[nabs-l] [acb-l] polling place access issues to this day in mi
Josh Gregory
joshkart12 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 10 18:20:18 UTC 2011
Hi,
OK, my thoughts. They are, at the moment, each other's
competetors/enemies/whatever. So, at the moment anyway, I doubt
it.
Best,
Josh
sent from my Apex
Email: joshkart12 at gmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Nusbaum <dotkid.nusbaum at gmail.com
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing
list<nabs-l at nfbnet.org
Date sent: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:30:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] [acb-l] polling place access issues to this
day in mi
I forwarded this because since the NFB is working to ensure
accessible voting and was the driving force behind the Help
America Vote Act (HAVA.) So, we might be able to work jointly
with ACB on this. What does
everyone think?
Chris
"A loss of sight, never a loss of vision!" (Camp Abilities motto)
The I C.A.N. Foundation helps visually impaired youth in
Maryland have the ability to confidently say "I can!" How? Click
on this link to learn more and to contribute:
www.icanfoundation.info or like us on Facebook at I C.A.N.
Foundation.
Sent from my BrailleNote
----- Original Message -----
From: Joshua Lester <jlester8462 at students.pccua.edu
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org
Date sent: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 20:25:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] [acb-l] polling place access issues to this
day in mi
Chris, why are you forwarding stuff from the ACB?
Blessings, Joshua
On 7/8/11, Chris Nusbaum <dotkid.nusbaum at gmail.com> wrote:
Thoughts on this?
Chris
"A loss of sight, never a loss of vision!" (Camp Abilities
motto)
The I C.A.N. Foundation helps visually impaired youth in
Maryland have the ability to confidently say "I can!" How? Click
on this link to learn more and to contribute:
www.icanfoundation.info or like us on Facebook at I C.A.N.
Foundation.
Sent from my BrailleNote
---- Original Message ------
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net
Subject: [acb-l] polling place access issues to this day in mi
Date sent: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:05:31 -0400
A Call to Action ?
Unfinished Business to Ensure Michigan Voters with Disabilities
Have Access to the Polls in 2012
A Public Report on
Polling Place
Accessibility in Michigan
Public Report by
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.
2011
Acknowledgements
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS) is Michigan?
designated agency to advocate and protect the legal rights of
persons with disabilities, mandated
by federal and state law. MPAS receives funding from the
Administration on Developmental Disabilities, the center for
Mental Health Services ?Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the
Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Social Security
Administration, the State of Michigan
and from private donations.
Funding for this report has been made possible through the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, and the
Administration on Developmental Disabilities. The contents are
the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily
represent the official views
of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2011 by Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. This
publication may be reproduced in part or in its entirety for
noncommercial purposes as long
as appropriate credit is given.
Table of Contents
Executive
Summary..........................................................
...................................................5
Midterm
Report...........................................................
.........................................................6
Michigan? Polling Place Accessibility
Project..........................................................
.........7
Communicating Accessibility Problems with Election
Officials......................................10
Next
Steps............................................................
..............................................................11
In
Summary..........................................................
..............................................................11
Accessibility Rate Per
County...........................................................
................................13
Executive Summary
In Michigan, voters with disabilities face obstacles at voting
locations often because their polling place lacks physical
accessibility. The Help America
Vote Act (HAVA) acknowledged the unique obstacles faced by
voters
with disabilities and authorized funding for the federally
mandated Protection and Advocacy
Voting Access programs (PAVA) to help remove barriers.
Unfortunately, this vital mandate has been targeted for
elimination in the President? proposed
2012 budget.
HAVA charged Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, (MPAS),
and other Protection & Advocacy agencies with helping to ensure
the full participation of
individuals with disabilities in the electoral process,
including
registering to vote, casting a ballot, and accessing polling
places.
The PAVA program at MPAS is designed to ensure that every
eligible Michigan resident receives equal access to their
polling
location and has the opportunity
to cast an independent secret ballot. MPAS staff members are on
the ground providing advice, technical assistance, and training
to election officials about
voting accessibility across the spectrum of disabilities. The
agency also provides outreach and training to voters with
disabilities, poll workers, and
service providers. MPAS and the Secretary of State of Michigan
partnered over the past six years working toward this goal,
which
has been effective in
increasing physical access to polling locations throughout
Michigan.
Voting is a fundamental right protected by the United States
Constitution, upheld by the Supreme Court and subject to intense
public scrutiny each election
cycle. Provisions within these protections prohibit
discrimination against people with disabilities in the electoral
process. Exercising their Constitutional
right, however, has continued to be a challenge for individuals
with disabilities despite changes made to federal and state laws
intended to ensure full
participation.
Key Summary
? Disability advocates have visited 95% (3,457) and
reviewed the exterior of polling locations in Michigan.
? Upon initial review, Michigan Protection and Advocacy
Service found that only 75% of 3,457 Michigan polling places
were
compliant under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
? After working with state and local officials, it is
anticipated that Michigan? accessibility rate will be increased
to 90% in 2012.
? Of the locations that were inaccessible, 60% had one
barrier, 30% had two types of barriers, and 6% had three or more
types of barriers.
? Only six of the 84 counties in Michigan were 100%
physically accessible upon initial visit.
? MPAS continues to receive complaints regarding the
AutoMARK, Michigan? accessible ballot marking device.
Michigan has made great strides toward accessibility at the
polls. This report will highlight the steps taken to ensure
that
all polling locations throughout
Michigan are accessible to voters with disabilities. In
addition, the report will offer recommendations for Michigan to
achieve and maintain an accessibility
rate of 100%.
2010 Mid Term Report
Acknowledging widespread irregularity throughout the country,
Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002. HAVA
included sweeping legislation
intended to modernize the electoral system for all voters,
including those with disabilities. The Help America Vote Act
reinforced the application of
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act. Furthermore, in 2004, Michigan
lawmakers amended Michigan election
law (Public Act 92 of 2004) to require the removal of physical
barriers at polling locations. Irrespective of both federal and
state law, 25% of Michigan's
voting locations continued to be inaccessible for the November
2010 general election. To achieve an all-encompassing voting
standard for the fifty states,
HAVA included two key components for the disability community:
? All polling places must have at least one voting system
which allows all citizens to cast a ballot privately and
independently, whether or not one
has a disability.
? States must ensure accessibility at all public polling
places in a manner compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities
Act (ADA).
Accessible Voting System
In 2004, the disability community and the Michigan Secretary of
State? Bureau of Elections (BOE) carefully assessing which
accessible device would best
fit the needs of Michigan voters, and in 2006 selected the
AutoMARK. The AutoMARK is an accessible ballot marking device
that can be used by all voters
with or without disabilities.
Although every polling location is equipped with the AutoMARK,
each municipality is responsible for making sure it is set up
and
operating properly. Unfortunately,
MPAS continues to receive complaints about the AutoMARK. Voter
complaints have included the following: the AutoMARK was boxed
up on Election Day, unplugged,
jammed up, turned off, or set up so other voters could see the
?ecret?ballot. Complaints concerning jammed ballots have been
greatly reduced since the
last round of updates were completed. Because the AutoMARK is
used only on Election Day, MPAS relies on voter feedback to
correct these kinds of problems.
MPAS continues to monitor and respond to complaints as they
arise.
Accessible Polling Places
Under HAVA, the federal government allocated money to assist
with
the purchase of accessible equipment like the AutoMARK, but also
to help municipalities
make their polling places physically accessible. Congress
recognized that in order for people to use the accessible voting
machines, the building must
also be accessible so voters can access the polling location and
voting equipment. It is the local election officials?
responsibility to make sure all
polling locations are accessible on Election Day. To help cover
the expense for removing barriers at polling locations, the
Michigan BOE administers a
grant program called Access for All, under the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services with funding allocated through
HAVA,
to help the state comply
with HAVA. In most circumstances, the Access for All grants
cover all costs associated with accessibility upgrades for
polling locations.
When Michigan? State Plan to implement provisions under HAVA
was
initiated in 2004, municipal clerks were required to complete an
accessibility checklist
to determine whether or not their locations were accessible.
This was one of the state? first attempts to gather information
on Michigan? polling place
accessibility. During this time, MPAS and other organizations
were working closely with individual election officials on
polling location reviews and
were also training the municipal clerks on the accessibility
requirements. MPAS also spent a considerable amount of time
assisting clerks with assessing
the accessibility of their polling locations and helping them
apply for Access for All grant money. MPAS found that the
accessibility data provided by
clerks was not, in certain instances, wholly reliable.
MPAS brought this to the Bureau of Election? (BOE) attention
and
shared independent accessibility reviews with them. The BOE has
since increased efforts
to ensure the accuracy of reporting by improving communication
and requiring additional documentation from the clerks.
In 2008, MPAS started to assess municipal polling locations
randomly, without notifying the election official in advance.
After compiling this data on
polling locations statewide, the systemic issue of
inaccessibility became a heightened concern. Once these
concerns
were communicated to the Bureau of
Elections, they backed a new initiative in 2010 dramatically
increasing their involvement in the advancement of polling place
accessibility.
This same year, the federal government began reviewing how the
states were spending HAVA funds. This fueled speculation that
the federal government would
eliminate the monies available under HAVA, since some states had
not spent their money, rather placing it in an account and
allowing the funds to gain
interest. Concerned that Congress would pull the allocated
funds
completely, which would prevent municipalities from accessing
money to make polling places
accessible, MPAS, along with the Michigan Bureau of Elections,
embarked on a project to ensure 100% accessibility at all
Michigan polling places.
Michigan? Polling Place Accessibility Project
In 2010, Michigan started building the framework of a statewide
plan to reach 100% polling place accessibility. MPAS and the
Bureau of Elections strengthened
their partnership in order to achieve this goal. Within this
plan, MPAS would review the exterior of all locations throughout
the state. Michigan has
approximately 3,600 polling places in total. MPAS had already
gathered information on 530 polling places prior to 2010,
therefore, did not revisit those
locations (some were initially accessible and others MPAS worked
closely with clerks to improve accessibility. MPAS is still
working with clerks to bring
the remaining 57 of the 530 polling locations into compliance).
MPAS was able to visit the remaining 2,927 polling locations in
2010.
Overall, MPAS conducted on-site reviews of at least 95% of the
polling places in Michigan.
The on-site reviews conducted in 2010, exposed nearly 25% of the
polling places that remained physically inaccessible as required
by the Americans with
Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines.
Of the 3,457 polling locations noted above, 2,927 were assessed
between May-August 2010. Using the ADAAG as a benchmark to
determine physical accessibility,
over 800 polling locations within the 2,927 locations visited,
had physical barriers failing to comply with the ADAAG ?
barriers
that create potential
difficulties to voters with disabilities on Election Day.
Barriers can prevent people with disabilities from fully
participating in all aspects of society because of their
disability. This might include architectural
barriers, physical barriers, communication barriers, attitudinal
barriers, cultural barriers, etc. Throughout this project,
MPAS?
reviews focused primarily
on physical and external barriers, which are defined as
something
material that blocks passage. Physical barriers addressed in
this report include objects
in the environment such as inaccessible doors or doorways,
inaccessible elevators or lack thereof, inaccessible door
hardware, inaccessible parking, etc.
Among the 2,927 polling locations visited in 2010, 28% did not
meet accessibility standards. Based on discussions with the BOE
in 2008, when MPAS completed
the unannounced visits, clerks were not only notified with a
letter from MPAS concerning accessibility, but they were also
notified by the Bureau of Elections.
MPAS and the BOE required prompt reply about the municipalities
plans to meet ADA requirements. The letters contained a
photograph of the problem area(s),
along with the appropriate ADAAG citation. Within a five month
period, letters were sent to over 440 municipalities concerning
approximately 800 polling
locations.
As shown below, 28% of the polling places visited in 2010 had
some type of physical barrier present at the time of review.
The following chart highlights the most common number of
physical
barriers discovered at each location.
A majority of the locations reviewed had only one physical
barrier present. While the largest and most frequent problem
was
related to parking, the types
of barriers at each location varied as shown in the following
chart.
Text Box: Parking Signs: locations that had accessible parking
but no signs posted Parking: locations that had no parking
designated or noncompliant access
aisles Pathway: barriers that existed between access aisles
and
entryway Entrance: problems such as door width, door
thresholds, door hardware, vestibules,
etc. Ramps/Curbs: problems with curb cuts, ramps, handrails,
thresholds greater than 1 inch, etc.
Communicating Accessibility Problems with Election Officials
After completing the on-site reviews, MPAS notified municipal
clerks of locations where barriers were discovered. Within a
four-month period, over 440
letters were sent to election officials. By the end of 2010,
88%
of those clerks responded back to MPAS with a plan of
correction.
In addition, MPAS
provided technical assistance to the election officials on how
to
improve access to their polling location in order to come into
compliance. Based on
the responses received from clerks, 43% informed us they were
would make the changes required; 31% corrected the barriers at
the polling locations; 9%
were going to apply for Access for All grant; and the remaining
responses varied from clerk using temporary equipment.
When a clerk informed MAPS that the work was completed, MPAS
required documentation from each clerk proving or stating that
the work had been completed,
including photographs and/or copies of purchase orders. A
majority of the clerks responded either with a plan of
correction
for spring 2011 or with a
statement that the work was completed. MPAS is still waiting
for
some clerks to confirm that the work was done sufficiently.
Once
the removal of barriers
at these locations has been verified, MPAS expects Michigan?
polling place accessibility rate to rise to nearly 90 % ?--
one of the highest in the nation.
There remains, however, substantial work to be completed in the
city of Detroit in order to reach this goal. The remaining 12%
of clerks, who did not respond
to MPAS or the Bureau of Election with a plan of correction,
will
become a 2011 priority in order to attain 100% accessibility.
NEXT STEPS
While the focus of this report has been on reaching the 90%
accessibility rate, there would still be approximately 10% of
polling locations in Michigan
that are not accessible to all voters. Some clerks disagree
with
the findings and MPAS is working with those clerks.
In 2011, MPAS will be re-visiting a number of polling locations
that are still recorded as being inaccessible, breaking them
into
three categories: failure
to communicate; work promised but documentation still needed;
and
locations requiring review by MPAS.
MPAS will focus attention on election officials who have failed
to respond to MPAS communication attempts. This may involve
revisiting the location (some
clerks correct the problem even when they fail to respond),
attending city council/township meetings, filing official HAVA
complaints, and/or pursuing
legal action under different funding sources. MPAS?goal has
always been to educate clerks and assist them with improving
access first by proposing solutions
to removing barriers.
In 2011, MPAS will also direct its attention to monitoring the
correction plans that election officials have submitted to
ensure
that barriers are removed.
MPAS will review the remaining 150 polling locations that have
not been visited yet.
In Summary
Throughout the 2010 project, the partnership between MPAS and
the
Michigan Bureau of Elections (BOE) was crucial. The state
reinforced the necessity of
accessible elections. They followed up with each municipality
whose polling place was noted as being inaccessible in order to
determine the jurisdiction's
planned course of action. In addition, the BOE coordinated and
extended Michigan's polling place improvement grant well into
the
fall to assist municipalities
in removing barriers to voting at no cost.
Local election officials can either upgrade their polling places
(with or without grant funds), or relocate the polling place to
an accessible site. The
Bureau of Elections reports that due to the 2010 project, they
have seen a large increase in the number of municipalities
applying for grant money. In
an effort to assist with the project, the BOE extended the
typical grant cycle by two months, giving clerks additional
opportunity to respond to MPAS?
letter and correct the problem(s) by using grant funds. The
Michigan Bureau of Elections received 74 grant applications, the
largest amount ever received
in one grant cycle. Of those 74 grant applications, 66
applicants received letters from MPAS seeking a plan of
correction - 89% of those who applied.
A large number of municipalities have pledged to apply when the
next grant period opens in early 2011.
If the HAVA/PAVA program survives the President? proposed
budget
cuts, MPAS looks forward to continuing the partnership with the
Secretary of State, ensuring
all elections are accessible to all voters. Additionally, MPAS
encourages clerks to reach out to local disability groups for
future trainings. Listed
below are additional recommendations moving forward.
Summary/Recommendations:
? Local clerks must be required to notify the Bureau of
Elections prior to relocating polling places.
? Accessibility checks should be completed when clerks
change polling locations, to verify accessibility. Reports
(with
photographs) should be submitted
to the Bureau of Elections.
? New polling locations must be required to adhere to the
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.
? The advisory committee in charge of amending the State
Plan (under HAVA) should re-convene and identify ways to hold
clerks accountable and implement
model oversight programs.
? Access for All grant money should be available
throughout
the year, so accessibility problems can be addressed anytime
they
arise.
? The Bureau of Elections and local clerks should continue
working with disability advocacy organizations to complete
year-round polling place accessibility
audits and training to clerks.
Accessibility Rate by County
Table with 9 columns and 85 rows
County
Polling Locations
Visited
Accessible
Barriers Discovered
Percent Visited
% Accessible of those Visited
Now Complete
% Now Accessible
Alcona
12
12
8
4
100%
67%
3
92%
Alger
10
10
5
5
100%
50%
5
100%
Allegan
37
37
35
2
100%
95%
1
97%
Alpena
15
15
8
7
100%
53%
1
60%
Antrim
15
15
9
6
100%
60%
2
73%
Arenac
14
14
10
4
100%
71%
3
93%
Baraga
8
6
1
5
75%
17%
1
33%
Barry
23
23
18
5
100%
78%
1
83%
Bay
49
48
36
12
98%
75%
1
77%
Benzie
13
13
6
7
100%
46%
4
77%
Berrien
57
57
43
14
100%
75%
8
89%
Branch
18
17
9
8
94%
53%
6
88%
Calhoun
46
43
34
9
93%
79%
3
86%
Cass
19
19
12
7
100%
63%
6
95%
Charlevoix
18
16
10
6
89%
63%
1
69%
Cheboygan
20
20
14
6
100%
70%
5
95%
Chippewa
19
18
13
5
95%
72%
4
94%
Clare
19
16
13
3
84%
81%
2
94%
Clinton
28
26
24
2
93%
92%
1
96%
Crawford
7
7
6
1
100%
86%
0
86%
Delta
21
20
11
9
95%
55%
1
60%
Dickinson
15
15
6
9
100%
40%
5
73%
Eaton
36
36
28
8
100%
78%
2
83%
Emmet
19
19
12
7
100%
63%
5
89%
Genesee
119
109
84
25
92%
77%
2
79%
Gladwin
17
17
11
6
100%
65%
1
71%
Gogebic
10
10
7
3
100%
70%
2
90%
Grand Traverse
28
27
27
0
96%
100%
0
100%
Gratiot
23
23
16
7
100%
70%
2
78%
Hillsdale
21
21
12
9
100%
57%
3
71%
Houghton
31
22
9
13
71%
41%
5
64%
Huron
30
29
18
11
97%
62%
5
79%
Ingham
95
81
78
3
85%
96%
0
96%
Ionia
22
22
17
5
100%
77%
1
82%
Iosco
15
15
14
1
100%
93%
1
100%
Iron
12
12
6
6
100%
50%
2
67%
Isabella
25
25
19
6
100%
76%
1
80%
Jackson
47
45
34
11
96%
76%
2
80%
Kalamazoo
97
97
79
18
100%
81%
7
89%
Kalkaska
12
12
8
4
100%
67%
1
75%
Kent
209
207
174
33
99%
84%
11
89%
Keweenaw
5
4
4
0
80%
100%
0
100%
Lake
15
15
8
7
100%
53%
2
67%
Lapeer
24
24
20
4
100%
83%
2
92%
Leelanau
13
13
8
5
100%
62%
1
69%
Lenawee
30
30
23
7
100%
77%
4
90%
Livingston
48
45
35
10
94%
78%
0
78%
Luce
4
4
3
1
100%
75%
0
75%
Mackinac
13
10
5
5
77%
50%
1
60%
Macomb
235
233
188
45
99%
81%
17
88%
Manistee
15
15
11
4
100%
73%
3
93%
Marquette
29
29
16
13
100%
55%
1
59%
Mason
23
23
15
8
100%
65%
3
78%
Mecosta
22
22
18
4
100%
82%
1
86%
Menominee
16
14
8
6
88%
57%
0
57%
Midland
38
29
22
7
76%
76%
4
90%
Missaukee
17
17
14
3
100%
82%
3
100%
Monroe
42
36
27
9
86%
75%
5
89%
Montcalm
26
25
21
4
96%
84%
2
92%
Montmorency
9
9
7
2
100%
78%
1
89%
Muskegon
72
71
68
3
99%
96%
2
99%
Newaygo
28
28
22
6
100%
79%
3
89%
Oakland
410
380
292
88
93%
77%
46
89%
Oceana
18
18
12
6
100%
67%
0
67%
Ogemaw
16
16
10
6
100%
63%
5
94%
Ontonagon
14
10
3
7
71%
30%
0
30%
Osceola
18
18
14
4
100%
78%
2
89%
Oscoda
6
6
4
2
100%
67%
1
83%
Otsego
10
10
7
3
100%
70%
2
90%
Ottawa
88
88
79
9
100%
90%
5
95%
Presque Isle
16
16
10
6
100%
63%
3
81%
Roscommon
11
11
11
0
100%
100%
0
100%
Saginaw
75
75
61
14
100%
81%
8
92%
Sanilac
30
30
26
4
100%
87%
3
97%
Schoolcraft
10
10
6
4
100%
60%
2
80%
Shiawassee
27
27
17
10
100%
63%
3
74%
St. Clair
52
48
44
4
92%
92%
3
98%
St. Joseph
17
17
12
5
100%
71%
2
82%
Tuscola
25
24
16
8
96%
67%
2
75%
Van Buren
23
22
19
3
96%
86%
1
91%
Washtenaw
106
100
70
30
94%
70%
0
70%
Wayne
568
519
325
194
91%
63%
28
68%
Wexford
20
20
14
6
100%
70%
1
75%
Total
3635
3457
2579
878
95.10%
74.60%
289
83%
table end
_______________________________________________
nabs-l mailing list
nabs-l at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
for nabs-l:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dotkid.nu
sbaum%40gmail.com
More information about the NABS-L
mailing list