Main Content - atap
>> Key Issues >> Civil Rights >> HAVA
ATAP - Comparison of FEC 2002 Access Standards to Proposed VVSG Access Standards
Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D.
dcgolden@swbell.net
August 29, 2005
In any access standards development process, a central goal is to ensure that the level of accessibility required is reasonably achievable while at the same time providing an adequate level of accessibility for individuals with a wide variety of disabilities. It is acknowledged that full accessibility cannot be delivered to all individuals with all types and combinations of disabilities. At the same time, it is also commonly understood that accessibility standards should not provide an extensive level of accessibility to one disability group while disregarding the access needs of others. And most importantly, access standards should always maintain or move the level of accessibility forward. A new set of access standards should never reduce the level of accessibility that was delivered by a previous set of standards.
Attached is a table that compares the current Federal Election Commission (FEC) 2002 accessibility standards with the proposed successor set of standards, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) of 2005. All of the FEC 2002 access standards are required (use the word “shall”) and they apply only to direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems that do not have a voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT). An FEC 2002 DRE without a VVPAT is the current level of accessibility available to individuals with disabilities. That is also the current level of accessibility judged to deliver an independent and secret ballot as required by the Help America Vote Act.
As a result, an FEC 2002 compliant DRE is the current level of accessibility upon which the VVSG should build. However as the attached table illustrates, the VVSG does not maintain and expand this level of accessibility. Instead it actually reduces the level of accessibility for some disability groups, specifically those with partial vision and those with dexterity disabilities.
To maintain the level of accessibility for individuals with disabilities to cast an independent and secret ballot as is delivered by the FEC 2002 standards, the VVSG should require --
1) Accessible output (audio and large print display) for reviewing paper ballots for individuals with all types of vision disabilities when paper ballots are used as an official vote record.
2) A mechanism by which voters with partial vision and motor disabilities can independently and secretly submit a paper ballot when the normal voting process includes such submission.
Making the above changes to VVSG ensures at least an equal level of access to the FEC 2002 standards. None of these requirements are unreasonable or technologically infeasible. At this late date, the VVSG requirements will impact the next generation of voting systems, rather than those purchased by January 1, 2006 – making such requirements even more critical.
NOTE: There seems to be great confusion surrounding switch input as an option or requirement of the VVSG. The FEC 2002 standards were silent on this issue. A decision must be made whether or not to allow voters to attach their own switches given a functional parameter (like dual switch operation). If not allowed due to security concerns, then the built-in switch system of the audio ballot should be strengthened to meet the needs of individuals with dexterity and motor disabilities.