|
|
|
Florida Vows to Appeal Accessible Voting Ruling
[A news article describing the decision to appeal is followed by a December 2003 letter from the Department of Justice about implementing the Help America Vote Act.]
Vows to appeal follow ruling
By Nancy Cook Lauer
DEMOCRAT CAPITOL BUREAU CHIEF
Jan. 17, 2004Worried that it will set a precedent, Florida's supervisors of elections plan to appeal a federal ruling requiring Duval County to provide voting machines for the disabled by the Aug. 31 primary.
The tentative ruling Thursday, by U.S. District Judge Wayne Alley, found that counties must comply not only with the new Help America Vote Act, but also the more stringent Americans with Disabilities Act when holding elections.
The Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections, upon hearing of the ruling while at a conference, immediately voted unanimously to fight it, Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho said Friday. If the ruling is applied statewide as the state Division of Elections fears, it will affect 52 of Florida's 67 counties.
Leon County is one of them. Sancho said he is planning to install an audio voting machine in the Leon County Courthouse in time for early voting for the Nov. 2 general election, but he simply wouldn't be able to have such machines in every precinct by the primary. Instead, he plans to ask for $800,000 to install them for the 2006 elections, as required by HAVA.
Installing a single machine will increase accessibility for disabled voters while giving the county time to educate voters and train poll workers on their use, he said. Sancho said it takes 18 months to implement new voting technology properly on a countywide basis.
"You simply can't introduce equipment at the last second," Sancho said. "You can't if you don't want a problem."
It's unclear whether the judge will require machines in each precinct this year, or in a central location. He gave each side 10 days to reply to his tentative ruling but indicated he would make it permanent.
The lawsuit against Duval County and the state Division of Elections was filed by the American Association of People with Disabilities, which says the county was required to put in the accessible machines under the ADA when it upgraded from a punch-card to an optical-scan system.
Duval County contends HAVA took precedence over the Americans with Disabilities Act, a stance Sancho takes as well. But James Dickson, vice president of governmental affairs for the national disabled group, says HAVA clearly spells out that other federal laws also apply.
"I think they would be silly and it would be wasteful of public resources to try to appeal on that ground," Dickson said. "We're talking about the right to vote. Why should it be delayed? What's the problem?"
Contact Capitol Bureau Chief Nancy Cook Lauer at (850) 222- 6729 or nlauer@tallahassee.com.
December 12, 2003
Andrew J. Imparato
President and CEO of American Association of People with Disabilities
1629 K. Street, NW, Suite 503
Washington, D.C. 20006Curtis Decker
Executive Director
National Association of Protection &Advocacy systems, Inc.
900 Second Street, NE, Suite 211
Washington, D.C. 20002Dear Andrew and Curtis:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and my staff regarding your concerns over voting access for the disabled. The Civil Rights Division takes very seriously its role in making sure that the rights of disabled voters are vigorously protected under the Voting Rights Act ("VRA") and other federal voting laws.
You outlined at our meeting some general concerns regarding states' compliance with the legal protections afforded to disabled voters under current law. More specifically, you mentioned instances of voters who require assistance by reason of a disability being denied the right to assistance by a person of their choice. This information concerns us greatly. As you know, Section 208 of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. ' 1973aa-6, states definitively that "[a]ny voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice, other than the voter's employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter's union." If you are aware of any specific instances of disabled voters being denied such assistance, please forward that information to the Civil Rights Division so that we can investigate the matter to determine if violations of federal law have occurred.
As for the other subject of our discussion, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA"), I share many of the concerns you identified. HAVA will significantly enhance the ability of the disabled to participate in our democratic election process. In particular, Section 301(a)(3) of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. 15481, mandates that voting systems used in federal election "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." This requirement can be satisfied through the use of "at least one direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place." Moreover, any voting systems used by jurisdictions must meet the other statutory mandates set forth in Section 301. There are no exemptions to Section 301(a)(3)'s requirements in the statute.
Section 401 of HAVA gives the Attorney General the authority and responsibility to seek declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary to "carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements under sections 301, 302, and 303." Moreover, although HAVA's voting system requirements do not go into effect until January 1, 2006, we encourage all jurisdictions to implement the requirements of Section 301 as soon as practical, particularly the disability provision, to help ensure that disabled voters are able to fully participate in the election process to the maximum extent possible.
The Department of Justice will enforce the statute if the requirements are not implemented by the January 1, 2006, deadline. Delays in implementation due to the failure of jurisdictions to begin early planning and compliance will not deter our enforcement
If we can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
R. Alexander Acosta
Assistant Attorney GeneralMember Benefits | About AAPD | Join | Disability Resources | News | Contact Us | Calendar | Home