Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is James Gashel, and I am appearing here today on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind. I am especially pleased to appear before this Commission since issues concerning blindness and voting are often quite sensitive and tend to arise in virtually every election cycle.

I am also keenly aware of the fact that solutions to improve the methods of voting used in local jurisdictions throughout the United States are apt to rely heavily on technology. Therefore, considering the burden and the investment involved, the technology secured is likely to be in place for a very long time. At present, the technology now in general use forecloses the possibility for most blind people to vote on their own and cast a secret ballot. This is so for approximately one million voters who, as in my case, are blind and for an estimated seven million more who can see but cannot see enough to read a printed ballot or display screen on a voting machine. I should note that many in this larger group will often just stay away from the polls on election day because of the difficulty they would have in participating.

So, how do we vote? The most common method is the use of an assistant chosen by the voter. An amendment to the Voting Rights Act passed in 1982 has established this practice as the law of the land. Prior to that, observation of a blind person's vote by an election judge from each party was a common practice. Use of the voter's personally-chosen assistant is somewhat more private and the best way to handle the situation when the technology involved requires sight.

The voter-assistance method is not a perfect solution, but it should certainly not be abandoned. I say this because, no matter the technology, some people will still find using an assistant--someone they trust to help them--more accommodating to their needs than using technology that may be difficult for them. The point is, we want people to vote.

As to technology, voting systems can be expected to change dramatically. I say this because of changes occurring in information technology in general, but also because of the present attention being given to modernizing voting systems in the wake of the 2000 election. So, electronic systems of some sort are bound to replace the old mechanical voting machines and punch-card or paper ballots.

The question is: will these systems be designed for independent use by people who are blind? The answer is that the jury is still out on that. So, maybe yes; maybe no. However, recently reported decisions on new voting systems give rise to serious concern. In saying this I am particularly referring to the new law signed in Florida which primarily identifies optical scanning technology as a suitable alternative to punch cards. Also, the City of Philadelphia has chosen to install an entirely new electronic voting system that is not designed for nonvisual use. If these decisions set a trend-and that is our concern-blind people can expect to have a serious problem in dealing with voting technology throughout the country in the near future. At this point, I think it is important to underscore the fact that the current wave of changes in voting technology can be expected to set the pattern for at least twenty-five and perhaps as long as fifty years. Also, I should point out that optical scanning systems, which appear to have popular appeal among election officials, are fundamentally not accessible to blind people. This is so because the voter is required to use a pencil and make a mark in the appropriate box representing the voter's choice.

Although efforts have been made to design alternatives such as a plastic overlay with slots to identify the boxes, the process of trying to adapt the ballot that sighted people use has been clumsy and unworkable. More to the point, marking a printed ballot with a pencil is fundamentally a visual process, and there is absolutely no way for the blind voter to verify or confirm that the mark was placed in the box that represents the voter's real choice. So the blind voter can't be sure of marking the right box for George Bush, Al Gore, or Pat Buchanan. This is the biggest fallacy in expecting blind people to adapt to the optical scanning system. Recognizing this, some people have suggested that blind voters should be provided with Braille ballots. The problem with this option is that there are relatively few Braille readers and they are apt to be widely dispersed throughout the population. This means that a great deal of work may have to be done for the one or two blind voters in a particular precinct who might be able to use a Braille ballot. But even then, the problem of nonvisual access will not have been solved. This is so because only ten percent of likely blind voters can be expected to use Braille ballots, and the remaining ninety percent will still need another alternative. In short, the best and most cost-effective solution for everyone, all blind people included, really comes down to making the technology accessible.

Our worst fear is that election officials, legislators, and policymakers will be in such a panic to avoid the fiasco of the 2000 election that optical scanning systems are apt to be seen as the best, most readily available off-the-shelf alternative. The remedy for this would be for this Commission and other authorities to declare that independent, nonvisual use of voting technology must be a fundamental criterion for purchase and installation of a new voting system in any jurisdiction. In speaking about nonvisual access to voting systems, I should emphasize the benefits resulting for many people who can see, as well. Many people, especially seniors, just can't read the small print on the ballot or voting machine. Some people just can't read at all, and some people can become very confused by the layout of the ballot as we have heard. So, a presentation with audio and visual information together will help everyone.For blind people, such as myself, having a voting machine which talks to me will mean that I can then independently cast a secret ballot. This is an important principle to establish right now since the voting technology deployed as the result of federal or state legislation will be with us for many decades.

As a result of legislation passed in 1998, the federal government has taken the lead in requiring accessible electronic technology used by federal employees and the public. I am referring to section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 1998, which says that federal agencies must now purchase electronic and information technology that individuals with disabilities are able to use. Unfortunately, this law does not apply to voting technology, since the procurement in this case is made by state and local agencies. Anyway, unlike some of the laws pertaining to voting, inaccessible technology is not permitted under section 508. The problem I have with some of the laws pertaining to voting is exactly this: inaccessible technology is still allowed as long as some nonvisual access approach is also used. This approach allows for "separate but equal" treatment of blind voters, but we do not accept "separate but equal" as a proper solution. The requirement that voting technology must include a means of independent, nonvisual use would be a proper and workable solution, and it is also a logical extension of the principle of section 508 to voting. This would be appropriate, since casting a vote is our most important responsibility of citizenship. In this context, the principle of independent, nonvisual access should not be sacrificed for expediency, and it is also the right and feasible thing to require. I thank you.

Related Items