The Proportion of Polling Places Without Potential Impediments Increased Since 2000

Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential  impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible voting  system. In 2008, based upon our survey of polling places, we estimate that  27.3 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path from  the parking area to the voting area—up from 16 percent in 2000; 45.3 percent  had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining  27.4 percent had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting. All  but one polling place we visited had an accessible voting system to facilitate  private and independent voting for people with disabilities. However, 46  percent of polling places had an accessible voting system that could pose a  challenge to certain voters with disabilities, such as voting stations that were  not arranged to accommodate voters using wheelchairs. Most States Have Established Requirements and Funded Improvements to Help Facilitate Voter Accessibility

The majority of states have established accessibility requirements and  funded improvements to help facilitate accessible voting, and all states  reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting  methods. Forty-three states reported on our survey that they required  accessibility standards for polling places in 2008, up from 23 states in 2000. Additionally, most states reported that they used federal HAVA funds to  improve the physical accessibility of polling places. Further, all states  reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting  methods, such as absentee voting. According to our state survey, 31 states reported that  ensuring polling place accessibility was very or moderately challenging. Justice Assessed States’ Implementation of HAVA Requirements for the 2006 Deadline, But Its Current Oversight Has Some Gaps

Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility and conducted an  initial assessment of states’ compliance with HAVA’s January 2006 deadline  for accessible voting systems. Since then, Justice’s oversight of HAVA’s  access requirements is part of two other enforcement efforts, but gaps  remain. Justice currently conducts polling place observations for federal  elections that identify whether an accessible voting system is in place, but it  does not systematically assess the physical accessibility of polling places or  the level of privacy and independence provided to voters with disabilities. Justice also conducts a small number of annual community assessments of  ADA compliance of public buildings, which includes buildings designated as  polling places. However, these assessments do not provide a national  perspective on polling place accessibility or assess any special features of  voting areas and accessible voting systems that are set up only on Election  Day. This effort might include the following  activities:    working with states to use existing state oversight mechanisms and using  other resources, such as organizations representing election officials and  disability advocacy organizations, to help assess and monitor states’  progress in ensuring polling place accessibility, similar to the effort used  to determine state compliance with HAVA voting system requirements by  the 2006 deadline;    expanding the scope of Election Day observations to include an  assessment of the physical access to the voting area and the level of  privacy and independence being offered to voters with disabilities by  accessible voting systems; and    expanding the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist of Polling  Places to include additional information on the accessibility of the voting  area and guidance on the configuration of the accessible voting system to  provide voters with disabilities with the same level of privacy and  independence as is afforded to other voters. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Our objectives were to examine (1) the proportion of polling places that  have features that might facilitate or impede access to voting for people  with disabilities and how these results compare to our findings from the  2000 federal election; (2) the actions states are taking to facilitate voting  for people with disabilities; and (3) the steps the Department of Justice  (Justice) has taken to enforce the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)  voting access provisions. We also reviewed federal laws,  guidance, and other documentation.
Why GAO Did This Study

Voting is fundamental to our democracy, and federal law generally requires polling places to be accessible to all eligible voters for federal elections, including voters with disabilities. However, during the 2000 federal election, GAO found that only 16 percent of polling places had no potential impediments to access for people with disabilities. To address these and other issues, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which required each polling place to have an accessible voting system. We examined (1) the proportion of polling places during the 2008 federal election with features that might facilitate or impede access for voters with disabilities compared to our findings from 2000; (2) actions states are taking to facilitate voting access; and (3) steps the Department of Justice (Justice) has taken to enforce HAVA voting access provisions. GAO visited 730 randomly selected polling places across the country, representing polling places nationwide, on Election Day 2008. GAO also surveyed states and interviewed federal officials.

What GAO Found

Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places without potential impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible voting system. In 2008, based upon our survey of polling places, we estimate that 27.3 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path from the parking to the voting area--up from16 percent in 2000; 45.3 percent had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27.4 percent had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting. All but one polling place we visited had an accessible voting system--typically, an electronic machine in a voting station--to facilitate private and independent voting for people with disabilities. However, 46 percent of polling places had an accessible voting system that could pose a challenge to certain voters with disabilities, such as voting stations that were not arranged to accommodate voters using wheelchairs. Most states have established accessibility requirements and funded improvements to help facilitate accessible voting, and all states reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting methods. In 2008, 43 states reported that they required accessibility standards for polling places, up from 23 states in 2000. Additionally, most states reported that they used federal HAVA funds to improve the physical accessibility of polling places. Further, all states reported that they required local jurisdictions to offer alternative voting methods, such as absentee voting. At the same time, 31 states reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was challenging. Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility and conducted an initial assessment of states' compliance with HAVA's January 2006 deadline for accessible voting systems. Since then, Justice's oversight of HAVA's access requirements is part of two other enforcement efforts, but gaps remain. While Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility, this guidance does not address accessibility of the voting area itself. Justice currently conducts polling place observations for federal elections that identifies whether an accessible voting system is in place, but it does not systematically assess the physical accessibility of polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided to voters with disabilities. Justice also conducts a small number of annual community assessments of Americans with Disabilities Act compliance of public buildings, which includes buildings designated as polling places. However, these assessments do not provide a national perspective on polling place accessibility or assess any special features of the voting area and the accessible voting system that are set up only on Election Day.