Disability access: voting privately and independently with a disability

In plain words

Disability access in voting means that people with disabilities can register, reach the polls or receive a ballot, mark it privately and independently, and have it counted, on the same terms as other voters. In the November 2024 election, U.S. citizens with any disability reported voting at 61.1 percent, compared with 66.0 percent of citizens without a disability, according to the Census Bureau.

Think of all the steps in voting: getting to a building, getting through its doors, reading a ballot, marking it, and signing an envelope. Each step can be hard for someone who uses a wheelchair, is blind, has a tremor, or has a cognitive disability. The law says election offices must provide an accessible way to vote at every polling place. But surveys and inspections show that in practice, many voters with disabilities still run into problems.

The problem, stated precisely

The problem is the gap between the legal promise of equal, private, and independent voting and what voters with disabilities experience. It has four parts:

1. Physical access. Parking, paths, entrances, and voting areas that people can reach and use.
2. Ballot access. Being able to read and mark a ballot privately and independently, in person or by mail.
3. Eligibility and assistance rules. Rules on guardianship, capacity, signature matching, and who may help a voter.
4. Measured outcomes. Differences in turnout and in reported difficulty between voters with and without disabilities.

This page does not cover limited-English voters, which is on language access, or general registration and casting rules, which are on ballot access. The history of exclusion is on access and exclusion, and device and assisted-access questions are on hardware.

Defined terms

• Accessible voting system. Under the Help America Vote Act, a voting system that provides voters with disabilities “the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) as for other voters,” with at least one such system at each polling place in federal elections.⁠¹
• Assistance of choice. The federal right of a voter who needs help because of “blindness, disability, or inability to read or write” to be assisted by “a person of the voter’s choice,” other than the voter’s employer or union officer.⁠²
• Curbside voting. Bringing a ballot to a voter outside the polling place. Federal guidance treats it as an alternative only in rare cases.⁠³
• Capacity or guardianship restrictions. State rules that limit voting by people under guardianship or found to lack capacity. Federal guidance says states may not categorically disqualify people because of disability or guardianship status.⁠³
• Remote accessible vote by mail. A system that lets voters receive and mark a ballot electronically using their own assistive technology; return methods vary and raise separate security questions.

Evidence

Turnout

The Census Bureau’s November 2024 Current Population Survey reports that among U.S. citizens, 61.1 percent of those with any disability reported voting, compared with 66.0 percent of those with no disability.⁠⁴ Rates varied by type of disability: 69.4 percent for those with hearing difficulty, 59.7 percent for vision difficulty, 61.0 percent for ambulatory difficulty, 51.6 percent for cognitive difficulty, 50.7 percent for independent living difficulty, and 48.1 percent for self-care difficulty.⁠⁴ People can report more than one type, so categories overlap. Some of the gap may reflect age, since disability is more common at older ages and turnout is also higher at older ages, which can mask or offset differences; the table does not adjust for age.

Reported difficulty

The Election Assistance Commission’s 2022 study with Rutgers University surveyed 2,001 respondents, including 1,198 citizens with disabilities and 803 without. It found that “20% of people with disabilities were likely to have difficulty voting compared to 6% of people without disabilities,” that 6 percent of people with disabilities had difficulty voting by mail versus under 1 percent of people without, that about 60 percent of voters with disabilities voted by mail or early in person versus 50 percent of voters without disabilities, and that people with disabilities voted at a 3.6 percentage point lower rate overall in 2022.⁠⁵ The EAC also reported that difficulties had declined substantially over the prior eight years before rising slightly from 2020 to 2022.⁠⁵

Polling place inspections

The Government Accountability Office inspected 178 polling places in 21 counties across 12 states and the District of Columbia during the 2016 general election. It found that 60 percent (107 of 178) had at least one potential impediment outside the voting area, such as parking, paths, or entrances, and that of the 137 polling places it could fully examine inside, 65 percent (89 of 137) had an accessible voting station that could impede a private and independent vote.⁠⁶ GAO notes the sample is not generalizable. It is nonetheless direct observation, not self-report.

Causes and competing explanations

• Borrowed buildings. In 2024, 97.5 percent of Election Day polling places were at sites other than an election office, such as libraries and schools.⁠⁷ Buildings used for a day or two may not allow permanent fixes, so temporary measures such as cones and portable signs must be set up each election.⁠³
• Equipment set up and use. GAO’s finding that accessible stations themselves could impede private voting.⁠⁶ points to setup, training, and placement, not only to the equipment’s design.
• Mail voting rules. Paper mail ballots require reading, marking, and signing by hand. The EAC study found mail ballot difficulty concentrated among people with disabilities⁠⁵ Signature matching can reject ballots from people whose signatures vary; see ballot access.
• Capacity and guardianship rules. Some state rules limit voting by people under guardianship. Federal guidance says categorical disqualification is barred under the ADA;⁠³ how state rules are applied in practice varies.
• Competing explanation: health and age. Some of the turnout gap may reflect illness or age rather than access barriers. Among registered nonvoters 65 and older in 2024, “illness or disability” was the most common reason for not voting.⁠⁸ Separating access barriers from health is difficult with current data.

Who is harmed

The most direct harm falls on voters whose disabilities make the standard process hardest, which the Census data suggest includes people with cognitive, self-care, and independent living difficulties.⁠⁴ Blind and low-vision voters are harmed when paper mail ballots cannot be read and marked privately, forcing them to reveal their choices to a helper. Older voters, many of whom develop disabilities later in life, are affected as well. And because a voter who must rely on another person loses some secrecy, every inaccessible step also weakens the protection the secret ballot is meant to give; see the secret ballot.

What has been tried elsewhere

Federal accessibility mandates. HAVA has required at least one accessible voting system per polling place in federal elections since January 1, 2006.⁠¹ The ADA applies to polling places in all public elections, requires effective communication such as large print or a qualified reader, and limits curbside voting to rare cases because alternatives must give “an equally effective opportunity to cast their votes in person”.⁠³ Results: accessible equipment is widespread. Limits: GAO’s inspections show implementation gaps.⁠⁶

Assistance of choice. Federal law lets voters choose their helper, excluding employers and union officers,⁠² and DOJ guidance says this extends to requesting, completing, and returning mail ballots.⁠³ This protects against forced reliance on officials, but assistance also reduces secrecy and can create an opening for pressure; see intimidation, coercion, and vote buying.

International standard. Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires that “voting procedures, facilities and materials are appropriate, accessible and easy to understand and use,” protects voting “by secret ballot,” and allows assistance by a person of the voter’s choice where requested.⁠⁹ This page uses it as an international benchmark, not as a statement of U.S. law.

More voting options. The EAC study found voters with disabilities used mail and early in-person voting more than others.⁠⁵ Options reduce the need to reach a single site on a single day, but paper mail ballots create their own difficulties.

Electronic ballot delivery and marking. Letting voters receive and mark ballots on their own devices with their own assistive technology addresses the paper problem. Returning ballots electronically is a separate step that federal security guidance treats with great caution; the security chapter discusses that guidance. This is a real tradeoff, not a solved problem.

Competing interpretations

The full-independence view, advanced by many disability rights advocates, holds that the legal standard is privacy and independence equal to other voters,⁠^1,9 and that anything short of that, including relying on a helper, is a failure to meet the law. Supporters favor accessible electronic ballot marking at home and fewer signature-based rejections.

The security-first view holds that electronic return of ballots and relaxed signature verification create risks to every voter’s ballot, and that accessible in-person options, curbside voting, and assistance of choice are safer ways to meet accessibility. Supporters of this view see the security risks of internet return as unresolved; see security.

The local-capacity view, common among election administrators, holds that most failures are practical: borrowed buildings, limited budgets, and training for temporary poll workers.⁠⁶ Supporters favor funding and checklists over new mandates; see election administration funding.

The capacity debate divides people who see any capacity restriction as discrimination from those who believe a minimal understanding of the act of voting is a legitimate eligibility condition, and who worry about others voting on behalf of people who cannot express a choice. Federal guidance bars categorical exclusion and higher standards for people with disabilities,⁠³ but states still differ on how capacity is defined.

Application to this framework

My Vote Forward’s hardware chapter covers assisted access, device trust, and why a device feature alone proves little about eligibility or independence. The private voting chapter treats secrecy and verification as requirements, which applies to voters who need help as much as anyone. The consent and privacy chapters matter because disability status is sensitive information that should never be required to participate.

Unresolved questions

• How much of the turnout gap reflects access barriers rather than health or age? The 2024 Census table does not adjust for age.⁠⁴
• Can electronic ballot marking for blind voters be paired with a return method that is both accessible and secure?
• What would a nationally representative inspection of polling place accessibility find today? GAO’s 2016 sample was not generalizable.⁠⁶
• How can assistance of choice be protected while also protecting voters from pressure by the person helping them?