DISABILITIES, (E)VOTING AND
ACCESS: A SURVEY OF VOTER SATISFACTION
Presenter(s)
Robert
Roy
ITTATC/CATEA/Georgia Institute of Technology
Day
Phone: 404-894-1412
Email:
rob.roy@coa.gatech.edu
Presenter #2
Paul Baker
Wireless RERC/CACP/Georgia Institute of Technology
Day Phone: 404-385-4618
Email: paul.baker@cacp.gatech.edu
In
a representative democracy the process of selecting those who represent the
electorate is critical and ensuring fair and valid elections have been of
concern as long as elections have been held. In the
VOTING
AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILTITIES
People with disabilities, like other disadvantaged groups, are less likely to
participate in electoral politics than other more-advantaged groups (Schur et.
al., 2002). While many scholars agree that barriers to voting, physical
barriers to reaching and entering the voting place, inaccessible or otherwise
unusable voting booths and systems, and problems with interaction with poll
workers represent the greatest problems to electoral participation, not all
scholars agree that these barriers are the only reason voters do not vote.
Exactly how individuals with disabilities vote is just as important, as an
increasing shift toward electronic voting has heightened debates between issues
of accessibility and privacy (Danielsen and Zimmerman, 2005).
Perhaps
even more important, however, are issues that Danielsen and Zimmerman identify
regarding recount law reform, inadequate poll worker training, unfettered and
unsupervised access by vendor technicians to voting machines on election day,
and jurisdictions with inadequate technology contingency plans in the case of
machine breakdowns. They note that there exist many opportunities for
collaboration and that stakeholders must work together to address concerns of
certifying voting equipment, establishing election procedures, ensuring
transparency, and above all, presenting a united front to voting system vendors
at all levels. Otherwise, voting systems will be adopted that imperfectly
address security and accessibility concerns separately, can artificially cast
against the other.
METHOD
Participants were recruited from across the county via list—serves for various
disability organizations, and the mass media. The online survey of 48 closed
and 2 open ended questions was administered between October 2004 and mid
February 2005, using Survey Solutions, Professional Edition software. For
respondents who did not have access to the Internet or otherwise found the survey
inaccessible, accommodations were made to toke the survey over the phone. Over
the 5 month period 563 unique voter experiences/respondents participated in the
survey. Uniqueness of respondents was determined by reviewing IP address and
discarding any duplicated and incomplete records.
RESULTS
The 563 respondents to the voter satisfaction survey were assigned to two
groups: those reporting having a disability (PWD) and those who reported they
did not have a disability, with a further desegregation by type of voting
machine used, electronic or not electronic. 58% of the respondents reported no
disability and 42% reported having a disability. The split between electronic
or E-voting and all other methods of voting, henceforth referred to as manual
was 400 (71%) electronic and 163 (29%) manual.
Voting:
Of the 563 respondents 8 reported that they were not able to cast their ballot,
all of which reported having a disability. Seventy five respondents (13.3%)
reported needing assistance in the act of voting (3% of the non—disabled
respondent vs. 26.6 % of PWD)
Barriers
to Voting:
Three questions were asked about voting machines with built in accessibility
accommodations. Seventeen (3.0%) respondents reported using the available
adjustments; with use of headphones and volume control the most used
adjustments. Next respondents were asked to indicate any barriers to
accessibility encountered and list any potential usability problem encountered
while voting. There were 347 instances of reported barriers including size or
display of the text, 71 (20.5%), problems with placement or design of controls
109 (31.4%), or audio/sound output 167 (48.1%). Not unexpectedly PWD reported
experiencing overall greater problems with 209 (60.2%) instances vs. 138
(38.9%) instances or the non-disabled voter. Of interest is the fact that 16%
of respondents, overall, reported that the lack of privacy was an issue, the
largest usability issue reported by both non disabled and PWD groups.
Satisfaction
with Voting Process:
Of the 13 satisfaction questions asked 7 showed a statistically significant
difference in how PWD viewed their experience when compared with voters without
disability. These can be grouped into three categories:
— Satisfaction of experience - PWD were approximately 10% less likely to report
being satisfied with the experience;
- Satisfaction with polling officials/place — PWD were 9%—l8% less likely to
report satisfaction with polling officials or place;
- Satisfaction with voting machine accessibility - PWD were 7% to 20% less
likely to report satisfaction with the equipment.
General
Observations from Open-ended Questions:
Open ended questions asking for a description of any additional problems had
while voting
(253 respondents)
* 12.2% reported complaints concerning use of a voting device that tended to
impact all
users
* 9.1% reported complaints regarding poll worker activity that impacted at
voters with
* 4.7% reported complaints regarding poll worker activity that somehow impacts
accessibility of voting
* 5.9% reported complaints concerning use of a voting device that primarily
impacted PWD
* More that 2 time as many PWD’s disagreed with the statement that “It was
clear that the polling officials understood how to operate the electronic
voting machines.”
On
the other hand:
* 79% of those responding to the statement “Using an electronic voting machine
improved my voting experience” did so indicating agreement with the statement.
There was no statistical difference between the two groups.
* 81% of PWD’s responding to the statement “I believe electronic voting
machines will encourage more PWD’s to vote” were in agreement with the
statement. Interestingly, there was no statistical difference between PWD and
people without disabilities.
CONCLUSIONS:
Fifteen years after the implementation of the
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Nathan W. Moon, Mike
Williams, Carl
Blunt, Dennis Folds, in conducting this research. This is a publication of the
Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center (ITTATC) at
Georgia Tech’s Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access (CATEA)
a unit of the
Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education under grant
number
H133A000405. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the
grantee and do
not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education.
REFERENCES:
Danielsen, Christopher S. and Matt Zimmerman. Electronic Voting, Human Rights:
The
Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities 32, no. 2
(Spring 2005)
9—12.
Harrington, James C. Pencils Within Reach and a Walkman or Two: Making the
Secret Ballot Available to Voters Who Are Blind or Have Other Physical
Disabilities, Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights 4, no. 2
(Summer/Fall 1999) : 87—105.
3
Schriner,
Kay and Todd C. Shields. Empowerment of the Political Kind: The Role of
Disability Service Organizations in Encouraging People with Disabilities to
Vote,
Journal of Rehabilitation 64, no. 2 (April-June 1998): 33—38.
Schur, Lisa, Todd Shields, Douglas Kruse, and Kay Schriner. Enabling Democracy:
Disability and Voter Turnout, Political Research Quarterly 55, no. 1 (March
2002):
167—190.
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2006 Table of Contents