Testimony on the Barriers to People with Disabilities at the Voting Booth

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Dodd, and other members of this Committee. I am Bob Williams and I would like to thank you for asking me to appear before you today on behalf of United Cerebral Palsy Associations (UCP). It is a privilege, honor, and high responsibility to be asked to share our views and concerns on a matter of such urgent importance to our Democracy as the issue of reforming and improving the way we elect our leaders. Americans with disabilities, like all others, have a vital stake in the outcome of policy discussions on these topics, taking place both here in Washington and many State Capitols as well.

Before focusing in on what I have been invited to speak about, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment of personal privilege, if I might, Sir. Growing up in the 60's and 70's, I was inspired to public service by the words and deeds of John and Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Abraham Ribicoff, and Franklin Roosevelt, whose personal examples of leadership and disability are now more accessible to school children with and without disabilities, alike, to learn from and emulate.

But, it was a first term U.S. Representative, Chris Dodd, the son of another great member of this body, Senator Tom Dodd, who gave me my first chance to test that dream of future public service, with a month long internship in his District office. That was July 1976, when the tall ships came into New London harbor and the eyes of the world were on America's promise. My most lasting memories of that month, however, are neither the tall ships nor the Fourth of July fireworks. But, rather, of the rare opportunity I was given to prove to myself, and to others far more disbelieving, that my dream of public service could in fact, one day become reality. I thank you for that Senator.

Doctor King said it best more than a generation ago: All of us can be great because all of us can serve. In America, one of the most fundamental forms of service to our country, our communities, and families, is voting our hearts and minds in every national, state, and local election. This is a time-honored tradition that still has no equal. But, I also think that -- what the aftermath of last November's elections in Florida and elsewhere clearly demonstrate -- the time-honored ways in which we go about the process of holding elections are badly in need of, repair, reform, and improvement.

It goes without saying that all Americans can and will benefit from well thought out legislation designed to enhance and bring our electoral processes into the 21st Century. Those 54 million of us with a wide range of developmental, physical, psychiatric and sensory disabilities have the most to gain -- or for that matter, to lose -- from voting reform legislation, depending on how it is crafted and implemented at the state and community levels.

In several polls taken over the past decade, Lou Harris has found that many people with disabilities tend to follow politics and public policy issues at a higher rate than most others. The polls also show that, as a group, Americans with disabilities both register to vote and then vote at substantially reduced rates than most other groups of voters.

There are many factors likely go into an explanation as to why this paradox exists. However, issues of access to the polling place and, increasingly, access to the ballot box and the ballot itself, in whatever form it might take, are high on the list of factors.

There are Federal statutes, already on the books, that should have eliminated problems of access to polling places years ago. Cumulatively, these three statutes -- Section 5O4 of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA and the Voting Access for the Handicapped Act -- certainly have improved things tremendously, since I started to vote 25 years ago. The Motor Voter Act also holds out the significant, although still unrequited, promise of providing people with disabilities far more opportunity to register to vote than ever before.

The fact of the matter is that access to the polls is still a major problem in several states and counties, especially in rural and very urbanized areas. Moreover, given that one of the civics lessons that should have come out of last November’s election, was that many states do not bother to count absentee ballots, unless someone demands a full recount. We have serious concerns about the fundamental fairness of this process, as well. As one who has never had to vote absentee, but advised many others on how to do so, I continue to be shocked and dismayed at this revelation. Many Members of Congress, as well as the new Administration, Governors and state legislators, are rightly concerned about the disparate impact that various quirks and inequities in absentee ballot procedures can have on those in the Armed Services serving abroad. We would ask that the same level of vigorous interest and attention be paid to making certain that voting by absentee ballot is a more fair and efficient process for all Americans who must rely on this particular method.

We also believe the time has come to eradicate another set of barriers and prejudices that strip people of their most fundamental right and responsibility as American citizens. At every election, we hear of at least some people with disabilities either being turned away from the polls entirely or being talked out of voting or registering to vote, for no other reason than they have an obvious disability. In about 40 states, people who have had legal guardians appointed for them cannot, by law, vote at all. While on its face, such a prohibition might seem logical and even necessary to protect the integrity of the election process, the way it is applied is far too broad brush.

There are many reasons why a guardian might be appointed for a person with a disability, many of which have nothing to do with the individual's capacity to comprehend and cast their vote. Yet, in many instances, it is easier for convicted felons to have their voting rights restored, than it is for many people with disabilities to legally cast a ballot in some states. I would, therefore, urge this Committee and others in Congress to work with the Administration, state election officials, the disability community, and others to closely examine and hopefully develop some reasonable ways of remedying this problem.

Our final set of concerns is, if we are going to be giving money to states and communities to update and purchase new voting technology, whatever form it takes, it must be accessible. There are certain basic elements that many of us in the disability, civil rights, and voting rights communities believe need to be included in any serious electoral reform bill in Congress, including the Dodd-Conyers proposal.

The first is an explicit prohibition against any practice that deprives people of the right to register or vote on the basis of race, ethnicity, disability, gender, or of any other partisan or prejudicial nature. There are a couple ways this could be accomplished, neither of which should be seen as mutually exclusive. The first is to include a very strong statement of finding by Congress that any policy or practice that disenfranchises any American is a serious offense against our Democracy and cannot be tolerated. Second, there must be a very explicit re statement of Federal civil rights law. Taken together, the Voting Rights Act, the ADA Section 5O4, and the Equal Protection Clause provide a sweeping mandate in this regard. My point is that this needs to be said very explicitly in legislative, rather than merely report language, based on the history we have just discussed.

Similarly, we believe the electoral reform proposals need to restate and make extremely clear that states and communities receiving funding to improve their electoral processes, need to do at least the following in respect to ensuring equal access to the polls for all Americans, including those of us with disabilities. First, they need to have their polling places in accessible buildings. If, for some extreme but valid reason, a particular poll cannot be made accessible or moved to an accessible location, then there should be such things as curb side voting offered as an accommodation. But, this should be a rare exception, not the rule. It's 2001. ADA is a decade old. Section 5O4 was enacted when I was in high school and the Architectural Barriers Act went into effect when I was in a segregated special ed class, housed in a church rather than the public school, where our kind was not yet welcomed.

The point being that some election officials are still saying what they have been saying for over 30 years – that they need more time to find accessible voting places. Justice delayed for this long is, quite simply, justice denied. Any electoral reform legislation enacted into law needs to, at the very minimum, make achieving access to polling places a crucial and non-negotiable prerequisite to receiving Federal assistance for making voting reforms and improvements.

Similarly, such legislation needs to require that states and communities take pro-active steps to assure universal access to both the ballot box and the ballot itself. The senior Senator from Connecticut can certainly tell you how much having access to the device I am using here today has meant to me. Technology at its finest is a lot like freedom. Once it is uncorked, its fruits are there for everyone's enjoyment and benefit. But, technology that is not accessible or readily useable by all can both marginalize and deeply divide us as a people and a nation. This was, I believe, one of the saddest lessons we need to learn from what happened in Florida.

Fortunately, I think this is an area where the disability community has a great deal of knowledge and experience to share with the rest of the nation. The basic tenets of universal design, which were first applied to designing and constructing public buildings parks, transportation systems and the like, have now been adapted and applied to the design and development of all kinds of technology, including the Internet itself. Three Federal agencies -- the Access Board, responsible for developing accessibility guidelines under ADA and the Federal Communications Commission, and the General Services Administration -- continue to be on the leading edge of these efforts. We would, therefore, strongly recommend that Congress seek their advice, as well as that of others, on how best to achieve this vital national objective.

I fear I have used up both my time and welcome. I would, though, be most pleased to respond to any question or concern that the Committee might like to raise, either at this hearing or in writing. Thank you.