The Disabled vs. The Rest of Us

The tension over paper-trail verification of ballots is pitting the rights of ordinary citizens against the rights of the disabled, and the fight is starting to get ugly.

The rush to put in place electronic, touch-screen voting machines is creating a (wholly justified, in my view) backlash from people who are concerned that the machines are vulnerable to a whole host of manipulation problems and mechanical errors. These range from the possibility of hacking to machines that record fantasy vote totals (like the mysterious deduction of 16,000 votes for Al Gore in Volusia County, Florida in the 2000 election from a county with only 600 registered voters). Groups like Electronic Privacy Information Center have issued white papers outlining the problems and the range of possible solutions. Douglas W. Jones of the University of Iowa Department of Computer Science has also done a wonderful job of comparing the various current voting systems. For more information, have a look at the hearings held by the Science Committee in the House of Representatives on this issue.

Many now believe that further introduction of these machines should be halted until some form of voter-verified paper record can be produced, much like your ATM currently produces a record of your bank transaction.

It sounds reasonable to wait until the machines actually work, doesn’t it? It does if you are not already disenfranchised or having your privacy compromised by old-fashioned voting equipment that does not accommodate the blind, severely-disabled or non-English speaking voter.

There are a number of advocate groups like the American Council of the Blind that are opposing any delay in upgrading the equipment because the benefits to their constituencies are enormous. To get an idea of this, imagine for a moment that you are blind and need to have a poll attendant who is an absolute stranger assist you in casting your vote. How can you possibly be sure that your vote was cast accurately?

Ordinarily I am strongly in favor of any and all reasonable accommodation that can be made for the handicapped, even if it results in greater inconvenience or expense. In this case, however, the arguments in favor of moving ahead are severely flawed and pose a huge danger to democracy.

Under the current system, the votes of a select group of people are possibly being compromised, while the great bulk of the voters are reasonably assured of casting a private, secure and accurate vote. Under the new system, that same group would gain a perceived benefit of being able to participate on par with the rest of the population, while the entire voting population runs the risk of being compromised in the other direction.

If the disabled are to be re-enfranchised with the rest of the voters, this is not the way to go about it. If they are willing to assume the risks for themselves, for no other benefit than a perceived gain, then perhaps the newer voting machines should be made available only for disabled voters, until the system can be secured for the rest of us. It would be undemocratic to ask everyone to assume that risk on behalf of the few.