Nelson v. Miller, 170 F.3d 641 (6^th Cir. 1999) - Voters with visual impairments brought action alleging Michigan Secretary of State violated ADA and Section 504 in failing to provide them with means to mark their ballots without assistance of third persons. The court held that Michigan statute providing that persons with visual impairments may mark ballots with assistance of third persons fulfills the requirement of Michigan Constitution that legislature shall enact laws to preserve the secrecy of the ballot and thus Secretary of State, by refusing to provide voters with visual impairments with voting assistance such as "brailled ballot overlays or templates, taped text or phone-in voting systems," did not violate the ADA or Section 504.

NAACP v. Philadelphia Bd. of Elections, 1998 WL 321253 (E.D. Pa. June 16, 1998) - NAACP filed suit to enjoin the board of elections from using alternative ballots, required under the Voting Accessibility of the Elderly and Handicapped Act ("VAEH") in federal elections, in state and local elections. Alternative ballot procedures enable voters with disabilities assigned to an inaccessible polling place to use an alternative means to cast a ballot on election day. The court held that use of alternative ballots procedures was a reasonable modification to comply with the ADA. The issue of whether the ADA required accessible voting systems was not before the court.

People of the State of New York v. County of Delaware, 2000 WL 1264302 (N.D.N.Y. 8/16/00) - The court ordered the counties of Delaware and Schoharie to bring their polling places into compliance with the ADAAG and other state accessibility laws by June 14, 2000. The order required the county to make a monitoring system to ensure that all the polling places are accessible and each election official knows of these requirements. This order followed a previous order requiring the counties to make their polling places accessible.

NOD v. Tartaglione, 2001 WL 1231717 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2001) - Four advocacy organizations filed suit against election officials for purchasing voting systems that were not accessible to voters with visual impairments. The court denied a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ ADA and Section 504 claims because voters with visual impairments were not afforded the same opportunity to participate in the voting process as non-disabled voters. The court also refused to dismiss claim that the election officials’ purchase of new electronic voting systems that were not accessible and independently usable by voters with visual impairments violated the ADA and 28 C.F.R. §35.151(a).

NOD v. Tartaglione, Unreported Case, (E.D. Pa. 8/6/03) - A federal judge approved the settlement of a class-action lawsuit that, over the next three years, will make every Philadelphia polling place accessible to people who are blind or use wheelchairs. Under the settlement, each of the city's 1,682 polling places will have at least one electronic voting machine by Jan. 1, 2006, that is equipped with earphones and audio instructions usable by a voter who is blind or visually impaired. The city also will create a Polling Place Access Committee to evaluate the approximately 800 of 1,682 polling places in 66 wards that are not accessible to people who use wheelchairs. Modifications to make the voting places accessible must be completed by May 1, 2006.

AAPD v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 01-1884. (D.C.8/14/02), Unreported Case -The District of Columbia Board of Elections agreed to purchase direct record electronic (DRE) voting systems sufficient to place at least one DRE in each precinct and to have all polling places physically accessible to voters with mobility impairments by May 2004 presidential primary.

AAPD v. Smith, 227 F.Supp.2d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2002) - The court ruled that the state law which provided that people with disabilities must ask someone to assist them with voting did not violate the Florida constitution that ensures secret ballots. The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because state officials had immunity.

AAPD v. Hood, 278 F.Supp.2d 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2003) - The court dismissed plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration in its previous ruling that people with visual and physical impairments should ask for assistance in voting, instead of requiring the state to provide assistive technology to allow these individuals to vote secretly. The court rejected the plaintiff’s state constitutional argument and the fact that they had more evidence to prove non-compliance with the ADA and other laws.

AAPD v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2003) - The court ruled that a fact issue existed whether election officials wrongly rejected assistive technology that would have allowed people with disabilities to cast secret ballots. The court ruled that the plaintiff could bring suit under the ADA against election officials regardless of their duties under the state laws such as the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEH).

AAPD v. Hood, No. 01-CV-1275 (M.D. Fla. 1/4/04) - The court held that the county violated the ADA by failing to provide accessible voting systems for voters with visual impairments. The county was ordered to have accessible voting systems in time for its next election in August. A written opinion is pending.

Return to Table of Contents | NLS Home Page | Feedback | Search the NLS Website