In the past, the American Council of the Blind (ACB) has worked diligently with lawmakers, the voting technology industry and the disability community on the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and we will continue to work with various entities and stakeholders on its implementation to ensure that people with disabilities are not disenfranchised by voting systems.
This year, there is pending legislation on the issue of voter verification. Like other Americans, citizens who are blind and visually impaired share the goal of making elections fair, secure, and accurate. At this point, I would like to reiterate that, in general, ACB is not opposed to, or in support of, a “paper trail” or any other means to ensure verifiability and security for an election. The ability for a voter to privately and independently vote and the ability for a voter to verify that his or her vote was cast properly is of vital importance to all citizens.
HAVA assures that blind and visually impaired voters have the ability to cast a private, independent ballot. Section 301 (3)(A) of HAVA requires that “the voting system shall be accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) as for other voters.”
Our emphasis is, as per Section 301 (3)(A) of HAVA, that any and all measures instituted to provide enhanced security, accuracy, and/or voter confidence in the voting system are developed and implemented in a manner that ensures immediate accessibility for people who are blind or visually impaired.
There are several bills either proposed or pending on the issue of voting technology, security, and audit trails. Some of them address the importance of continued accessibility to the voting system (e.g., HR 811 sponsored by Rep. Rush Holt), and because of the timeliness of the issue (presidential elections in 2008) we expect even more. Regardless, there is significant Congressional interest this year in changes to the current voting process and we need to be prepared.
The impact of such legislation will vary depending not only on the specific language of the bills, but also the conditions in each state.
From Electionline.org, as of 9/20/06: 22 states require voting machines to produce a Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT): AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, HI, ID, IL, ME, MO, MT, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OR, UT, WA, WV, WI
Of the 22 states that require voting machines to produce a VVPAT, 17 use electronic voting machines in at least one jurisdiction: AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, HI, IL, MO, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OH, UT, WA, WV, WI.
And 5 do not use any electronic voting machines: CT, ID, ME, MT, OR.
5 states require paper-based ballot systems: MI, MN, NH, NM, VT.
15 states and the District of Columbia use electronic voting machines in at least one jurisdiction and do not require VVPATs: DE, DC, FL, GA, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WY
7 states do not use any electronic voting machines and do not have any regulations requiring VVPATs: AL, MA, NE, ND, OK, RI, SD.
Notes: Mississippi does not require VVPATs, but in the 77 counties that received electronic voting machines in 2005, the machines produce a VVPAT. Massachusetts is in the process of selecting an accessible voting system.
For continued access to private and independent voting, ACB supports:
1. Legislative language which ensures that the access to vote casting provided to blind and visually impaired voters under HAVA would be extended to this new step in the process (voter inspection of a paper ballot) that many bills are introducing;
2. The application of the EAC’s voting system guidelines for vote generation/casting to the vote verification process for consistent accessibility;
3. The inclusion of funding beyond a study of accessibility methods, and to include funds for appropriate research and development for such voting access technology.