In 2020, as the world grappled with a deadly global pandemic, Connecticut officials lifted restrictions limiting who can vote by mail, allowing every citizen in the state to obtain an absentee ballot.

The results were historic: More than 650,000 Connecticut citizens voted absentee, roughly a third of all votes cast.

The liberalization of voting laws benefited everyone in the state who wanted to vote by mail, but the change particularly impacted those with disabilities. Researchers from Rutgers University and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission found that the “disability gap” in Connecticut—the gulf in turnout between voters who had disabilities and those who didn’t—was only 3.3 percent, compared to a national average of 5.7 percent that year.

“People with disabilities are more likely to vote when they have access to voting by mail,” said Douglas Kruse, the co-director of the Program for Disability Research at Rutgers University and one of the report’s authors.

But for the 2022 midterms, Connecticut reverted back, and voters once again needed to have an excuse if they wanted to vote by mail. The result was a disability turnout gap of roughly 11 percent—one of the highest in the country and significantly higher than that year’s national average of 1.5 percent. The turnout was “consistent with the idea that rolling back no-excuse absentee voting discouraged turnout among people with disabilities,” said Kruse. 

“It’s not that people with disabilities are less interested in voting,” he continued. It’s that “they face a variety of voting difficulties, everything from getting to the polls, to requesting ballots, to getting inside polling places.”

Mail voting could become easier if Connecticut voters approve a ballot initiative this November that would amend the state Constitution and create a path for everyone to acquire an absentee ballot without needing an excuse. If the proposal passes, it will be up to state legislators to put it into law. 

Should the initiative pass and lead to future legislation, Rutgers and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s research suggests it likely will lead to higher turnout among voters with disabilities. Between the 2018 and 2022 midterms, five states switched to a no-excuse system where anyone could vote by mail, leading to an almost seven percent increase in turnout among people with disabilities. 

“Just to have that ability to get that ballot, in your hands, no excuse needed, is just huge for people with disabilities,” said Carol Scully, director of advocacy for The Arc Connecticut. 

Currently, Connecticut is one of 14 states that require an excuse in order to vote absentee. The state’s Constitution only allows citizens to vote absentee for a handful of specific reasons, which include being sick or out of town on Election Day, or having a physical disability. Even so, not everyone with a disability qualifies for an absentee ballot, and those who must vote in person often have difficulty casting a ballot due to a myriad of possible issues at polling places.

The current statute allows voters with certain disabilities to obtain a permanent absentee ballot, meaning they receive a mail ballot for each election in which they’re eligible to vote. But first, they need to get a note from a doctor stating that they have a permanent physical disability and can’t get to the polls.

“It shouldn’t be on the person with disabilities to prove that they have a right to vote,” said Jess Zaccagnino, policy counsel for the ACLU of Connecticut, which is leading a campaign supporting the ballot initiative.

Existing law is also rigid about what disabilities qualify for an absentee ballot, said Gretchen Knauff, director of Disability Services for the City of New Haven. The statute only allows mail voting for citizens with physical disabilities preventing them from getting to the polls on Election Day, which Knauff said leaves out people with intellectual disabilities or mental health conditions.

“It’s basically treating voters who don’t have physical disabilities differently in the absentee balloting process,” she said. “You’re leaving out people who have disabilities other than physical, and making the assumption they don’t need a permanent absentee ballot.”

People with cognitive impairments are among those least likely to cast a ballot, according to research from Rutgers University and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Lisa Schur, co-director of the Program for Disability Research at Rutgers and one of the report’s authors, said some people with cognitive impairment resulting from a physical disability, like cerebral palsy, would likely qualify for an absentee ballot under Connecticut’s law, but, “it’s kind of a mushy line, so there are a lot of people with cognitive impairments who may not be counted.”

A coalition of voting rights advocates, including the ACLU and a Connecticut chapter of the NAACP, launched a campaign over the summer to build support for the ballot initiative. If the measure is successful, all registered voters would simply be able to request an absentee ballot before each election, and no longer need to navigate logistical hurdles like securing a doctor’s note. 

That means people with disabilities would be treated just like everyone else, said Knauff.

“There’s no barrier, except you have to do the same thing that everyone else has to do, which is request a no-excuse absentee ballot,” Knauff said. “You don’t have to spend your energy trying to prove you’re a person with a disability.”

Adopting the measure would put Connecticut in league with the majority of states that already have some level of no-excuse absentee voting. The proposal has broad support among Connecticut residents. A recent poll from the Connecticut Project Action Fund found that 60 percent of voters support expanding no-excuse absentee voting. 

Even if voters approve the constitutional amendment, it will be up to state legislators to make it law. Given that the measure was referred to the ballot by lawmakers, advocates are hopeful that they would make it a priority. Still, Zaccagnino cautioned, “There’s nothing stopping them from ignoring it.”

If legislators did have any hesitancy about enacting the measure, it could stem from a scandal over mail ballots that has embroiled Bridgeport in recent years, leading to the arrest of four political operatives this summer over the improper handling of absentee ballots during a 2019 Democratic primary. 

Even if Connecticut passes no-excuse absentee voting, advocates for people with disabilities don’t see it as a cure-all. People with disabilities who do decide to vote in person currently face an array of challenges at the polls, said Kasey Considine, supervisory attorney for Disability Rights Connecticut. Voters have reported a lack of parking spaces close to the entrance; doors that aren’t wide enough to fit a scooter or wheelchair; poll workers who aren’t properly trained on how to operate the state’s accessible voting machines, or who make the assumption that people with certain disabilities cannot vote. (The Connecticut Secretary of State’s office did not respond to Bolts’ questions about accessibility at polling locations.) 

“It’s incredibly insulting,” said Considine. 

In a 2022 video produced by Considine’s organization, Carly Bobenski recalled an Election Day where a poll worker asked her if she wanted to vote for her favorite farm animal. 

“My mother and I were really too shocked and embarrassed to say anything except that I had been voting for many years,” said Bobenski, who has cerebral palsy, is quadriplegic and relies on assistive technology to communicate. “By then people were already staring at me.”

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires polling places to provide accommodations for people with disabilities. Voters with disabilities should not need to tell anyone their condition to receive an accommodation. But in practice, Considine said many voters feel they must disclose personal health information to poll workers in order to get what they need to cast a ballot, as uncomfortable as it is.

“It can feel like you have to choose between your right to privacy and your right to vote,” Considine said.

Difficulties at polling stations are not unique to Connecticut. Research from Rutgers University and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission found that 20 percent of voters with a disability had trouble voting in person in the 2022 election, compared to 6 percent of those who voted by mail. 

But despite those challenges, Kruse said that about half of people with disabilities would still prefer to vote in person, as long as it’s accessible.

It is not enough, Considine said, for Connecticut voters with disabilities to have to rely on voting by mail because their polling place isn’t accessible enough. 

“Everyone should have that freedom to wait in line, cast their vote, fill out the ballot themselves and get that ‘I voted’ sticker,” she said. “I want to make sure that we still are mindful that disabled voters may still want to go in person, and we still have more work to make sure that is accessible.”

But if voting in person proves challenging for people with disabilities, Zaccagnino said, “no-excuse absentee voting also presents another avenue to vote if their needs aren’t being met by the state.”

This article is part of U.S. Democracy Day, a nationwide collaborative on Sept. 15, the International Day of Democracy, in which news organizations cover how democracy works and the threats it faces. To learn more, visit usdemocracyday.org.

The post Connecticut Ballot Measure Could Make Voting More Inclusive appeared first on Bolts.

“When I had that first experience of voting (without assistance), emotionally… I can’t even describe how wonderful the feeling was to be able to go in and do it on my own, and it still is, 20 years later,” Thom told Bolts.

Thom, who is on the board of directors for the California Council of the Blind, is part of a group of disabled Californians and advocacy groups who want all disabled voters to have access to that experience of marking, verifying, and submitting a private ballot, including when they vote remotely. In March, they sued the California secretary of state over absentee ballot rules that they say discriminate against disabled voters and deny their right to a secret ballot. 

While voters in California can access ballots and mark them electronically, using a one-time link sent by the state, they must print out and mail in their marked ballot or drop it off at a voting location. Disability rights groups say that raises significant barriers for low-vision voters, cognitively impaired voters, and others with disabilities that make it challenging to print and mail their ballot without assistance.

The lawsuit demands that California let disabled voters submit absentee ballots electronically, which at least a dozen states already allow for voters with disabilities—by fax, email, or through an online portal. 

The plaintiffs include voters who are blind or have cerebral palsy, which limit their ability to handle and mail paper documents without assistance. The suit argues that the state is violating federal and state laws guaranteeing equal ballot access for disabled voters. “Forcing voters with print disabilities to seek the assistance of another person deprives them of the right to their political choices without others’ presence or knowledge (that is, a secret ballot)—a hallmark of our electoral process,” the lawsuit states. 

“We want to vote the same way that other people do,” Thom, whose organization is one of the plaintiffs, told Bolts. “That’s on our own without somebody to help us, without someone standing over our shoulders looking at how we vote.” 

The California lawsuit is part of a state-by-state fight by disability rights groups to implement electronic voting and ballot return methods for disabled voters, which ratcheted up as the coronavirus pandemic made in-person voting an even greater hurdle for many people with disabilities. A similar lawsuit brought by disabled voters in North Carolina in the summer of 2020 ultimately forced the state to allow online voting for blind people. Another lawsuit by disabled voters led Maine in 2021 to implement a system of electronic voting for people with limited vision, limitations in physical dexterity, learning disabilities or cognitive impairments. Last month, voters with disabilities filed a similar lawsuit against the Wisconsin Election Commission, demanding options for receiving and returning absentee ballots electronically. 

Aside from being a fundamental right, disability rights advocates say the ability to vote independently is also critical for ensuring that people vote without coercion or fear of reprisal. For example, someone in an abusive relationship might have reason to fear that their partner would spoil or simply refuse to return a ballot, or might feel pressured to vote for particular candidates or measures. Disabled people are more likely to be in abusive relationships where a partner might withhold access to care, finances, or other basic needs to coerce a vote.

Decades of federal legislation reiterate that people with disabilities deserve equal access to the ballot, and to all options for voting—whether in person or absentee. “If sighted people have both options, we want both options, regardless,” said Claire Stanley, director of advocacy and governmental affairs for the American Council of the Blind. For polling places, this has led to requirements that they be physically accessible for people with disabilities and also provide voting equipment that allows disabled people to vote independently. 

Though these rights are clearly spelled out, people with disabilities still regularly encounter difficulties voting. A Rutgers study published last month found that 14 percent of disabled voters reported encountering difficulties casting their ballot during the 2022 midterms, compared to just 4 percent of nondisabled voters. The study also found that overall turnout among disabled voters trailed that of nondisabled people by about 11 percent during the last presidential election.

Around two-fifths of disabled voters used mail ballots in 2022, according to another study prepared for the Election Assistance Commission last year. Disabled people still often report encountering barriers to voting absentee, including ballot collection laws in some states that restrict who can return a ballot on their behalf. Making disabled people print out and mail absentee ballots, as is required in California and many other states, can also force them to involve others in the voting process. “I’m blind. Why would I have a printer?” Stanley wryly remarked. 

Gabe Griffith, president of the California Council of the Blind, argued that disabled voters should have the option to privately complete the voting process and cast their ballot from home with the technology they’re already comfortable with and use regularly, especially considering how often disabled voters face barriers at the polls. He says physically going to the polls might require an hour or more resolving issues with an accessible voting machine, rather than simply “popping in and out in 15 minutes.”

“If I’m using a piece of technology on a daily basis, I’m going to know how to fill out and submit my ballot using that piece of technology, rather than going into polling places and using technology that only gets pulled out and dusted off every two years,” Griffith said. Griffith also regularly works with such technology and trains people on how to use it in his work as a tech specialist with LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired. He says his agency, among others, could offer technical assistance to the state on ensuring that low-technology voters would have access to information and equipment to help them vote independently. 

Disability rights advocates in California and elsewhere have faced pushback over security concerns raised by electronic voting. A risk assessment conducted ahead of the 2020 election by the National Institute of Standards and Technology stated that electronic ballot return “creates significant security risks to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of voted ballots,” noting that such risks can occur at scale and affect election results. “Securing the return of voted ballots via the internet while ensuring ballot integrity and maintaining voter privacy is difficult, if not impossible, at this time,” the report said. 

A working group of election and cybersecurity experts hosted by the University of California, Berkeley, between 2021 and 2022 came to similar conclusions. In a report they issued in December 2022, the group listed numerous technical problems that would need to be addressed before any widespread adoption of electronic ballot returns—such as protections against malware or targeted denial-of-service attacks. Still, the group acknowledged that electronic voting “can be an important tool for accessibility and ballot access” for overseas and disabled voters, and that eliminating it entirely without reasonable alternatives “could produce an unacceptable risk to those with accessibility needs.” 

The California Secretary of State’s office has echoed those security concerns in fighting against electronic ballot returns for disabled voters. In a recent court filing responding to their lawsuit, the office wrote, “The public has a compelling interest in the accuracy and integrity of the forthcoming election that weighs heavily against granting an injunction.” A spokesperson for the office declined to answer questions by Bolts, saying they couldn’t comment on pending litigation.

In their lawsuit, the California plaintiffs note that the state already has an e-return option for certain military and overseas voters, as do many other states. The lawsuit also points out how the state’s current system of allowing voters to receive and mark ballots electronically is already compatible with assistive technology, such as screen readers or sip-and-puff devices that allow disabled voters to read and mark their devices without outside help. 

Disabled voters, like other concerned voters, say they value safe and secure elections, but they also believe it’s necessary to address security risks without abridging personal rights. The “equity concerns of people who are blind or have low vision,” says Thom, are critical to the democratic process in California, a state long known as a pioneer in disability rights. He says the community is tired of fighting the state over the issue. Thom says disability rights activists approached the Secretary of State in 2021 about remote voting options with an interest in collaborating on a secure, accessible solution. In 2022, legislation that would have allowed electronic returns for people with certain disabilities failed after opposition from a variety of groups, including the secretary of state, much to the frustration of the disability community.

“I am not aware of any kind of election interference in the states where they have implemented electronic voting for folks with disabilities,” says Rosie Lee Bichell, a staff attorney with Disability Rights Advocates, a national advocacy group. “Any security concerns that might arise with our request would be no different than those that already exist.”

Chris Danielsen, public relations director for the National Federation of the Blind and a Maryland voter who needs help to mail his ballot, says opponents of electronic returns for disabled voters ignore how existing barriers already impact their ability to securely vote. “I have less assurance with the current system where I’m letting somebody else handle my ballot or help me than I do if I sent it electronically,” Danielsen said.

The post Disabled Californians Challenge Absentee Voting Rules That Deny Them a Secret Ballot appeared first on Bolts.

This fall, Maine voters will again decide whether to scrub that exclusion from their state’s constitution, echoing the court ruling. Question 8, one of several constitutional amendments on the state’s Nov. 7 ballot, asks voters if they want to “remove a provision prohibiting a person under guardianship for reasons of mental illness from voting.”  

Maine is already closer to universal suffrage than most states. It’s one of two states, plus Washington D.C., that is approaching universal suffrage. Maine allows people to vote from prison and state law affirms the voting rights of people with intellectual disabilities, autism, and brain injuries. That makes this clause stand out—it treats mentally ill people under guardianship as second-class citizens, which is precisely why the court ruled it unconstitutional. 

“We are creating a subset of mentally ill people under guardians who can’t vote,” Democratic State Senator Craig Hickman, who spearheaded the effort to put the matter to the vote, told Bolts. Hickman, a voting rights advocate, has also been involved in other measures to remove outdated language from Maine’s constitution. “I think it’s important to ratify this amendment. [We need to] make it clear that in this state we have no reason to disenfranchise.” 

“Voting is…a fundamental right,” says Lewis Bossing, an attorney at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, an organization that advocates for adults and children with mental disabilities. “We would like to see a world in which there is no competency standard for voting, because we don’t subject people generally to proving somehow that they can make a choice.”

While it may seem symbolic, the amendment in Maine highlights the patchwork and shifting landscape of voting rights for people under guardianship across the country. And it may have a material impact. The constitutional amendment, if passed, could encourage other states to examine and strike or reform their language—and Bossing notes that the American Bar Association has a recommended standard, starting with due process, for determining when someone under guardianship may lose their voting rights. Some states, such as California, have already adopted versions of this language in their code. 

While the number of people living under guardianships in the United States is unknown because there’s no formal tracking, one study this year guessed at 1.5 million, with guardians supervising some $50 billion in assets. The specifics of these legal arrangements can vary by state and by person, but typically require going to court to petition a judge for a guardianship on the grounds that someone cannot make independent decisions. Considerations for guardianships can include severe mental illness, some developmental or intellectual disabilities, and illnesses related to aging such as Alzheimer’s. 

Many states, including Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming, have clauses in legislation or their constitutions that explicitly prohibit some people judged “incompetent” from voting, though the specifics can vary by state. Many, like Maine, have conflicting constitutional and legislative positions around voting rights for people under guardianship. Kentucky’s constitution, for example, uses outdated language to describe who shall not have the right to vote (“idiots and insane persons”), though the state’s civil code is actually protective of voting rights for those under guardianship. According to a congressional report published in 2018, nearly 10,000 people across the country lost the right to vote due to “mental incompetence”, which Bossing warns can be an overly broad category.  Though advocates say that the true number is likely much higher because reporting is not reliable. 

Maine barred people under guardianships for mental health conditions from voting until the Disability Rights Center of Maine sued on behalf of three women under guardianships who wanted to vote in the 2000 presidential election. One of them was allowed to vote in that election after successfully petitioning the local judge overseeing her guardianship. Another woman tried but was unable to vote that year after her judge denied the petition to amend her guardianship, citing the prohibition in the state constitution. The third plaintiff was unable to seek a modification to her guardianship ahead of the 2000 election because she had been hospitalized at the time.    

The federal court in Maine ruled in 2001 that it was in fact unconstitutional to deny ballot access for people under guardianships for mental illness, a violation of both the due process and equal protection clauses in the federal 14th Amendment. The state chose not to appeal the decision and legislators struck the relevant sections of the elections code. Today, the voting information page maintained by Maine’s Secretary of State affirms voting rights for people under guardianship, in alignment with the court decision and legislative changes. 

But the outdated voting restrictions have remained in Maine’s constitution since then. Scrubbing the language requires a two-thirds majority in both the state House and Senate to place an amendment on the ballot, followed by a simple majority vote in a referendum. 

“I want to excise anything that is unconstitutional,” Hickman, who led the amendment process in the legislature this year, told Bolts. “We have already removed any disenfranchisement of mentally ill people under the courts and law.” Only a handful of people testified in this year’s legislative hearing over the amendment, including Maine’s secretary of state, who noted that it would finally bring the state’s foundational legal document in line with established case law.

Bossing and other advocates for people under guardianships also argue that people who express a desire to vote should be allowed to vote, and should be provided with any accessibility accommodations they need, such as an electronic voting machine equipped for use by blind voters, plain language material for people with cognitive or intellectual disabilities, or a communication board for a developmentally disabled voter. 

But that help isn’t always available. Despite numerous federal laws protecting the right to vote privately and securely for disabled people, disabled voters report systemic access problems in every election. A 2017 U.S. Government Accountability Office report found that 83 percent of voting places surveyed had one or more accessibility barriers. Disabled voters are also harmed by restrictions on mail and early voting, poor mail ballot design, limits on who can collect and drop off ballots, and calls for hand-marked paper ballots. In a bitter twist, leveraging the Americans with Disabilities Act to close or move polling places has become a voter suppression tactic.

The conversation about voting rights for people under guardianship also connects with a larger discussion about guardianships: Some disability activists and organizations, including Bazelon, question whether they should exist at all, when alternatives that offer more autonomy are available. The supported decision-making movement, for example, presents an option where a disabled person can talk to friends, family, service providers, or others about a decision, weighing those conversations but ultimately making an independent choice. Individual disabled people decide which kinds of decisions they want help with on the basis of their own needs, and they can revisit the topic as their lives change. 

While reformers work on a state-by-state basis, there have been attempts to address the issue federally. The Accessible Voting Act of 2020 filed by U.S. Senator Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, would have barred voting restrictions on the basis of guardianships. Under the bill, which failed that session, in order to terminate voting rights, guardians or the state must produce “a court order finding by clear and convincing evidence that the individual cannot communicate, with or without accommodations, a desire to participate in the voting process.”

In Maine, there is currently no coordinated campaign against Question 8 this year, but its proponents are concerned that voters may not understand the context of the ballot measure. “People are confused,” notes Hickman, who hopes clarifying the fact that the amendment is simply cleaning up the constitution to remove language that violates the law will help voters. In the state’s voters’ guide, Disability Rights Maine Executive Director, Kim Moody, explains the story behind the amendment, saying “that outdated provision remains part of the Maine Constitution today and should be removed.”

“People assume folks can’t make their own decisions, people must be making them for them. They think people are going to be taken advantage of,” Hickman says, describing concerns about Question 8. But, like Bossing, he believes in the capacity of disabled voters to make their own decisions, telling Bolts “you can’t disenfranchise based on a feeling.”

The post Maine Referendum Spotlights Voting Rights for People Under Guardianship  appeared first on Bolts.