it looks like we might have the same problem with the new voting
technology as we have with ATM access.  As some know, current law
requires ATM's to be "independently usable" to persons with vision
impairments, but it doesn't specify what that means, so banks weren't
sure what kind of access solution to put in place.  Now we are going to
require that voting access be "practical and efficient" to people with
disabilities, but we are not really going to say what that means.  it
could mean no different from what we have today.  there is still time to
call your congressperson and let him or her know about the difference
between the two bills before Congress and the kind of access you want.

Kelly


Roll Call

December 6, 2001

Disabled Voters Lobby for Changes To Ney-Hoyer Election Reform Bill

By Amy Keller

Jim Dickson has never cast a secret ballot in an election in his life,
and he suspects that current election reform legislation in the House
may not rectify the situation.

"The Ney-Hoyer bill sets the disability community back," explained
Dickson, who is vice president of the American Association of People
With Disabilities. "I refer to this bill as the 'let's help America vote
except if you're disabled.'"

Dickson, who is blind, believes that the election reform measure crafted
by Reps. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) doesn't go far enough
to help 35 million voting-age citizens with physical disabilities gain
equal access to the secret ballot in public polling places because it
leaves too much discretion with the states, which, he argues, have
already failed miserably in the task.

Supporters of the Ney-Hoyer approach, however, argue that the bill does,
in fact, help Americans with disabilities and will improve the current
situation.

The Ney-Hoyer bill would require each state's chief election official to
certify that all the polling places in his or her state are in
compliance with the 1984 Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

It would also create "minimum standards" for state election systems,
requiring that all new voting systems provide a "practical and effective
means for voters with physical disabilities to cast a secret ballot."

The bill also requires states purchasing new voting equipment with
federal funds to ensure that "at least one voting machine in each
polling place in the state will by fully accessible to individuals with
physical disabilities." States accepting federal "election fund"payments
for other voting-system improvements must certify that they have a
voting machine that is fully accessible in each precinct or polling
place.

But Dickson's organization and more than two dozen other groups
representing the disabled community are vigorously lobbying against the
legislation, arguing that the language in the bill is weak and that
Congress must mandate stricter national standards that more clearly
spell out what is acceptable and what is not.

"We absolutely need national standards on what is accessible," Dickson
said. "We've had voluntary standards for 17 years, and the GAO did a
report where they surveyed over 100 counties last November, and over 80
percent ... were still inaccessible."

That General Accounting Office study found that, despite federal
accessibility laws, in November 2000, from the parking area to the
voting room, 56 percent of polling places had one or more potential
impediments to voters with disabilities but offered curbside voting as
an alternative.

Another 28 percent had one or more potential impediments but did not
offer curbside voting, a system in which poll workers come to an
individual's vehicle and provide an alternative means for the disabled
voter to cast his or her ballot.

"So if you say to me, trust the election community to make things
accessible, my response is why should Itrust them now?" Dickson
continued. "They've had 17 years and haven't done it."

Lee Page, associate advocacy director for the Paralyzed Veterans of
America, said he is not convinced that simply requiring states to
certify that they are in compliance with current laws, such as the
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, will
have any real effect.

"The fact of the matter is, the 1984 statute has no teeth,"he said.

Page also argued that the ADA has been interpreted broadly when it comes
to voting. In many instances it has allowed states to provide reasonable
alternative means for voting for the disabled, which in some areas has
translated into "curbside voting."

But Page said these alternatives haven't always seemed reasonable to the
voters forced to use them.

"I've got friends here in Arlington County, [Va.], who had to sit in
their cars for an hour before someone came out to [administer a curbside
vote]," Page explained. "What we want -what the disabilities community
wants -is the right to go into the polling place and have the right to
vote privately and independently."

Dickson and his allies said they prefer the language in a bill authored
by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) that more
clearly spells out what voting equipment must do and how polling places
must operate. The bill also does not limit its definition of the
disabled to those with physical disabilities, but extends it to those
who may have mental disabilities, such as mental retardation.

The Dodd-Conyers bill would require that every voting system used in a
federal election must be "accessible for individuals with disabilities
and other individuals with special needs, including providing nonvisual
accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, which provides the
same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and
independence) as for other voters."

The measure also requires states' voting systems to "provide alternative
language accessibility for individuals with limited proficiency in the
English language."

Charles Crawford, executive director of the American Council of the
Blind, said he prefers the Dodd-Conyers approach.

"There is an absolute expectation by every American that they will have
the right to vote and to have that vote secret, and counted," Crawford
explained. "Our problem is, the [Ney-Hoyer] bill in its current form
does not guarantee a blind person that same expectation but makes it
relative."

Dodd, Senate sources said, is particularly sensitive to the issue
because a family member is visually impaired.

But it's still unclear how the Senate will address the issue in whatever
final election reform proposal lawmakers craft. This week Sens. Dodd,
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
met to hammer out the details of a compromise package.

Senate aides familiar with the meetings said that the Senators seemed
more inclined to write language that would require "reasonable" access
to the polls for those who are disabled so as not to saddle states and
localities with onerous financial burdens.

The four Senators are expected to meet again today and could introduce a
bill as early as next week.

Dickson said he will be satisfied with no less than one machine at every
polling location that is accessible to voters with disabilities.

But Phil Zelikow, the executive director of the National Commission on
Federal Election Reform, which backs the Ney-Hoyer bill, doesn't see
what all the fuss is about.

The Ney-Hoyer bill, Zelikow argued, "requires every state in the country
to provide a practical and effective means for a disabled person to case
a secret ballot in every polling place in the United States.

"It requires every polling place in the U.S., if states take federal
money, to have a specific kind of machine that is accessible to the
disabled in every precinct," he continued. "This is leaning pretty far
forward ... Ithink it's a shame that disabilities groups will try to
join in defeating the bill."

Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), who has a personal stake in the issue,
believes that the Ney-Hoyer approach, while not perfect, is a modest
step in the right direction for the disabled community.

Langevin - who is paralyzed and has seen firsthand the difficulties that
the disabled can face at election time - also served as Rhode Island's
secretary of state for two consecutive terms.

In that role he was the chief architect of a statewide election
modernization effort that implemented cutting-edge optical-scan
machinery throughout the state and provided better access for disabled
voters.

Although Langevin said he has "some concerns" that the Ney-Hoyer
approach" doesn't go far enough" to help voters with disabilities, he
does think "the bill as whole is a good bill."

"I am an optimist by nature," Langevin continued. "I want to believe
that states want to do the right thing, and if by giving them the tools,
such as providing the resources for the state to get optical-scan voting
equipment, it brings them a tremendous distance to ensuring it's a 100
percent accessible voting system."

Hoyer said he believes that while his bill might not be as specific as
the disabilities community would like it to be, it does address their
concerns.

"Some people believe that a bill in which they participated in the
drafting is more specific and goes further than the Ney-Hoyer bill,"
Hoyer remarked. "However, the Ney-Hoyer bill specifically establishes as
minimum standards that states must certify they are in compliance with
the ADA.

"I take it as a concern that they want to have a bill as specific as
possible," Hoyer continued. "Frankly, I think the Ney-Hoyer bill is a
good bill and does address the concerns of people with disabilities."


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html