US Election Assistance Commission - Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Vote
EAC Home
Introduction
View Guidelines
View Comments
Glossary

View Comments

Section CommentsGeneral CommentsGlossary Comments
 
Name :   Jim Dickson
Organization :   American Assoc. of People With Disabilities (AAPD)
Post Date :   9/30/2005

General Comments
Comment :  Considering that HAVA funds are provided for a one-time purchase, the  
majority of states will not be able to easily move from a "should" system  
to a "shall" system and those additional requirements will have little  
impact on what is available to consumers for years to come.  Unlike other  
types of information technology, voting systems do not have a typical  
replacement cycle of 3 to 4 years.  As a result, planning on incremental  
increases in accessibility through subsequent VVSG versions will provide  
limited end outcomes for consumers.  
 
In addition, since HAVA requires one "accessible" voting machine per  
polling place, the legal benchmark for that one accessible machine will be  
the access standards/guidelines currently available.  A guideline or  
standard with a "should" is not part of what is required to meet the legal  
requirement of "accessible" and will have little impact on the market and  
buying decisions.  
 
Recommendation:  Many of these features are currently available in  
products on the market (e.g. many offer switch input, many offer both  
synthesized and digitized speech options.)  We would recommend that a  
mandatory upgrade date be specified for which an Acc-VS must provide these  
current "should" features.  If an upgrade date is not required, all due  
consideration must be given to changing "should's" to "shall's" to the maximum extent possible.