Testimony of the Manhattan Borough President, C. Virginia Fields
to the Election Law and Governmental Operations Committees for the New York State Assembly
April 4, 2003

Good afternoon. I am C. Virginia Fields, President of the Borough of Manhattan, and I am here to testify on behalf of the Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York (CIDNY) and myself. I would first like to thank both the Honorable Keith Wright, Chair of the Assembly's Election Law Committee, and the Honorable RoAnn Destito, Chair of the Assembly's Governmental Operations Committee, for allowing me to testify about the implementation of the Help America Vote Act, which is commonly known as HAVA, in New York State. Although today's hearing is focused on several issues related to HAVA implementation in this state, the focus of my testimony will be on disabled access to voting machine technology and problems with New York State's full-face ballot law.

On January 29th of this year, CIDNY and I hosted a Voting Technology Fair for People with Disabilities. The purpose of this fair was to provide people with physical, visual, cognitive and other types of disabilities an opportunity to test new forms of voting technology. In return for this opportunity, we asked participants at the fair to evaluate their experiences using the different types of machines, in order to learn about the extent to which each type of machine met their needs. In particular, we wanted disabled participants to test their ability to cast an independent and private vote. CIDNY and I are proud to announce that today, we are issuing the first of two reports that analyze the feedback we received on the accessibility of each machine for people with disabilities. We are especially proud because this is the first report in the nation to (1) compare disabled access features for federally certified voting machines, and (2) analyze disabled users' experiences testing each machine.

Based on the analysis of disabled voters' experiences at the Voting Technology Fair, our report makes a number of recommendations to improve and ensure access to voting machines for the disabled. We discovered that portable and lightweight voting machines that can be held in one's lap, were the easiest machines for wheelchair-users to access. We also discovered that the height of a machine and the tilt of the screen must be adjustable, in order to increase access for people with a variety of mobility-related disabilities.

CIDNY and I learned that people with limited use of their hands or arms, such as quadriplegics or people with Parkinson's Disease, do not have the movement accuracy that is required to press small tactile buttons or use touch screen buttons. Many with these types of disabilities need the machine controls to be in a single location. For those who are unable to use the machine's standard controls, alternative controls that allow people to vote without use of their arms and hands must be available. For example, some quadriplegics, like the actor Christopher Reeve, cannot vote using their hands but can vote by breath using a sip and puff adapter.

Our analysis also showed that inclusion of an audio ballot does not ensure access for visually impaired or blind voters. We learned that human voice recordings should be used, because they are easier to understand than computer-generated voice recordings. We also learned that audio ballot controls need to include color-coded, distinctly shaped buttons, in order to facilitate visually impaired voters' ability to distinguish one button from the next. Tactile buttons that are used to move forward or backward in a ballot must clearly indicate direction, whether they are left and right, or up and down. Voter-controls for the volume and speed of the speech should be available.

Although a small portion of the blind population read Braille, many blind testers at the Voting Technology Fair preferred controls that had Braille labels. Visually impaired voters recommended that font size and screen contrast for standard interface voting should be available. They also wanted to have the option to use the audio and visual forms of voting simultaneously.

We also discovered that hard of hearing voters with a visual disability need some type of assisted listening device for the audio ballot, other than just a volume control.

Although CIDNY and I learned many things about disabled voters' abilities to use the latest forms of voting technology, the most significant conclusion of our analysis is that a full-face ballot machine is not accessible for many disabled voters. We found that a significant number of wheelchair users, people with limited dexterity or use of their arms, and people with cognitive disabilities are simply unable to vote using a full-face ballot. Some are unable to reach the buttons or switches located on the upper and outer portions of a full-face ballot. People with cognitive disabilities are sometimes unable to process information or discern the different choices and the different races when there is too much information on the ballot.

People with physical and cognitive disabilities are able, however, to cast independent and private votes using some of the other multi-page ballot machines demonstrated at our Voting Technology Fair. It is clear that as long as New York State continues to have a full-face ballot law, the many voting machines that are more accessible to a greater number of New York voters with disabilities, cannot be certified for use in this state. There will continue to be New Yorkers who are unable to cast an independent and private vote.

Problems with full-face ballot machines are not limited to people with disabilities. Full-face ballots can only accommodate a limited number of languages. Each time an additional language is added to the ballot, the font size for the ballot's typeface becomes smaller and smaller. Small font size, of course, is a problem for visually impaired voters regardless of the language they like to vote in. Such voters need large size print in order to read the ballot.

The multi-page ballot machines, however, range from being able to accommodate eight different languages per ballot, to being able to accommodate an infinite number of languages. If multi-page ballot machines were legal in New York State, all election districts could provide ballots in many more languages than full-face ballot machines could ever realistically accommodate.

Another problem with full-face ballots is that they encourage under-voting in elections. For example, returns from the 2000 general election showed that in New York State, 45.8% of those who voted in the presidential contest (which was located in the upper row of the ballot) did not vote in the referendum for the Transportation Infrastructure Bond Act of 2000 (which was located in the lower, right-hand corner of the ballot). If we compare this with just New York City voters-who were better educated about this referendum and more likely to search for it on the ballot-we find that 32.5% of New York City voters who voted in the presidential election did not vote in that referendum. Although some may have purposefully skipped the referendum, I suspect that there were many who could not find it on the ballot. I had conversations with voters following that election and found that many people did not realize there was a referendum on the ballot.

Multi-page ballot machines, on the other hand, require voters to view every contest that is part of the election. Many of these machines provide a summary of the voter's selections after he or she has viewed every contest. Most of the machines will highlight contests that have no selection, in order to provide an opportunity for the voter to select candidates in races that may have been overlooked.

Before I conclude this testimony, I would like to add that CIDNY and I strongly believe that absentee ballots can never be considered a sufficient substitute for people who are unable to cast an independent and private vote on a voting machine. First, absentee voters may have less information about the candidates and contests before they cast their ballots and mail them in, than voters using machines on Election Day.

Second, paper ballots, which include absentee ballots, are notorious for being disqualified for a variety of reasons. In the 2001 New York City primary election, the Board of Elections invalidated over 40,000 paper ballots.

Third, many people who are unable to use a voting machine are also unable to cast an independent and private vote using a paper ballot.

Fourth, there is only parity and dignity when disabled voters are able to vote using the same voting methods as able-bodied voters.

CIDNY and I hope that our report entitled Voting Technology for People with Disabilities: A Report on Disabled Voters' Experiences, will better inform committee members and the New York State HAVA Task Force of the voting technology needs of disabled voters. We believe that using our recommendations as standards for certifying voting machines in New York State, will ensure that the maximum number of New Yorkers with disabilities are able to vote with dignity through casting an independent and private vote on a machine. CIDNY and I would like to thank Chairman Wright, Chairwoman Destito and all of the honorable committee members for allowing us to testify today. I am now free to answer any questions the committee may have.

Member Benefits | About AAPD | Join | Disability Resources | News | Contact Us | Calendar | Home