Does anyone have a good response to the ADA claim that Op Scan

[truckin]

systems do not protect the rights of the disabled, particularly the blind? In Connecticut there is a good chance that we will be purchasing DRE voting machines. Our group, TrueVoteCT has made the case for Optical Scan by pointing out that they are more reliable, less expensive and more transparent. However, the disabled community favors DREs and has stated that blind voters cannot verify the paper ballot used in Op Scan systems and that even if the AutoMark machine is used there are privacy issues. Has anyone else encountered this argument in other states and if so what was your response? Thanks in advance to all who respond.

[elehhhhna]

1. Guess who's bankrolling the diabled voter lobby? Go here & learn:

In November 2000, Diebold, a maker of automated teller machines, agreed to pay the National Federation of the Blind $1 million over five years to help build a new research and training institute.1 The money was offered in exchange for the NFB agreeing to drop a lawsuit it filed against Diebold for installing ATMs inaccessible to blind customers, when technology for making the machines accessible was available. The NFB also formed a partnership with Diebold to help the company develop and market accessible ATM machines -- an agreement that later extended to the company's touch-screen voting systems.

The NFB, which calls itself "the voice of the nation's blind," then used the Americans with Disabilities Act to file lawsuits against banks not using accessible ATMs. It later sued two states to force them to upgrade or obtain e-voting machines -- while a debate about the security and reliability of such systems was growing nationwide.

The NFB and its state affiliates have also advised states and the federal government on accessible voting issues and pushed for legislation regarding such systems without disclosing the group's relationship to Diebold. James Gashel, the NFB's lobbyist who testified on e-voting in congressional hearings in 2001, said most of the testimony and advising were done in 2000 and 2001, before Diebold entered the domestic voting business in 2002.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65292,00.html

[truckin]

2. Excellent article; thanks for sharing it

[elehhhhna]

3. If they INSIST, give 'em one BBV machine per voting place.

That satisfies the law and protects YOUR vote. Cheaper, more trustworthy, and compliant. How the hell can they argue against that?

I'm going in to fight this on Thursday at a public meeting here in my county.

[Bill Bored]

4. First, check out the Automark!

If that's not good enough, give them 1 and only 1 Touch Screen/DRE per polling place with a VVPAT, 100% hand counted voter-verified.

Tell them this:

If we don't audit these machine 100%, we are actually DISENFRANCHISING the disabled. Make the point that these machines basically suck but if they INSIST on having them, there must be 100% hand counting of all the voter-verified paper they produce. This is to PROTECT the disabled vote, which they insist on casting using these otherwise unverifiable machines. You can hand count every one of these paper audit records because there will only be one machine per polling place with a relatively small number of users.

Everyone else will use paper ballots.

What do you think?

[truckin]

7. I agree 100% but it can be tough to make those points effectively when a

blind voter is sitting in a meeting saying that VVPBs will disenfranchise disabled voters. When you are dealing with elected officials who do not understand the issue as well as they should and a disabled voter passionately states that VVPBs will disenfranchise him, it is difficult to make these points. A good compromise, as you state, would be for one BBV per polling place to accommodate the disabled but because of their cost, testing and maintenance requirements and all the other problems that have been discussed here, I would prefer to not have any BBVs.

On another note, has the Automark been certified yet? Once that happens the job of selling the Op Scan systems with VVPBs should get much easier.

[KamaAina]

14. That's what we do in Hawai'i

and the one machine is NOT Diebold. Our (Dem) supervisor of elections heard the "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush**" remark and decided then and there NOT to buy Diebold.

How did this scam get started that HAVA supposedly mandates a wholesale switch to BBV, anyway?

[abbiehoff]

5. I believe in Canada

where they have hand-counted paper ballots, there is a DRE option for disabled voters, but everyone doesn't have to use one just because a few people do.

[FogerRox]

6. truevotect is a good group-their study says they could buy 1 DRE

for the disabled and the rest can be other equipment

http://truevotect.org/resources/Cost-analysis-model.pdf

[KaliTracy]

8. One wonders -- since problems happened with touchscreen selection

where Kerry went to * (on those who caught it), and poll workers were notified, yet most did nothing ("That's been happening all day...") -- who advocates for those who cannot see anomalies on a screen?

How do blind students take standardized tests (which are optically scanned)?

From the U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section

A Guide to Disability Rights Laws

May 2002



Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act

The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 generally requires polling places across the United States to be physically accessible to people with disabilities for federal elections. Where no accessible location is available to serve as a polling place, a political subdivision must provide an alternate means of casting a ballot on the day of the election. This law also requires states to make available registration and voting aids for disabled and elderly voters, including information by telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDDs) which are also known as teletypewriters (TTYs). For more information, contact:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Voting Section - 1800 G
Washington, D.C. 20530

[phone] (voice/TTY)

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/cguide.htm

Here are some 1999-2004 cases that went to court (short abstracts) POST-LIGHTBOURN VOTING ACCESSIBILITY CASEShttp://www.nls.org/conf2004/post-lighthorn.htm

I know an article linking Diebold and the American Federation for the Blind was posted but here is a page full of links -- interpret them as you wish....
http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=3&TopicID=141&DocumentID=2380

from the site...

Under Title I, states are required to develop plans to improve the election systems. Federal funds have been made available to assist states in making these improvements. Voting systems must provide for independent and private voting for all voters including disabled citizens and must allow voters to verify their selections and make changes before casting their vote. Voting systems must create records that may be recounted and audited. There must also be a provisional ballot which allows voters to cast ballots when there is a problem with any vote cast, question of registration, which precinct to vote at and other issues which may arise on election day. The state must have procedures for reviewing provisional ballots and counting them.

States are not required to take any particular action to improve their election systems but may use these funds for the following:

Complying with the requirements under Title III for a uniform nondiscriminatory voting system.


Improving the administration of elections for Federal office.


Educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting rights, and voting technology.


more...
http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=3&TopicID=141&DocumentID=2380
Title II and Title III of the Act also stated -- as well as links to references, etc.

also this report (long -- mainly for background information)
The Americans with Disabilities Act:
Does it Secure the Fundamental Right to Vote?
(2002) http://www.electionaccess.org/TextOnlyVersion/publications/briefings/02_Schriner_ADA_text.htm

edit: typo and added link

[KaliTracy]

9. this person filed a lawsuit because of voting limitations - gives websites

for ADA laws

--included the polling place used ES and OCR instead of accessible DREs...

http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfb-talk/2004-June/006484.html

edit:clarification

[Helga Scow Stern]

10. What happened in California:

Kevin Shelley's Decertification Orders

On April 30, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley banned the particular model in question -- Diebold’s Accuvote TSx machine. In addition, he imposed a moratorium on any new purchases of paperless e-voting systems. Shelley also decertified all other e-voting systems in California, but will allow these systems to be recertified if the counties using them do one of two things:

* 1) either retrofit the machines with a voter verified paper trail,

* 2) or use them without the paper trail if the counties agree to 23 security requirements.

The two most important recertification requirements are:

* that vendors provide their software source code to the Secretary of State for review, and

* that the counties using e-voting systems give voters the option of voting on a paper ballot if they choose to do so.

This was not a capricious decision. It came after months of piling evidence that shows how federal, state and local oversight of voting systems is rickety and inadequate, and after several days of public hearings where hundreds of people spoke, mostly in opposition to paperless, e-voting systems.

Shelley’s decertification orders were hailed by e-voting reformers as a major victory and harshly criticized by several county registrars as burdensome and unnecessary. Four counties, led by Riverside, took the extraordinary step of suing the Secretary of State. Their lawsuit, filed in federal court, known as Benavidez v. Shelley, claims that the secretary of state overstepped his authority when he decertified touchscreens.

A handful of groups advocating on behalf of disabled voters joined in the lawsuit, arguing that Shelley’s restrictions on the use of e-voting machines reduces the ability for disabled and sight-impaired voters to cast a secret ballot without assistance. The California Voter Foundation, along with several other groups, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Secretary of State, urging the judge to dismiss the case.
U.S. Federal Court Decision

Yesterday, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper issued her ruling. She denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order to prevent Shelley’s decertification orders from taking effect.

In her decision, Judge Cooper wrote: “Nothing in the Americans with Disabilities Act or its Regulations reflects an intention on the part of Congress to require secret, independent voting” and that “the interest in the Secretary of State in fulfilling his statutory duties and the public interest in accurate, verifiable vote counts outweigh the Plaintiffs’ interest in an unassisted, private vote.”

Judge Cooper also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that Secretary Shelley overstepped his authority. Her ruling cites several California statutes authorizing the Secretary to approve and regulate voting systems, and giving the Secretary the right to withdraw approval of a voting system if it is deemed by the Secretary to be defective, obsolete, or otherwise unacceptable.

In her decision, Judge Cooper said the Secretary is “therefore, not only authorized, but expressly directed to withdraw his approval of any voting system found to be defective or unacceptable.”

Judge Cooper concluded,

“Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits as to any claim in this action. Defendant’s decision to decertify touchscreen voting machines and to withhold further certification until he is satisfied that manufacturers and counties have complied with specified conditions is a reasonable one. It is based on studies conducted and information gathered which convinced him that the voting public’s right to vote is not adequately protected by the systems currently in place.”

This landmark ruling, which takes into account California laws as well as federal laws such as the ADA and HAVA, will have a reverberating impact on states across the country. This decision also reinforces the leadership our secretary of state is bringing to this critical issue. This court ruling is a major victory for paper trail proponents, and clears a path for the reforms being implemented in California.

http://calvoter.org/issues/votingtech/pub/0707KACOMremarks.html

[Wilms]

11. Don't fall for BS

First of all; blind people are people. You're allowed to disagree with one.
They want parity, so give them your view as you would to others.


You may want to mention that "Lighthouse International" has NO PROBLEM with paper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/14/opinion/L14VOTE.html

There is a position paper of sorts that I can't find presently, though encourage you to search.


Search, too, the League of Women Voters. They were DRE advocates. Not any more. They want paper.
(I think it was a bit of a pie fight, so you know.)


A problem for the blind has been that someone filling the ballot for them leaves them unsure if their vote was properly recorded.

Fair enough...and BINGO!

Let them know that e-voting has left ALL voters in that very same position. Period.

But, Auto Mark solves that. Sorry, I but have to ask that you research whether it enjoys any certification, and/or endorsements. I think it does.

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_01_18_voting_rights_tuesday_i_went_to_a_demonstration_of_the_automark.asp


Secrecy is a bit tougher an issue, but that's for mobility-limited voters. Some of them can't physically handle ballots, and therefore rely on someone to deposit their completed ballot. That's a breach that's fair to acknowledge. But I did not get the impression that it's an issue for the blind, whose secrecy needs seem satisfied by Auto Mark.

As for mobility-limited voters, I've discussed this problem with a leading pro-DRE Disabilities Advocate. He agreed with my proposal that a ballot marking machine that mechanically shuttles ballots through a ballot verifier, and then into a lock-box, would solve that problem. He didn't endorse that, nor offer to let me quote him, nor do I see one on the market, but keep that in mind, anyway.


Finally, how many polling places in CT are disabilities accessible? Folk can't even get into many polling places, let alone vote with "Accessibility, Privacy, and Security"

That seems a big problem nationwide. So perhaps more voters with disabilities are disenfranchised as a result. Can't hurt to ask.


On this forum's "Daily Thread" of election reform stories, I've posted a number of stories of counties rejecting DRE's despite the claims made by the Disabilities community. There are storage costs, particularly in regions with cold or damp weather. (CT qualifies!) And what if Fed Legislation mandates a "Paper Trail"?


See if you can sniff out the opposition. The blind may be being fronted. And not just by Diebold, et. all.


But accessibility IS a real problem, so be cognizant of that.


PLEASE post how all this goes. Sen. Dodd, as you know, needs to lose this one.

[Wilms]

12. Here's a 2001 GAO Report

The GAO reports that eighty-four percent of surveyed polling places across the country were found to have a barrier that prevents a person with a disability from voting. At sixty-seven percent of those same polling places, the barriers completely prevent voters who use wheelchairs from even entering.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02107.pdf

[davidgmills]

13. Chuck Herrin says:

"For electronic voting, keep in mind that responsible engineering doesn't always mean using the latest technology available, it just means using the most appropriate technology available. Sometimes that is paper."

http://www.chuckherrin.com/ConservativeEmpathy.htm


-- from last paragraph under last section titled "Endgame Strategy From a Conservative Pawn"