Blueprint for Action
Recommendations of the Voting Symposium
Charlie Sabatino
ABA Commission on Law and Aging
October 10, 2008
Dual concerns
• Where and how to draw the line
between enabling voting by those
who can and preventing voting for
those who should not
– Creatively facilitating voting, especially
in residential facilities, by those who
can
– Protecting election integrity by
preventing fraud
Search for Answers
• Pacific McGeorge Law School Symposium
– March 2007
– Invited multidisciplinary experts
– Commissioned 6 papers [published at
38 McGeorge L. Rev. Issue 4 (2007)]
– Facilitated discussion
– Recommendations of the Symposium
• ABA action – August 2007
• See www.abanet.org/aging/voting/
Symposium Organization
Five Working Groups
1. The “Big Picture”: How Aging and
Cognitive Impairment Fits into the
Broader Issues of Access to Voting
2. Defining and Assessing Capacity to
Vote
3. Absentee Balloting
4. Long-Term Care
5. Technology
Major Issues
• In what ways, if at all, should persons with
impairment be treated differently?
• Who should determine intent, or capacity, to
vote? How to define?
• How large is the risk of fraud to the harm of
exclusion?
• Is absentee balloting the best
accommodation?
• What are the barriers, risks, and
opportunities in long-term care facilities?
• What opportunities or dangers does
technology offer?
Recommendations Addressed
 Changes in statute or
regulation
 Changes in practice
 Education
 Further study
I. Big Picture Principles
• Society facilitate access while preserving integrity.
• PwD should not be held to a different or higher
standard.
• Public & private entities must provide reasonable
accommodations to ensure access to voting.
• Goal 1: Prevent unfair &/or unlawful exclusion.
• Goal 2: Maximize access by adequate &
appropriate assistance.
• Goal 3. Improve administration to facilitate voting
by all individuals, particularly people with cog. Imp.
• Goal 4: Ensure individuals with cog. Imp. have the
opportunity to register to vote.
II. Major Resolutions – Capacity
• Persons with cog. imp. should be treated no
differently than others (Principle)
• No disqualification on the basis of medical
diagnosis, disability status, or residence
• Presumption of capacity to vote
• If state law permits exclusion based on
incapacity, removal only by specific
determination established by C&C evidence in a
full judicial proceeding
• Incapacity standard: only if cannot communicate,
w/ or w/o accommodations, a specific desire to
participate in the voting process
III. Major Resolutions –
Absentee Balloting
• All jurisdictions should permit voters the
open-ended choice to “vote at home”
• Default presumption: vote where reside, with
choice by LTC residents
• Signature verification accommodation needed
• More information – simple and accurate – for
voters and those who assist re how to vote at
home and how to assist
IV. Major Resolutions –
LTC Facilities
• Long range: Mobile Polling
• Require election officials, not facility staff, to
oversee voting
• Require Facilities to inform/assist residents with
registration, and in absence of mobile polling, to
offer assistance with absentee voting.
• Clarify responsibilities of anyone who assists:
– No authority to assess capacity
– Assistance limited to assisting voter to express intent
– If unable to determine voter’s intent, no vote
• Accept facilities’ ID of residents as sufficient
verification
V. Major Resolutions –
Technology
• Plain language/multiple formats election
materials
• Assistive technology, universal accessibility &
design of all polling places & voting machines
• Innovative opportunities to register (online)
• Quality development for usability/accessibility of
technology
• Aim: persons with any disability (physical,
sensory, cognitive, intellectual, or mental) can
vote privately and independently on any
machine.
More Resolutions –
Research & Education
• Research
– Ballot formats, effective communication, &
technologies
– Impact of current law & practical barriers
– Voting practices of disabled populations
– Signature verification procedures & options
• Education of poll workers, judges, facility staff,
family, guardians to address needs of voters
with cognitive impairments & how to assist
Some Actions to Consider
•
•
•
•
•
Guidelines for judges in assessing voting capacity
Vote at home option (no-excuse/permanent)
Review signature verification procedures
Mobile polling demonstration
More guidance in NH licensure re facilities
obligations
• Educational materials for assisting voters with cog.
Imp. And for voting in LTC facilities.
• Poll worker training re disabilities including cog. imp.