Help America Vote Act of 2002

HAVA, which contains a number of provisions to help increase voting  accessibility for people with disabilities, establishes the Election  Assistance Commission (EAC) and grants the Attorney General  enforcement authority. To satisfy this  requirement, each polling place must have at least one direct recording  electronic or other voting system equipped for people with disabilities. Characteristics of Long- term Care Facility Residents

As the proportion of older Americans in the country increases, the number  of voters residing in long-term care facilities who may face challenges  voting at polling places on Election Day due to their physical and mental  condition could also increase. The Proportion of Polling Places Without Potential Impediments Increased Between the 2000 and 2008 Elections

In comparison to our findings in 2000, the proportion of polling places with  no potential impediments increased in 2008. In 2008, we estimated that  27 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. Specifically, polling places with four or more potential impediments  decreased significantly—from 29 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2008  (see fig. 1). Figure 2 shows some key polling place features that we examined in our  2008 review of polling places. We did not assess polling places’ legal compliance with HAVA accessible voting system  requirements. Justice Assessed States’ Implementation of HAVA Requirements for the 2006 Deadline, but Its Oversight Had Some Gaps

		Justice’s Outreach, Guidance, and Oversight

From shortly after the passage of HAVA until 2006, Justice officials  provided educational outreach and guidance on polling place accessibility  and conducted an initial assessment of states’ compliance with HAVA’s  January 2006 deadline for accessible voting systems.guidance on the new HAVA voting system requirements while the EAC   Justice provided  was being formed. For example, Justice supervised  polling place observations for federal elections on Election Day 2008,  primarily to assess compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, Justice did not systematically assess the physical accessibility  of the polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided to  people with disabilities by the accessible voting system, which limited the  department’s ability to identify potential accessibility issues facing voters  with disabilities. In addition, Justice initiated a small number of annual  community assessments—called Civic Access assessments—of ADA  compliance in public buildings, including buildings designated as polling  places, but these assessments included a small portion of polling places  nationwide and were generally not conducted on Election Day. Between 2000 and 2008, Justice entered into 69  Civic Access settlement agreements containing one or more  recommendations aimed at polling place provisions, but given the small  number of Civic Access assessments conducted annually, they did not  provide a national perspective on polling place accessibility. In addition,  since these assessments were not conducted during elections, they did  not assess any special features of voting areas and accessible voting  systems that are set up only on Election Day. Implementation of Recommended Monitoring and Oversight Would Reduce Potential Voting Impediments and Other Challenges

In our 2009 report on polling place accessibility, we recommended that  the Department of Justice look for opportunities to expand its monitoring  and oversight of the accessibility of polling places for people with  disabilities in a cost-effective manner. This effort might include: 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. Justice generally agreed with this recommendation in commenting on the  draft report, and when we reached out for an update in preparation of this  testimony, indicated it has taken steps towards addressing the  recommendation.
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, including those with disabilities and the elderly. However during the 2000 federal election, GAO found that only 16 percent of polling places had no potential impediments to voting 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 by 2006. Congress asked GAO to reassess voting access on Election Day 2008, and also to study voter accessibility at long-term care facilities.
This statement focuses on (1) progress made from 2000 to 2008 to improve voter accessibility in polling places, including relevancy to long-term care facilities and (2) steps the Department of Justice (Justice) has taken to enforce HAVA voting access provisions.
To prepare this statement, GAO relied primarily on its prior products on polling place accessibility ( GAO-09-941 ) and voting in long-term care facilities ( GAO-10-6 ).

What GAO Found

Compared to 2000, the proportion of polling places in 2008 without potential impediments increased and almost all polling places had an accessible voting system as states and localities made various efforts to help facilitate accessible voting. In 2008, based upon GAO's survey of polling places, GAO estimated that 27 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path from the parking to the voting area--up from16 percent in 2000; 45 percent had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27 percent had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting. All but one polling place GAO 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. In GAO's 2008 state survey, 43 states reported that they set accessibility standards for polling places, up from 23 states in 2000. Further, 31 states reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was challenging. Localities GAO surveyed in 2008 reported providing voting services directly to long-term care facility residents who may face challenges voting in a polling place. For example, close to one-third of localities GAO surveyed reported designating long-term care facilities as Election Day polling places.
From shortly after the passage of HAVA until 2006, 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. After implementation of HAVA, Justice's oversight of HAVA's access requirements was part of two other enforcement efforts, but gaps remained. While Justice provided guidance on polling place accessibility, this guidance did not address accessibility of the voting area itself. In 2009, Justice conducted polling place observations for federal elections that identified whether accessible voting systems were in place, but it did not systematically assess the physical accessibility of polling places or the level of privacy and independence provided to voters with disabilities. Justice also conducted a small number of annual community assessments of Americans with Disabilities Act compliance of public buildings, which included buildings designated as polling places. However, these assessments did 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.

What GAO Recommends

GAO previously recommended that Justice expand its monitoring and oversight of polling place accessibility. Justice generally agreed with our recommendation and has reported taking some steps towards addressing it, such as expanding Election Day observations to include an assessment of physical accessibility.