. When the voter has cast the ballot, the voter returns the telephone to the election official.

(C) If an audiotape system is used, the precinct election official hands the voter the appropriate audiotape, audiotape player, and a set of headphones. The voter listens to the audiotape to receive instructions on how to vote with the punch card or lever machine. If the voter does not understand the instructions, the voter may call the election official over to explain the procedure. Once the voter understands the procedures, the voter continues playing the audiotape. The voter may stop the audiotape as necessary while marking the ballot. The voter then restarts the tape to vote on the next race or issue. When the voter has cast the ballot, the audiotape, audiotape player, and headphones are returned to the election official.

(D) Telephones used with this alternative method should be equipped with headsets rather than handsets. This will allow the voters to have their hands free to mark their ballots.

(E) Election officials must situate the voting booths in a manner that will ensure as much privacy and as little noise for voters as possible.

81.57. Requirements for Voting System Accessibility

(a) A voting system shall be accessible to voters with physical disabilities including no vision, low vision (visual acuity between 20/70 and 20/200, and/or 30 degree or greater visual-field loss), no hearing, low hearing, limited manual dexterity, limited reach, limited strength, no mobility, low mobility, or any combination of the foregoing (except the combination of no hearing and no vision, see subsection (b) of this section), by providing voters with physical disabilities with a practical and effective means to cast an independent and secret ballot in accordance with each of the following, assessed independently and collectively:

(1) The voting system shall provide a tactile-input or speech-input device, or both; and

(2) The voting system shall provide a method by which voters can confirm any tactile or audio input by having the capability of audio output using synthetic or recorded human speech, which is reasonably phonetically accurate; and

(3) The voting system shall provide a means for a voter to change the voter's selection prior to the voter casting the ballot; and

(4) Any operable controls on the input device that are needed for voters without vision shall be discernable tactilely without actuating the keys. (Note: All the buttons on the device would not have to be discernable tactilely, only those buttons that are actually required for the individual to use the "operation without vision" mode.); and

(5) Any audio and non-audio access approaches shall be able to work separately and simultaneously; and

(6) If a non-audio access approach is provided, the system shall not require color perception; the system shall use black text or graphics, or both, on white background or white text or graphics, or both, on black background, unless the office of the Secretary of State approves other high-contrast color combinations that do not require color perception; and

(7) Any voting system that requires any visual perception shall offer the election official who programs the system, prior to its being sent to the polling place, the capability to set the font size to a level that can be read by voters with low vision. (Note: Although there is no standard font size for this situation, a san-serif font of 18 points as printed on a standard 8.5 x 11 piece of paper will allow the most universal access.); and

(8) The voting system shall provide audio information, including any audio output using synthetic or recorded human speech or any auditory feedback tones that are important for the use of the audio approach, through at least one mode (e.g., by handset or headset) in enhanced auditory fashion (i.e., increased amplification), and shall provide incremental volume control with output amplification up to a level of at least 97 dB SPL, with at least one intermediate step of 89 dB SPL; and

(9) For transmitted voice signals, the voting system shall provide a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 20 dB with at least one intermediate step of 12 dB of gain; and

(10) For the safety of others, if the voting system has the possibility of exceeding 120 dB SPL, then a mechanism shall be included to reset the volume automatically to a safe level after every use (e.g., when handset is replaced) but not before; and

(11) If sound cues and audible information, such as "beeps" are used, there shall be simultaneous corresponding visual cues and information; and

(12) If a non-audio approach is used in conjunction with an audio counterpart, any spoken text shall also be presented on screen, with the exception that any auditory confirmation of a voter's selection as required by subsection (b) of this section shall not be printed in text on the screen (Note: A graphic representation of a ballot with a check, "X," etc. beside a candidate or proposition is allowed.); and

(13) All controls and operable mechanisms shall be operable with one hand, including with a closed fist, and operable without tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist; and

(14) The force required to operate or activate the controls shall be no greater than 5 lbs (pounds per square foot); and

(15) If a forward approach by a person in a wheelchair to a voting system is necessary, the maximum high-forward reach allowed shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) and the minimum low-forward reach shall be 15 inches (380 mm). If the high-forward reach is over an obstruction, reach and clearances shall be as shown in the figure below or otherwise in accordance with the ADAAG, as written at the time the system is certified for use in the state of Texas; and

(16) If a side or parallel approach by a person in a wheelchair to a voting system is necessary, the maximum side reach allowed shall be 54 inches (1370 mm) and the low side reach shall be no less than 9 inches (230 mm) above the floor. If the side reach is over an obstruction, reach and clearances shall be as shown in the figure below or otherwise in accordance with the ADAAG, as written at the time the system is certified for use in the state of Texas; and

(17) The highest operable part of controls, dispensers, receptacles, and other operable equipment shall be placed within at least one of the reach ranges outlined in paragraphs (15) and (16) of this subsection.

(b) Although we strongly encourage voting system vendors to strive to develop systems that will provide a secret ballot for all individuals, this office recognizes that the technology available at the time of the adoption of this section will not accommodate voters who have a combination of no hearing and no vision. A voting system may be considered accessible and in compliance with state law without allowing voters with a combination of no hearing and no vision to cast a secret ballot.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 28, 2000.

TRD-200006031

Jeffrey H. Eubank

Assistant Secretary of State
Office of the Secretary of State

Effective date: September 17, 2000
Proposal publication date: June 9, 2000

For further information, please call: (512) 463-5680 TX Adopted FN Office of the Secretary of State 1 TAC 81 Elections 09/17/00 FullText 20000909 20000908 REG 20004300142326

SUBJECT: VOTERS AND VOTING (94%);

COUNTIES (90%);

CAMPAIGNS & ELECTIONS (90%);

LEGISLATORS (90%);

LEGISLATION (90%);

DISABLED PERSONS (90%);

DISABLED ACCESS (76%);

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (76%); LOAD-DATE: September 11, 2000

During the 2001 legislative session, the following law was passed:

AN ACT relating to the implementation of new voting system technology in certain elections.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Section 123.004, Election Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 123.004. RESTRICTING VOTING SYSTEM TO PARTICULAR POLLING PLACES. The authority adopting a voting system may restrict its use to one or more polling places, subject to Section 123.009^w.

SECTION 2. Section 123.007, Election Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 123.007. ADOPTION OF MORE THAN ONE VOTING SYSTEM FOR SAME ELECTION. If more than one kind of voting system is adopted for use at the polling places in the same election, the adopting authority shall determine the polling place or places at which each system is to be used, subject to Section 123.009^w.

SECTION 3. Subchapter A, Chapter 123, Election Code, is amended by adding Section 123.009 to read as follows: Sec. 123.009. IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY IN CERTAIN ELECTIONS. (a) This section applies to a voting system adopted for use in an election ordered by the governor or a county authority or in a primary election.

(b)If the design of the voting system or voting system equipment is modified, upgraded, or otherwise enhanced by the incorporation of new technology, the voting system equipment implementing the new technology shall be distributed and used proportionately and equitably among the election precincts in which the particular voting system is used.

(c) The secretary of state by rule shall prescribe any procedures necessary for the implementation of this section in a manner that protects the voting rights of the affected voters.

SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2001.

_______________________________
President of the Senate

_______________________________
Speaker of the House

I certify that H.R. No. 2923 was passed by the House on April 20, 2001, by a non-record vote.

_______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House

I certify that H.R. No. 2923 was passed by the Senate on May 15, 2001, by the following vote: Yeas 30, Nays 0, 1 present, not voting.

_______________________________
Secretary of the Senate

As of this writing, the following four systems have been certified as ADA compliant:

Unilect's Patriot

Global's Accutouch

Hart's Eslate

ES&S' ivotronic

Transmittal Letter from Co-Chairmen i
Purposes and Organization ii
Membership Roster iii
Introduction - Accessibility for Voters with Disabilities 1
Goals and Principles 2
A. Obstacles to Voting for Persons with Disabilities in 3
B. Solutions for Overcoming Obstacles 4
Statutory Amendment Recommendations 4
Accessibility Standards for Voting Systems Certification 8
Accessibility Standards for Polling Places 10
Recommendations 12
C. Mandatory Election Officer and Poll worker Training 14
Rules of Etiquette 14
Recommendations 16
D. Proposed Funding Mechanism 16
Conclusion 18
Appendices (Research* and Historical Documents)
NCSL: Survey of States on Voting Accessibility (July 2001)
A Texas Secretary of State Memorandum (2000)
B National Task Force on Accessibility (1999)
C Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction (1997)

* While the Task Force has used some of the information from these documents, their inclusion herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement, adoption or approval of all other matters contained therein.

Tallahassee, Florida
January 14, 2002

To: The Honorable Katherine Harris, Secretary of State
Florida Department of State

From: The Honorable Larry Crow, Co-Chairman
The Honorable Richard Mitchell, Co-Chairman

Dear Madam Secretary:

On behalf of the 21 members of your Select Task Force on Voting Accessibility, we are pleased to transmit herewith a Final Report containing our findings, recommendations, suggestions for implementation, and funding considerations, for such action as you may find appropriate.

The Task Force has determined that there are significant, severe, and pervasive obstacles that have been placed in the path of Florida's voters with disabilities. Although all voters, regardless of ability or disability, are guaranteed the right to cast a vote in secret by Article VI, section 1, of the Florida Constitution, voting systems and procedures in use in Florida routinely deprive voters with disabilities of this right. In the face of technology that is now available that can provide a secret ballot to nearly every voter with a disability, these inaccessible systems and procedures cannot and must not be maintained.

"Accessibility" must also include the ability to get to the polling place, as well as in and out of the areas where voting is taking place. Too many times, polling places are not accessible as required by law, or transportation options are too few and/or too lengthy. We must increase transportation opportunities for persons with disabilities and insure that all polling places are accessible to voters with disabilities. Only then can we hope to attract the estimated one million Floridians with disabilities who are not currently registered to participate in one of the most priceless heritages of our great Democracy - the right and duty to vote.

On behalf of each member of the Task Force, we thank you for the time you have taken and the effort you have made to help assure the maximum exercise of this right in the future.

We will be honored to serve as the House and Senate sponsors of the companion legislation necessary to implement the recommended statutory changes.

Purposes: The Task Force was charged by the Secretary of State with the following purposes:

To ascertain the obstacles persons with disabilities face in voting in Florida's elections;

To develop and implement solutions for overcoming these obstacles;

To devise a mandatory training program for all elections officials and poll workers which includes instruction from persons with disabilities; and

To propose a funding mechanism.

Membership: The Task Force is composed of 21 (twenty one) citizens, appointed by the Honorable Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State, on August 13, 2001. The Task Force is co-chaired by Senator Richard Mitchell and Representative Larry Crow.

Meetings: Five meetings were held by the Task Force, from September, 2001, to January, 2002. Two meetings were held in Tallahassee and one each in Tampa, Orlando, and West Palm Beach. Testimony was taken from a variety of persons at the various meetings and comments from the public were heard.

Valerie Breen, Tallahassee, Florida
Richard La Belle, Esq., Dunedin, Florida
Representative Gaston Cantens, Miami, Florida
Honorable Theresa LaPore, West Palm Beach, Florida
Representative Larry Crow, Dunedin, Florida
Robert Miller, Tallahassee, Florida
Senator Mandy Dawson, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Gloria Mills, Tampa, Florida
Pam Dorwarth, Sarasota, Florida
Senator Richard Mitchell, Jasper, Florida
David Evans, Boca Raton, Florida
Michael Phillips, Tampa, Florida
Representative J. Dudley Goodlette, Naples, Florida
Senator Debby Sanderson, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Deborah Grubb, Bradenton, Florida
Julie Shaw, Tallahassee, Florida
Stephen J. Hardy, II, Archer, Florida
Dr. Donna Sumlin, Orange Park, Florida
Jeff Johnson, St. Petersburg, Florida
Chris Wagner, New Port Richey, Florida
James Kracht, Esq., Miami, Florida

In order to adequately address issues of "accessibility" as they relate to citizens with disabilities and the elections process, it is critical that we first identify and understand this term. The Task Force has attempted to do this through the process of comprehensively identifying "barriers" to voting, arising from the personal experiences of Task Force members, testimony by the general public, and a number of similar studies in several other states, notably Texas, and at the national level. Many of these studies are included in the various Appendices at the end of this report.

[Disclaimer: All of the materials in the appendices were not adopted or approved by the Task Force. While this Final Report contains some information from these resource documents, the Task Force members were unanimous in their concern that the inclusion of these references should not be construed as approval of other information therein.]

For purposes of defining "accessibility," the Task Force has looked at all different stages of the election process, including:

1. Registering to vote.

2. Getting to and from the polling places,

3. Getting in and out of the polling places, and

4. Utilizing the voting systems certified by the Department of State (the "Department").

5. Having access to and participating in election information gathering, such as candidate forums and campaign advertising.

6. Participating in candidate forums, Political Action Committees, and candidate activities.

We have come to refer to "accessibility" in terms of: places, process and products, all of which must be combined in order to maximize the opportunities for citizens with disabilities to exercise their fundamental constitutionally guaranteed civil right of voting by fully and meaningfully participating in the election process. It is clear that addressing issues of accessibility in only one or several phases of the voting process will not assure a satisfactory level of "accessibility," as is more particularly described in this report.

This report is structured along the same lines as the charges given to the Task Force by the Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, which are as follows:

A. Ascertain the obstacles that persons with disabilities face when voting in Florida.

B. Develop and implement solutions for overcoming these obstacles.

C. Devise a mandatory training program for all election officials and poll workers.

D. Propose a funding mechanism for the costs of implementation and training.

In addition to defining the concept of "accessibility in the voting process," the Task Force reviewed the 1997 report of the National Task Force on Elections Accessibility (attached as Appendix "C"), and has adopted the following Goals and Principles therefrom:

Goals:

1. 100% participation of eligible voters in all elections;

2. 100% polling place accessibility for all voters;

3. All polling sites to be accessible for independent voting; and,

4. 100% of the voters to be able to vote secretly and independently.

Principles:

1. Voters with and without disabilities are equally entitled to the right of full participation in elections, including the right of casting their votes privately, independently and verifiably.

2. No polling place within the State of Florida should be physically inaccessible to voters with disabilities.

3. No eligible voter should be denied the right to vote solely on the basis of physical or mental disability, except as provided by state laws governing the determination of mental capacity or the requirements to be a registered voter.

4. All elections-related printed material, including printed materials released from an elections office to the public in advance of elections, should be made accessible to voters with disabilities requesting an alternative medium, with notice and upon request.

5. A meaningful enforcement mechanism must be available, after a reasonable time is provided to allow for voluntary compliance, to ensure accountability and full compliance with provisions of law having an impact on the accessibility to elections by persons with disabilities.

6. The Secretary=s Select Task Force on Voting Accessibility agrees that the public has the right to expect that adequate financial and other resources will be available and dedicated to ensure full accessibility to the voting process by all Florida voters.

The Task Force has determined that there are significant, severe, and pervasive obstacles that have been placed in the paths of Florida's voters with disabilities. Under Article VI, section 1, of the Florida Constitution, all voters, irrespective of ability or disability, are guaranteed the right to cast a vote in secret. However, voting procedures and systems currently in use in Florida routinely deprive voters with disabilities of this constitutionally guaranteed right. The Task Force has attempted to be as comprehensive as possible in the scope of its recommendations, without regard to specific disabilities, with the goal being that as many voters with disabilities as possible will be able to cast a secret, independent, and verifiable vote. The Task Force has attempted to complete its work within a very short time period, being mindful of the legislative calendar for the 2002 Session of the Legislature. The Task Force feels that the recommendations to the Secretary contained in this report will go far in expanding the ability of all voters to cast secret, independent, and verifiable votes. The Task Force has determined that, among the many obstacles to the meaningful participation of citizens with disabilities in the elections process, are the following MAJOR OBSTACLES:

1. Lack of "alternative" methods of permitting voting to occur.1

2. Lack of "disability sensitivity" and "disability etiquette" guidelines and training for election officials and poll workers.

3. Non-accessible polling places.

4. Lack of voting systems consisting of components designed to allow secret, independent and verifiable voting by voters with disabilities.2

5. Lack of a single state elections official responsible for assuring compliance with voting standards relative to issues of accessibility.

6. Inadequate transportation for voters who are transportation disadvantaged as defined by state statute.3

In reviewing these obstacles, the Task Force recommends that the following changes be made directly to the appropriate statutory sections. Where more flexibility may be desired to supplement these statutory changes, additional statutory authority for rule-making in these areas should be granted.4

In General:

1. Require that all "forms" set forth in the Election Code (Chapters 97-106, Florida Statutes), including absentee ballots, be available upon request, in "alternative formats" as such term is defined within the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), and, whenever possible, available on-line. This definition of "alternative formats" should be added to section 97.021. The requirement that all forms be available in alternative formats should be added to Part I of Chapter 97. The following sections of the Election Code have been identified as sections that require forms that are to be subject to this requirement:

97.052
97.053
97.057
97.058
97.0583
97.051
97.071
97.073
97.1031
98.055
98.075
99.021
100.361
100.371
101.045
101.171
101.20
101.6103
101.62
101.64
101.65
101.657
105.031
106.023
106.087

2. Amend Ch. 2001-40, LOF, section 73(2) to add development of "poll worker" etiquette and sensitivity training as a responsibility of the Division of Elections.

98.065(1) - Add; "provided, however, nondiscrimination as used herein also includes persons with disabilities."

1. A statutory requirement that any television broadcast by a state agency or local government must include closed captioning and descriptive narrative, except where an emergency prevents same. This requirement might be appropriately included in Chapter 287, Florida Statutes, regulating the State's procurement of services and products, which is enforced through the Department of Management Services.

2. A statutory requirement that every candidate (as defined in Sec. 97.021), political party and political committee must utilize close captioning and descriptive narrative in television broadcasts, or file a written statement with the Division of Elections setting forth the reasons for not doing so (with appropriate penalties for failing to file such a statement).5

1. 100.361 and .371 - These sections refer to the activities of citizens conducting initiative and recall campaigns. The Task Force was very mindful about the competing interests of the freedom of speech of such groups on one hand and the right to access to information of voters with disabilities on the other. Accordingly, these sections should be amended to require that, once the forms/information generated by such groups enter the public record, they shall be available in alternative formats, as defined above. The language of these sections should also be amended to encourage, but not require, such groups to provide information in alternative formats prior to the public records stage by stating that such information "should be" provided in alternative formats.

1. Create a new section establishing the Disability Advisory Council, consisting of nine (9) persons appointed by the Secretary of State (a majority of whom shall be persons with disabilities), to perform the following:

A. Work with the voting systems certification bureau of the Division of Elections on the implementation of new accessibility standards (set forth herein or subsequently adopted);

B. Test the "accessibility" of new voting systems and modules;

C. Advise the Division of Elections on methods and means to increase election participation by persons with disabilities;

D. Assist with the creation of a polling place accessibility survey for use by Supervisors of Elections to determine compliance with the new accessibility standards; and

E. Recommend "exemptions" from application of the new accessibility standards to be adopted, as well as penalties to be applied by the Department for non-compliance. It is the specific intention of the Task Force that any exemptions from the accessibility standards recommended herein shall be only in the currently recognized instances of states of emergency that render, for whatever reason, fully accessible polling places temporarily unavailable. Said exemptions should be of an extremely limited nature, be of very short duration, and shall not in any way excuse or reduce the requirement that all polling places be fully accessible to all voters.

2. 101.001 - Add that "all entrances, polling areas, paths of travel and, exits from every polling place shall be accessible in accordance with the provisions of Sections 553.501 through 553.513, Florida Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Implementation Act."

3. 101.015 (1) and (5)(a) - Add "accessibility" standards (set forth below).

4. 101.017 - Add reference to the newly created Disability Advisory Council.

5. 101.031(2) - Amend "Voter=s Bill of Rights" to include voting "accessibility," which is the ability to cast "a secret, independent and verifiable ballot."

6. 101.051 - Remove the Oath requirements for electors requesting assistance.

7. 101.51(1) and (2) - Remove all references to the "five minute" time limit voting requirement.

8. 101.5606 - Add "accessibility" standards for all voters, as set forth herein, to the certification requirements for voting systems. Also, add the words "for all voters" to the end of the sentence in subsection (1), so that it is clear that all voting systems must permit and require voting in secrecy for all voters.

9. 101.71(2) - Add a requirement that each polling place be "surveyed," and make optional section mandatory.

10. 101.715(1)(a) - Amended to increase width clearance requirement from 29 inches to 36- 44 inches to conform with ADA Florida requirements.

102.014(4)(a) - To amend poll worker training requirements to include etiquette and sensitivity instructions about and by persons with disabilities. This training should consist of one (1) hour, and be part of the existing six (6) hours total training now required by law. Note: Guidelines for "disability sensitivity" and "disability etiquette" are set forth herein.

1. 104.20 - Remove all references to the "five minute" time limit voting requirement.

Many of the following "accessibility" standards were included in the Texas Task Force report, which have since been implemented as administrative rules in that state, and are recommended for adoption in Florida as statutory requirements. The recommended requirements to be enacted in statute are:

1. The voting system shall provide a tactile-input or speech-input device, or both.

2. The voting system shall provide a method by which voters can confirm any tactile or audio input by having the capability of audio output using synthetic or recorded human speech, which is reasonably phonetically accurate.

3. Any operable controls on the input device that are needed for voters who are visually impaired shall be discernable tactilely without actuating the keys.

4. Any audio and visual access approaches shall be able to work both separately and simultaneously.

5. If a non-audio access approach is provided, the system shall not require color perception; the system shall use black text or graphics, or both, on white background or white text or graphics, or both, on black background, unless the office of the Secretary of State approves other high-contrast color combinations that do not require color perception.

6. Any voting system that requires any visual perception shall offer the election official who programs the system, prior to its being sent to the polling place, the capability to set the font size from a minimum of 14 points to a maximum of 24 points.

7. The voting system shall provide audio information, including any audio output using synthetic or recorded human speech or any auditory feedback tones that are important for the use of the audio approach, through at least one mode (by handset or headset) in enhanced auditory fashion (increased amplification), and shall provide incremental volume control with output amplification up to a level of at least 97 dB SPL, with at least one intermediate step of 89 dB SPL.

8. For transmitted voice signals, the voting system shall provide a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 20 dB with at least one intermediate step of 12 dB of gain.

9. For the safety of others, if the voting system has the possibility of exceeding 120 dB SPL, then a mechanism shall be included to reset the volume automatically to a safe level after every use (e.g., when handset is replaced), but not before. Also, Universal Precautions in the use and sharing of headsets should be followed.

10. If sound cues and audible information, such as "beeps" are used, there shall be simultaneous corresponding visual cues and information.

11. Any spoken text shall also be presented on screen, with the exception that any auditory confirmation of a voter's selection shall not be printed in text on the screen, unless requested by the voter.

12. All controls and operable mechanisms shall be operable with one hand, including with a closed fist, and operable without tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist.

13. The force required to operate or activate the controls shall be no greater than 5 lbf.

14. A voting booth with voting controls at a minimum height of 36" above the finished floor and a minimum knee clearance of 27" high, a minimum of 30" wide and a minimum of 19" deep.

15. Any audio ballot must provide the voter with the following functionalities:

A. 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.

B. 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.

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

D. The voter must be able to select candidates with confidence that the physical or vocal inputs given to the system have selected the candidates which he or she intended to select.

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

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

G. 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.

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

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

J. The voter must be able to review their write-in input to the interface, edit that input, and confirm that the edits meet their intent.

K. 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.

L. 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.

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

The following accessibility standards should be applied to every polling place in Florida:

1. All polling places shall be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.6

2. Each polling place shall have at least one (1) voting system meeting all of the accessibility standards set forth above.

3. Only those polling places complying with the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction (Appendix D), Sections 553.501 - 553.513, Florida Statutes, shall be used for elections.

4. Polling site selection shall assure accessibility to the following accessible elements, spaces, scope and technical requirements: Accessible Route, Space Allowance and Reach Ranges, Protruding Objects, Ground and Floor Surfaces, Parking and Passenger Loading Zones, Curb Ramps, Ramps, Stairs, Elevators, Platform Lifts, Doors, Entrances, Path of Egress, Controls and Operating Mechanisms, Signage and all other Minimum Requirements.

5. Standards required at each polling place, regardless of the age of the building or function of the building, shall include: (a) signed accessible disabled parking space(s); (b) signage identifying an accessible path of travel to the polling place if it is different than the primary route or entrance; (c) an unobstructed path of travel to the polling place; (d) level, firm, stable and slip- resistant surfaces; (e) an unobstructed area for voting; and (f) sufficient lighting along the accessible path of travel and within the polling place.

6. Upon request, as applied under the ADA, all ballots, instructions and printed materials at each polling place shall also be available in large type, braille, audio recording or digital text.

7. All methods used to cast a vote shall allow persons with disabilities to cast votes, whether assisted or unassisted, at the voter's sole discretion, in a secret, independent and verifiable manner, during the same times and under the same conditions available to other voters.

8. Prior to the next General Election, each existing polling place, and each newly designated polling place prior to its use, should be surveyed by the local Supervisor of Elections for the purpose of determining "accessibility," based on information developed by rule of the Department after first considering recommendations regarding such information from the newly created Disability Advisory Council.

9. The Department should, by rule, create a procedure for granting exemptions from these accessibility standards, after first considering recommendations regarding such information from the newly created Disability Advisory Council (the "DAC"). It is the specific intention of the Task Force that any exemptions from the accessibility standards recommended herein shall be only in the currently recognized instances of states of emergency that render, for whatever reason, fully accessible polling places temporarily unavailable. Said exemptions should be of an extremely limited nature, be of very short duration, and shall not in any way excuse or reduce the requirement that all polling places be fully accessible to all voters. The Task Force recommends that the Secretary of State be the designated person for the approval of the waivers set forth herein and for the imposition of penalties discussed in section 10 below.

10. The Department should, by rule, establish penalties to be imposed on counties which fail or refuse to either correct accessibility deficiencies or to designate an alternative polling place within a designated time after receiving notice of such deficiencies. Likewise, the newly created DAC shall first make recommendations to the Department regarding appropriate penalties. However, notwithstanding the above, it is the recommendation of the Task Force that the following penalty shall be authorized by statute: At any time more than sixty (60) days after which a County Commission has received the survey referred to in paragraph 8 above, any citizen of the state shall have standing to sue that County Commission in circuit court to require that any such polling places be discontinued or, failing the selection of an accessible substitute, or the submission of an application for a building permit to redress the deficiencies identified in the survey, within thirty (30) days of such filing, that county funds be used to correct all deficiencies and to make such polling places completely accessible within a reasonable time set by the court. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall be construed to permit any county to unreasonably delay making polling places accessible for all voters with disabilities.

Recommendations:

1. The Task Force recommends that the proposed accessibility standards for certification of voting systems be adopted statutorily, effective immediately, as additional requirements for the certification of all voting systems, as soon as possible. The Task Force does not recommend the application of these standards in a retroactive manner, which might result in the de-certification of a voting system already certified prior to the change of law. However, in the event a county has agreed, prior to the effective date of these standards, to purchase or lease a voting system that does not comply with the requirements of the accessibility standards, the Task Force strongly recommends that such counties must be required by statute to obtain such additional systems or system components that will allow all voters within such counties to cast a secret, independent, and verifiable ballot. Every polling place must have at least one voting system accessible to persons with disabilities, including, but not limited to, those persons visually or physically impaired.

2. Likewise, the accessibility standards for polling places should be adopted statutorily, effective July 1, 2002, together with rule-making authority granted to the Department of State to adopt a procedure for making "exemptions" thereto, and for imposing penalties for non-exempted inaccessible polling places.

3. There has been some discussion of several additional "accessibility" issues that should be considered by the newly created DAC, as follows:

A. Use of absentee ballots. It is the specific intent of the Task Force that all means of voting in Florida, including voting by absentee ballots, be fully accessible for voters with disabilities. As provided above, absentee ballots should be made available in alternative formats. While these suggested changes, if enacted, will provide a legal mandate that absentee ballots be accessible, it does not automatically guarantee that this will happen. Accordingly, the Task Force recommends that the DAC give attention to this matter, to insure that the alternative formats that are proposed to be required render absentee ballots as accessible to persons with disabilities as the proposed requirements contained in this report for voting systems utilized at a polling place.

B. Voting via use of the Internet. This technique, while providing maximum access to all persons at all times, regardless of disability, transportation disadvantage needs, or time constraints, has not yet addressed all of the security and reliability problems which have been identified with regard thereto.

C. Voting utilizing telephones or telephone components, including TTY/TDD. It is the specific intent of the Task Force that this recommendation that the DAC study this technology further should not be construed to prevent or delay the certification of any voting systems that utilize telephones or telephone components that are otherwise certifiable prior to the DAC conducting such study.

D. The development and distribution of a "survey" form for use in determining the physical accessibility of polling places, to be completed by each Supervisor of Elections for each and every polling place within each county and filed with the Department. A single survey form should be developed by the DAC, which should be used by all Supervisors.

E. Whether five pounds of force required to operate or activate the controls on any voting system as required in the accessibility standards above is low enough for persons who have limited strength in their hands/fingers, including the elderly.

F. Conduct a side-by-side comparison of the accessibility standards set forth above and/or enacted with the voluntary Voting Systems Standards promulgated by the Federal Elections Commission in December 2001.

While this assignment might also be appropriate for consideration by the recommended Disability Advisory Council, there are common issues of sensitivity and etiquette which should be understood by those whose responsibilities include working with persons with disabilities. These suggestions are not meant to be inclusive of all etiquette for all voters with disabilities. The Task Force recommends that the DAC should, relying on nationally recognized etiquette and sensitivity guides, develop and adopt etiquette standards and rules for all voters with disabilities

1. If you are not sure what help might be needed, simply ask the person. Your offer alone should be appreciated.

2. Avoid terms and words that separate persons with disabilities from other persons, such as "they" and "them."

3. Use "person first" language, such as "person with a disability," while avoiding outdated terms such as "handicapped," or "crippled."

4. A person utilizing a wheelchair should be referred to as "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelchair."

5. Someone who is blind should not be referred to as a "blind person." "A person who is blind" is appropriate. Likewise, if a person is not blind, but has impaired vision, they may appropriately be referred to as being "visually impaired." "Deaf" and "hard of hearing" are also appropriate, as applicable.

6. If a person with disabilities is accompanied by a companion, address any questions about the disability to the person with the disability, and not to the companion.

7. "Special needs" is synonymous with "disabled," but "special needs" may be more appropriate.

8. In the event a poll worker provides assistance to a voter with a disability, the poll worker should never comment or otherwise express approval or disapproval of a voter's choices or selections.

9. Unless requested, don't touch a person's wheelchair, or lean across it.

10. Maintain a clear path of travel, whether on foot or by wheelchair. This includes doorways, halls and ramps. Also, those in wheelchairs have limited reaches. If possible, sit in a chair when you are speaking to a person in a wheelchair.

11. Don't grab the hand, or slap the back, of a person who is blind. It may startle the individual or be perceived as an invasion of personal space.

12. Always introduce yourself, especially if you haven=t met before. Be sure to let the individual know when you are moving away.

13. Don't speak to a person who is blind in a higher volume of voice than normal.

14. If a person is using a guide dog, walk in front of or behind the dog. In such cases, don't touch or talk to the dog; you may distract it from doing its job.

15. For persons who are blind or visually impaired who are using a white cane, offer your arm, preferably on the opposite side of the hand holding the cane. The individual will usually then hold your arm just above the elbow and follow along slightly behind you. The sighted guide technique is far preferable and much safer for the individual than grabbing his/her arm and pushing him/her in front of you.

16. Always describe the setting, including any partly open doors, steps or ramps.

17. Be specific and non-visual with warnings.

18. Face the person to whom you are speaking, even if an interpreter is being used.

19. If you have difficulty understanding the person=s speech, let them know. Writing it down may be an acceptable alternative.

20. To get the attention of someone who is deaf or hard of hearing, tap their shoulder.

21. When addressing a voter who is deaf or hard of hearing, use a normal tone of voice. Do not raise your voice or shout at them.

1. The Department of State should be responsible for developing a mandatory state-wide training program to be completed by all poll workers prior to their actual working at a polling place, consisting of approximately one (1) hour of the current training time required.

2. This additional training should be undertaken locally by each supervisor, but certified as completed for each poll worker every several years. This particular training should be taught by persons with disabilities, where possible, and should include "hands on" demonstrations of various disabilities, such as: use of a wheelchair to navigate across a room, through a doorway, and negotiate a ramp.

3. Verification of a functional TTY/TDD in every office should be included in the training and standards requirements for poll workers referred to above and in training and standards for the staff of the Supervisors of Elections in each county.

To ensure the availability of Federal funds for implementation of the above recommendations, the Task Force recommends that Florida should meet or exceed any applicable Federal accessibility standards, as they may be enacted. At the time of this Report, such standards are embodied in U.S. Senate Bill 565 (Dodd and Stinson), which would provide a federal requirement for the creation of "accessibility" standards as to both products and processes, and would provide some funding to the states for the purchase of new equipment, where required. The Task Force recommends these particular features of this bill.

The costs of surveying each polling place to assure that it is accessible to voters with disabilities should be incurred by the local government (Supervisor of Elections or County Commission/City Council). The actual costs to construct improvements required to assure this accessibility should fall solely upon the property owner.

In addition, the Task Force would support funding increases for the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund, especially for those counties which establish the voting process on election days as a "priority," except for medical emergencies.

The Task Force recommends the continued support of the Transportation Disadvantaged bills filed in this legislative session. In particular, the Task Force supports the funding mechanism contained in Florida Senate Bill 100 (2002 Regular Session) by Senator Mitchell, which extends the existing $1.50 fee for registration renewals of vehicles to those weighing 5,000 pounds or less (which are currently exempt). The Task Force also supports amending chapter 427, Florida Statutes, to include "voting" under the definition section of that chapter so that voting is an appropriate trip for all transportation disadvantaged riders regardless of prioritization applicability.

The entire costs of running the certification process should continued to be paid by the Department, through fees imposed on each company seeking such certification.

To the extent that the recommended mandatory training program herein will be part of the current total hours of instructions for poll workers. There should be no additional costs incurred as a result, other than nominal costs to the Department for the operations of the newly recommended Disability Advisory Council, the members of which will review and monitor the training program.

1. The Secretary of State should urge Congress, through U. S. Congressman Bill Young, as well as other members of Florida's delegation to Congress, to provide federal funding to states, like Florida, to purchase new voting equipment, especially products which have been certified under voter "accessibility" standards.

2. Prohibit counties and cities from accepting public funding (federal or state) for the purchase of voting equipment which 1) has not been certified, and 2) which will not provide accessible voting - voting which enables all voters, including voters with disabilities, the right to cast secret, independent, and verifiable ballots.

Florida voters with disabilities face numerous obstacles, many of which can be overcome with the statutory adoption, implementation and enforcement of "accessibility" standards, and with the enactment of various other statutory changes identified herein.

These changes are essential if Florida is to honor its constitutional guarantee that every citizen can have a secret vote, and one that is also independent and verifiable.

1 Such as large type ballots and audio ballots.

2 According to Mr. Paul Craft, Bureau Chief of Voting Systems, Division of Elections, Department of State, while there are statutory criteria for the certification of voting systems, there are NO "accessibility" standards for such systems. Mr. Craft, in his initial testimony to the Task Force on September 10, 2001, urged that such standards be developed as soon as possible (preferably, in statutory form rather than simply under rule-making authority).

3 The Task Force supports Florida Senate Bill 100 (Mitchell) and House Bill 141 (Greenstein), filed for the 2002 legislative session, which would increase the funding of the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund.

4 Being mindful of the requirements for rule-making authority being properly exercised in accordance with the Florida Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

5 Some of the Task Force members expressed the view that any candidate who fails to utilize "closed captioning" in their campaign ads could be at great peril of losing support from voters with disabilities (irrespective of any particular disability).

6 There has been much confusion about the application of state and federal "accessibility" laws to churches, apparently because such facilities are exempt from the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and by the state's implementation of additional requirements in Chapter 553, Part V, Florida Statutes. A review of these laws, especially the application of federal regulations under the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, has led to the conclusion that churches continue to be exempt from all these accessibility requirements, even when used as polling places, unless payment for such use is made. In other words, if the use is without charge, the exemption would continue. For this reason, one of the legislative recommendations of this Task Force is to require that ALL POLLING PLACES (as defined) be fully accessible to voters with disabilities.

COUNTY CLERK
July 1998

To: Interested Parties

Re: Marion County Tactile Ballot for the Visually Impaired

Enclosed is a report detailing our experiences in development of a ballot for the visually impaired which uses tactile markings on a ballot cover (mask) in conjunction with instructions on an audio tape, to allow the visually impaired voter to vote a ballot without assistance.

The main report chronicles our work on the countywide election, conducted entirely by mail, in November 1997. This election consisted only of ballot measures - no candidates. The addendum to the report outlines adaptations and changes implemented to produce a similar ballot for Oregon's May 19, 1998 Primary Election which contained both candidates and measures and required ballots to be issued by party.

We hope you find the information useful and please feel free to contact either of us with questions or comments. Our toll free number is 800-655-5388. Our regular number is (503) 588-5041.

Nearly two years ago, early 1996, at a voter registration drive forum sponsored by Chemeketa Community College, County Clerk Al Davidson met Tina Hansen, a blind woman from Salem, active in the local chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon. Over the course of the next several months a series of telephone calls about voting issues led to a decision to explore developing a process whereby voters with visual impairments could vote their ballot unassisted by a second party.

Davidson discussed the issue with County Elections Supervisor Sharon Ricks who endorsed the idea. The Elections Division made a commitment to develop an experimental process. Discussions with experts in the blind community surfaced the issue that a braille ballot would not be adequate because only about 10% of visually impaired voters can read braille. It was pointed out that most people lose their sight later in life and have not had the training to read braille that those who go through most of their life without sight have.

Consultation with a specialist for the blind and deaf, Jay Gense, led to the concept of developing a tactile mask which would cover the ballot with raised markings to guide a voter to the appropriate locations on the ballot and openings to allow the voter to insert a marking instrument to mark the ballot.

This concept was presented to the local chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, in August of 1996. The group approved of the direction being taken by the Elections Division and encouraged development to continue.

Elections officials continued developmental work on the system and finally decided they were ready to produce a tactile ballot for the elections to be held in the fall of 1997. These are traditionally elections on ballot measures with only "yes" and "no" votes, so it provided a less complicated ballot for an experiment.

The first election available was scheduled for November 4, 1997 and the Elections division targeted that election.

The project presented a number of issues:

1. Who are the voters in the county who would benefit from such a process?

2. How do we contact them?

3. Who can produce the mask that we envisioned?

4. How do we guide the voter through the voting process?

One of the obstacles the Elections Division faced was locating the voters within the county who would use such a ballot. All records as to the names and addresses of those who are registered with any agency serving the visually impaired are confidential and therefore not available to the Elections Division.

After some discussion over which agency may have the more complete list of those with visual impairments, and be able to identify those over 18 who live in Marion County, the Elections Division contacted Lisa Driscoll at the Oregon Commission for the Blind. Ms. Driscoll agreed that while they could not provide a list or labels for use by the Elections Division, if the Elections Division prepared materials to mail, the Commission could label the envelopes and mail the materials to those registered with them. Ms. Driscoll identified approximately 630 people in Marion County, over the age of 18. The Elections Division prepared the materials and the Commission for the Blind mailed them in early September 1997.

The materials included a letter from elections officials explaining the experimental nature of the project and the need for a response by the voter if the person was interested in receiving a tactile ballot, an application to be returned by September 19, 1997, and a postage paid return envelope to the Elections Division.

Although more than 55 forms were returned to the Elections Division, we received a number of contacts indicating that the person to whom the form was sent had been deceased or was physically or mentally incapable of voting a tactile ballot. Of the approximately 630 envelopes sent by the Commission for the Blind, approximately 300 were returned as undeliverable as addressed and not forwardable.

The final number of applicants who were actually sent a ballot was 49, however not all received tactile ballots.

After the initial mailing by the Commission for the Blind was done, a number of calls to Ms. Ricks led her to the conclusion that not all of the people registered with the Commission for the Blind were in need of a tactile ballot, but could be served with a large print ballot. Ricks had her staff contact each person who had returned an application to determine a preference: tactile or large print. Of the 49 applicants 17 preferred large print while the remaining 32 opted for the tactile ballot.

At this point we had our pool of applicants and our focus turned to production.

Marion County uses an optical scan ballot, much like a paper ballot only able to be read by high speed computers. The ballot requires that a mark be made between the front and back ends of an arrow pointing toward the voter's choice, "yes" or "no". Elections officials made the determination that the same ballot would be used for the tactile ballot as was used for all other voters. It became readily apparent that because of the small numbers involved and the necessity to provide each voter with the appropriate ballot format depending upon the residence address, that no automation of this process was feasible.

Dennis Marks, Manager of the print shop at Capital Press in Salem, the printer who produces all of Marion County's ballots, had been made aware that the Elections Division was involved in this project. He offered that his company could produce the masks, but would need to order three dyes for cutting the holes, which would then need to have handles welded on to them so they could be held while being struck with a hammer to cut the hole in the mask.

The Elections Division authorized the purchase of the dyes and asked Marks to proceed with development of a prototype mask. Upon review of the prototype it was the consensus that the dyes worked well to produce the holes. We used standard manila file folders, cut to size, to create the ballot masks.

The next step was to find a way to guide the voter to the holes.

It had already been decided that an audio tape, giving very specific instructions, would be included in the packet mailed to the voter. The challenge at this point was not production of the tape, but development of the tactile markings that the tape would direct the voter to find to identify where and how to mark the ballot.

Marks offered that his company occasionally uses a peel and stick material that, if cut into thin strips, might work to identify areas of the ballot. It was determined that a second prototype would be developed using the raised strips to identify the various sections of the ballot.

A strip approximately 3 inches from the top of the ballot mask, reaching horizontally all the way across the ballot was used to designate the beginning of the first measure on the ballot. This when used in conjunction with a corner cut in the upper right corner of the mask and ballot was used to orient the ballot properly and guide the voter's hands to the spot to begin.

A shorter raised strip was used to separate each measure from the one just before it. The front of every ballot had 7 measures (two state ballot measures and 5 county ballot measures) on which everyone was eligible to vote. The tactile strips were approximately 3 inches long and ran from the right edge towards the center. The holes were punched down the right edge of the front of the ballot directly correspondent to the "yes" and "no" arrows for each measure.

It was determined that it would be necessary to identify the end of the front side of the ballot so the voter would know that he. or she had completed voting on that side. Three raised strips, approximately 3 inches long placed horizontally below the last measure's voting holes, with about a quarter of an inch between them were used to identify the bottom of the ballot.

The exact same system was used on the back side of the ballot, for those ballot styles which had additional measures to be voted. A long strip across the top identified the first measure, where there was more than one measure, shorter horizontal strips to separate the measures and three horizontal strips to signify the end of voting on the back side of the ballot.

The masks themselves were designed with a folded side against which the actual ballot could be placed and an open side from which the ballot would be inserted. Small adhesive tabs were used to secure the mask closed and the ballot in place. The mask was trimmed to fit the size of the ballot and the upper right corner was cut at a diagonal for orientation purposes.

Four different ballot styles were available in this election, however only three styles were represented by the applicants. Three versions of the mask, made to fit each ballot style, were produced. Some were produced by Capital Press, however Ms. Ricks felt it important that we be familiar with the process so a number of the masks were produced by Elections Division staff at our facility. Each mask was hand produced, no matter which facility produced it.

Now that the mask was designed, attention focused on the narrative which would guide the voter through the voting process.

The development of the audio instructions to accompany the tactile ballot was perhaps the area which consumed most of our attention since without adequate instructions the voter would soon be lost.

The decision was made to be overly inclusive rather than risk leaving anything out which may help the voter. Therefore the instructions for voting were repeated in detail for each ballot measure and included how to locate the particular measure, a reading of the full text of the ballot title, instruction on finding the holes in which to insert the marker and instructions on what to do if the voter could not locate the holes or made a mistake.

To test the completeness of our instructions, we blindfolded two of our temporary staff members, one left handed, the other right handed, who had not been at all involved in the development of the ballot for the visually impaired, to see how they would do following the instructions. We learned some things and made a few adjustments to the wording.

At our request, Salem radio station KBZY donated the use of its production studio and staff to assist in the production of the original tapes for each ballot style. Davidson, who was formerly a radio announcer, voiced the tapes himself.

Due to scheduling of the studio, we were unable to do the recording until a Friday afternoon, thus running up against the weekend which provided some difficulty in getting the tapes made to meet a Monday distribution target. To meet our schedule we were forced to use home tape players to make the copies of the tapes to send with the ballots. In the future arrangements will be made with a facility that has the capability of high speed tape dubbing.

Each tape took approximately 20 to 28 minutes depending upon the number of measures on the ballot for a particular ballot style. The cassettes were labeled by ballot type and readied for insertion in the envelopes along with the ballots. Tapes were kept in their hard plastic cases for mailing. In the future soft plastic cases or some other protective wrapping may be used, as several of the hard plastic cases were cracked or broken in the mailing process.

Two envelopes were necessary to get the ballot out and back. For the outer envelope we used a standard 9" x 12" envelope. For the return, we also used a standard 9" x 12" envelope, however we prepared it in much the same manner as our standard ballot return envelopes since the same requirement for identification of the voter and a signature beneath the required oath applied.

The return ballot was pre-addressed back to the elections office as are the return envelopes for all voters. On the back of the envelope we needed to provide a way for the visually impaired voter to locate the signature line and sign the envelope below the oath. The oath was read to them on the audio tape.

We used the natural seam of the envelope as a guide for the voter to feel his or her way across the envelope to the area where we had printed the oath and signature line. Just before the signature line we placed a vertical raised strip, similar to the horizontal raised tactile strips we had used to mark the ballot mask. We told the voters that they could sign their envelope anywhere to the right of that vertical strip. Every ballot returned was signed in the appropriate place.

The return envelope was produced manually because of the need for speed. The oath and signature information was copied onto crack and peel label material and then attached to the envelope. In the future the information will be printed on the envelope, which will reduce the weight and therefore the postage costs.

We did provide the postage for the return ballot which is something we do not do for regular ballot returns.

The total costs incurred for this election for these special ballots is somewhat higher than we can expect on an ongoing basis simply because of the one-time costs of identifying those eligible voters. The learning process of producing these ballots added expenses as well. Better managing the envelope and postal processes will also result in some savings. Some costs which were donated this time may not be in the future, thus adding expenses.

Cost Breakdown for Visually Impaired Ballot - November 4. 1997 Election

Application Process

Letters $ 35.32

Postage out 204.16

Envelopes 15.31

Labor 96.00

Undeliverable Postage 169.95

Subtotal $520.74

Ballot Production/Delivery

Marion County Labor $635.00

Capital Press Labor 262.50

Postage ** 109.79

Mask Material 17.50

Audio Tapes 36.86

Duplicated Ballots 6.13

Subtotal $1,067.78

One Time Cost

Die Purchase and Adaption $ 73.00

Total Project Cost $1,661.52 ($35.35 per ballot cast)

Total Project Costs Less Application, and One-time costs $1,067.78 ($22.72 per ballot cast)

309 undeliverable pieces from the Oregon Commission for the Blind list. Tactile ballot postage = $1.24 each way. Large print ballot postage = $1.01 out and $ .78 each return. Studio time and production assistance donated by KBZY radio. Tapes reproduced on home tape system at no charge.

Of the 49 ballots sent, 32 tactile and 17 large print, only one voter of each type did not cast a ballot. Whereas overall turnout for the election among all voters was 64.38%, the turnout among those receiving ballots for the visually impaired was 95.91%.

Comments from our visually impaired voters were very positive. A few had suggestions about how to allow the voter to more easily find themselves on the ballot if they got lost without having to go back and listen to the entire tape. One suggested a change on the return envelope. Most who commented said it made them feel fully enfranchised to be able to vote without assistance.

This was a learning experience. We think there are less expensive ways of doing this by thinking creatively. For example, we want to explore whether the "ballot" placed inside the mask can be produced in a word processing environment, perhaps differing from the exact ballot in format. This would allow greater flexibility in placing response areas and locating contests on the ballot. We believe this will allow for more standardization in the production of the masks, perhaps leading to some measure of automation. The experiment was definitely worthwhile and accomplished its goal of providing a mechanism whereby visually impaired voters could cast a ballot with the same amount of secrecy as enjoyed by the rest of us.

The upcoming primary election with 300+ ballot styles will provide a challenge for us. Many of the lessons we learned from this measure election will prove valuable in preparing for the candidate elections of 1998.

The May 19, 1998 Primary Election offered a new set of challenges for production of ballots for our visually impaired voters.

The election was a party election

There were candidates (federal, state and local) and measures (state and local) on the ballot

There were 71 different ballot styles in the county

It was obvious to us that the hand methods we had used in our initial production venture for tactile ballots would not be feasible in an election of this type. Creating the large print ballot for this election was not much different than our original experience, it just involved more pages.

We determined that we could develop three basic ballots that would be generic to each voter with each category: Republican, Democrat and Nonpartisan. Each "generic party" ballot would contain the federal partisan offices, the statewide partisan and nonpartisan offices, and the countywide partisan and nonpartisan offices and the state measure. This ballot was 81/2x 11 inches.

We created a second ballot with the individualized portion of the ballot, based on ballot format, which contained the contests for the specific legislative district, the specific city offices and the specific local measures for each individual voter. This ballot was 81/2x 5 inches.

This approach allowed us to send the main generic party ballot mask to a print shop to have the holes machine punched by type for each party style. The mask for the specific format ballots were hand punched by our staff.

We also replaced the previously used "peel and stick" strips for separating contests, with fabric glue, which was much faster to apply and caused a raised line to appear on the ballot mask to help the voter find the appropriate contest on the ballot.

We determined that the actual ballot did not necessarily need to be exactly in the same format as our ballot for non visually impaired voters. This allowed us to better utilize the space on the mask and paper to create the ballot. We ran the actual ballots on colored paper (green for Democrats, yellow for Republicans and white for Nonpartisans) as were our other ballots. This was helpful as we duplicated the visually impaired voters' ballots onto machine readable ballots for our vote tally system (an average of 24 contests per ballot with 1 to 16 candidates per contest). The scripts had to be written for the three generic party ballots then the scripts for the individualized portions of the ballots were written.

Recording of the tapes was done at a professional recording studio which recorded the ballot segments then digitally combined the elements according to each individual voter's ballot format. We ended up needing to produce ballots for voters in 20 different ballot formats. The recording studio also made all of the audio cassettes for distribution. This time we enclosed the audio cassettes in a padded mailer envelope inside the actual mail envelope for protection.

We followed the same process as in November of 1997 for distribution and return envelopes, using tactile markings on the return envelope and specifically recording instructions on the audio tape for completing the voter oath and signature spaces on the return envelope.

The voter turnout for the entire county was 39.2%. Among the visually impaired voters, 28 of 48 voters or 58.3% returned ballots. Within that category: 21 of 31 (67.7%) voters with tactile ballots; and 7 of 17 (41.2%) of voters with large print ballots returned ballots in the primary election.

By party: 12 of 20 Democrats (60%); 12 of 21 Republicans (57%); and 4 of 7 Nonpartisan voters (57%) cast ballots in this election. Party turnout among all voters in the county was: 46% Democrat, 45% Republican and 16% Nonpartisan.

Labor $1,376.00

Postage 99.49

Materials 104.38

Audio Tape Production 782.77

TOTAL $2,361.87

COST PER BALLOT PRODUCED $76.18

COST PER BALLOT VOTED $112.47

(Salem) Visually impaired voters in Marion County will be able to vote unassisted on a tactile ballot prepare especially for them, according to Marion County Clerk Al Davidson.

"We've been working with people in the blind community for over a year and finally we are to the point where we can issue a ballot that a totally blind voter should be able to vote without assistance," Davidson said.

The ballot consists of a mask with raised markings and punched holes in it which allows a voter, through the sense of touch, to locate the measures on the ballot and vote, following instructions on an audio tape which describe the tactile markings the voter will feel on the ballot mask.

Davidson added, "This is an exciting breakthrough in helping these voters perform a function which many of us take for granted. Since this is a first of its kind effort in Oregon and perhaps nationally, I'm sure we will learn of some ways the process can be improved, but at least we've begun and, hopefully by the time we get to next year's candidate elections we will be well prepared to produce a ballot that allows full participation without reliance on another person."

Dear Voter,

September 2, 1997

This letter is to announce an experimental service available to voters with visual impairments.

For some time now we have been working to develop a process whereby Marion County voters with sight impairment can vote their ballot without assistance.

We have developed a mask which covers the actual ballot, which, along with audio taped instructions, will allow those with little or no vision to vote their ballot in complete privacy.

Since each ballot setup will be custom made, we need individual requests that you want to vote this way.

We have included a form on which you can indicate whether you want to vote this way and, provide us the information we need to develop your ballot. We have also provided a return postage paid envelope for your convenience.

We are very excited about this process, and the November 1997 election will be a trial run.

Please respond as soon as possible if you want to vote this way in the November election. To prepare the ballots we must have your information by September 19, 1997.. YOU MUST BE A REGISTERED VOTER IN MARION COUNTY TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS 190 ASSISTANCE BALLOT.

If you have questions, please call the Marion county Elections Office in Salem at 588-5041 or 1-800-655-5388 for those from out of the local calling area.

Marion County Elections * 4263 Commercial St. SE #300 9 Salem, Oregon 97302-3938

Print

NAME

RESIDENCE
ADDRESS

MAILING
ADDRESS
(If Different)

PHONE

Return this form in the postage paid envelope included by September 19, 1997 to receive the, special ballot for the November 4, 1997 Special Election.

Questions? Call Marion County Elections (503) 588-5041 or 800-655-5388 if out of the local calling area.